/dev/rob0 a écrit : > On Sunday 01 November 2009 12:24:54 mouss wrote: >> Simon Morvan a écrit : >>> Le 30/10/2009 16:05, /dev/rob0 a écrit : >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> Consider Zen here. It also incorporates the (not-quite-so) new PBL, >>>> which has been very effective here. >>> The last time I tried it, Zen included too many legitimate users behind >>> ADSL lines. The "Policy" behind PBL is a bit too restrictive. Maybe it >>> changed, I'll give it another try. >> AFAIK, the policy didn't change. but chances are that people who used to >> send directly have moved to a relay model. The PBL is used in many >> places. and some large sites use more restrictive lists anyway. so >> insisting on sending directly only causes grief, and things are mostly >> likely to "get worse". >> >> I personally use dnswl.org. so users who get blocked by the PBL are >> invited to submit their IP to dnswl.org. > > A truly static IP address (with custom rDNS) on PBL can be removed by > the user; there is a web form with automated checks and a manual > review process. This typically shouldn't take more than a day or two. > > If it's NOT static, why should it be whitelisted? When will it > change? Are checks done to ensure that it's still under control of > the dnswl.org. submitter?
sorry, I was talking about static IPs. obviously, there is no point in whitelisting a dynamic IP.
