Am Mittwoch, den 31.10.2007, 02:44 +0100 schrieb thomas schorpp: > Luca Olivetti wrote: > > En/na Jim Barber ha escrit: > >> Sorbs will remove you from their list once you contact them and prove > >> you have a static IP address though. > > > > Yes, they did, *twice*, since they wrongly listed my address *twice* > > (though I thought I already stated that) but I shouldn't go through all > > of this. > > Besides, one shouldn't have more or less rights to have an own mail > > server depending on the fact that the address is static or dynamic. > > And others blacklists don't even listen to you (and, again, even if they > > would, it's tiresome and shouldn't be necessary). > > The net result is that spammers simply hop from network to network and > > can send their shit with no problem, while non-spam is blocked. Good job. > > > > Bye > > I'm with Luca. > > in general blacklisting is an unprofessional, trivial security concept and > completely sucks, > especially sorbs: > > Netblock: 91.89.4.0/24 (91.89.4.0-91.89.4.255) > Last Seen: Thu Feb 15 15:15:12 2007 GMT > Additional Information: ad-online.biz. A 91.89.4.92 [TTL=1800] Job Scam > Spammers > > they still block my mail server on .246 cause some spamfucks were once in my > assigned netblock??? great. > and blocking Luca against their own(!) whitelist policy is really scandalous. > > I and many people can't simply afford the horrific costs of static and NIC > registered IPs. > this is social discrimination of internet users and glorifying the few big > mailprovider's monopoly > all in the name of a "protection system" that has been long proven of > complete failure by spamgangs. > > Jim, so how to prove ownership of a IP? thats actually a crap requirement, > cause only the ISP > can certify. NIC registry can't, too. I can register every fake data in > there. spamgangs do so. > CA signed server certificates can't prove ownership of an IP, too, cause I > could use any proxy > and fake certify ownership of its IP that way. so practically you never get > delisted from sorbs, > once listed. they don't do blacklisting, actually they do whitelisting in > their big sponsors preferences(?) in fact. > > besides this is a violation of accepted civilized international law > principles. pre-convicted for having done > nothing. BTW law: in most countries courts take denied mails *as > delivered*(!) to evidence whatever the reason for denial! > so companies be very careful using blocklists... > > sorbs: "Fighting spam by finding and listing Exploitable Servers.". real > great policy. Which administrator > can assure that his systems are 100% unexploitable all the time? this is pure > SCI-FI and not a > accepted all day practioneer's requirement. > > as Luca said, spam-gangs avoid it easily. Johannes, PLS use a bayesian filter > / greylisting combination. > or use spamhaus at least. they have a much kinder not "ordinary dynamic IP > internet > mail user discriminating" delisting policy :) > > with private house community wlan-routers, wifi-hotspots, inetcafes, > anonymizers further upcoming, > blacklisting has become complete idiocracy. sorbs go on, blacklist them all! > spamgangs laugh at You. > > y > tom >
I also fully agree. Cheers, Hermann _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
