For the record, I am aware of the point Dan makes, and in fact I have more-or-less the same point of view. My original posting mentions it specifically as being a "high collateral damage policy". It's unclear to me why Dan quoted this as if it was a counter-point to my message, but just to avoid confusion, we're on the same page :)
I definitely agree that trying to separate out some of the lists might be a good thing, instead of using relays.osirusoft.com as a single query. Of course this also has the drawback of requiring more DNS lookups to get a good sampling of lists, but that's probably a worthwhile tradeoff. Also of note regarding collateral damage, have you seen the commentary about spews on kernel.org's website? (it's right on the front page) ------- linux.kernel.org, our mailing list server, keeps getting listed in the SPEWS RBL due to numerical proximity with an alleged spammer. We have pointed this out to them on several occations, and they usually fix it -- but a couple of weeks later we find the same problem. For obvious reasons, we do not recommend that you use the SPEWS RBL or any site that derive from their information, including relays.osirusoft.com; see this page. Please note that The Kernel Dot Org Organization do not endorse or support spam in any shape, way or form, and certainly do not recognize any sort of "right to spam." Spam is at the very least offensive and more often than not fraudulent, theft of service and invasion of privacy. We appreciate that it's a hard and thankless job to run after spammers, and appreciate the services that well-run RBL services provide. ----------- The "this page" is a link to http://relays.osirusoft.com/cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi?addr=64.158.222.226 At 03:18 PM 9/27/2002 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote: >Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes, going back up in the thread to my posting yesterday: > > > > http://relays.osirusoft.com/cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi > > > > This lists which blocklists that OSI uses are listing an IP, and in the > > case of spews, gives links over to spews where you can check the evidence > > file for the particular listing. > >Yes, but with SPEWS, you are listed if you share the same ISP as a >spammer. I help maintain a /27 network (32 consecutive IP addresses) >used by several non-profit .org sites (no spammers!), but we are listed >on SPEWS because there are spammers on other parts of the class C >network (not at the same physical location). The ISP bill (which is >considerable) is 100% donated by a for-profit company (also not a >spammer), so what exactly are we supposed to do? > >In other words, much of the inaccuracy of SPEWS is due to their policy, >not administrative delay or errors. > >As an intermediate step, I might be okay with using SPEWS to see how >their individual accuracy rates with the GA, but only as a separate >rule, not co-mingled with other blacklists. I'd rather just delete them >and I don't see why we should support them. > >Dan ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
