On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 01:09:56PM -0600, Zed Pobre wrote: > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:57:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > If you're going to ask people on a mailing list, it is wise to configure > > your MTA such that it does not -- or use an ISP that does not -- libel > > those people as spammers. > > *cough* While I am absolutely no fan of blacklisting based on > IP ranges containing systems with potentially dynamic IPs, the postfix > response clearly indicated that the mail was blocked for this reason, > not because you or anyone using your IP address (or even IP range) is > a spammer.
Oh, come on. We all know that's why such blacklists came into existence, and that's what they are used for today. > While I am quite sympathetic to your frustration, inaccurate > rantage hurts, not helps. The problem here isn't collateral damage > from overly broad ranges around spammers (a-la-SPEWS), but > discrimination against people with low-cost internet connections just > because spammers are often on a tight budget. I disagree. They're *both* problems. > > I personally find it rude to ask questions and then plug one's ears > > to those who attempt to answer them. > > I certainly agree with this, however. People, please check your > blacklists, and if you're using a list with high potential collateral > damage, set your MTA to warn, not block. In my experience, most blacklisters are after a quick fix, not a good one. -- G. Branden Robinson | The more ridiculous a belief Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of its success. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
