You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

  • To: "Niall O'Reilly" < >
    < >
  • From: "pna.lists" < >
  • Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:35:02 +0100
  • Cc: "Niall O'Reilly" < >

You could posibly get some relevant feedback from/regarding Spam-RBL if you
would ask at NANAE (

I have tested utilizing several blacklists and I decided to drop following
ones for inadequate database size *and* overall slowness: Spam-RBL,,,, On the other
hand, I countinue using Spamhaus RBL, ORDB, Spamcop RBL, NJABL, DSBL,
DNSRBL, SORBS and CBL. This may change soon because SORBS became arogant and
they started failing blacklist removals. Perhaps thereshould be another
DNS-based IP address repository acting as an independent whitelist to SORBS.

It is very funny to register a piece of software to an e-mail address
listme@localhost and let SORBS blacklist the company mailserver as soon as a
registration code is sent :-(


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@localhost
Cc: "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@localhost
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?

> Happy New Year to you all!
> Anyone know about these folks: ?
> Their web site isn't exactly rich in information about
> who they are, how they operate, how to contact them, or why
> anyone should consider them professionally respectable.
> To be very clear about this: I don't suggest they're not
> professionally respectable, only that they avoid presenting
> information on their website which I could use to form an
> opinion on whether I would wish to place confidence in them.
>  From my own experience, I can say that they are one of a
> number of outfits who generate spam-notification e-mails
> using software which assumes that the administrative
> contact for an IP address range is necessarily the
> appropriate addressee for such notifications.  At least
> for 137.43/16, this is not the case, something I've tried
> to make abundantly clear in the data carried by both ARIN
> and RIPE-NCC for this network.
> I've tried to engage these people by e-mail, without
> response.
> Niall O'Reilly
> UCD Computing Services

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>