[anti-abuse-wg] RBL Discussion Update
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RBL Discussion Update
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RBL Discussion Update
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Tue Jan 31 15:10:58 CET 2017
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:47:53 +0000 HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker <svenk at xs4all.nl> wrote: > it's not only about spamhaus, it's about any rbl that -potentially- > -could get the idea- that they could force isps to 'contact them' by > not having auto-delisting and/or also listing non-directly related > ip's (Such as ips routed by the same parties or ips having urls > resolving to them in 'spam', which could negatively impact an smtpd > running on that ip, which is not the smtpd that originated the > 'spam'). > furthermore, you're not in a position to make 'demands'. we own the > internet. you don't. > yes, your rants from two emails ago was still only about Spamhaus :) And, any RBL can list any IP number they please and there are so many good and trusted RBLs that do not have any auto de-listing. Right now, even some of the large DNSBL that do have automatic removal, is thinking about stopping auto removals and there are suggestions to have "minimum listing times" I am not sure exactly what that means or how it will work, but I assume that the specific list will not remove any listing for a set period of time (like a penalty box) In my own opinion, I think that all listing removals should only be manual and that there is a set number of removals, after which listing becomes permanent. and, I am not demanding anything. lol Andre
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RBL Discussion Update
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RBL Discussion Update
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]