On 2 Oct 2018, at 13:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 2 Oct 2018, at 9:36, Rob McEwen wrote:
SIDE NOTE: I don't think there was any domain my message that was
blacklisted on URIBL - so I can't explain the "URIBL_BLOCKED", but
that only scored 0.001, so that was innocuous. I suspect that that
rule is malfunctioning on their end, and then they changed the score
to .001 - so just please ignore that for the purpose of this
discussion.
On 02.10.18 11:48, Bill Cole wrote:
No, "URIBL_BLOCKED" means that the URIBL DNS returned a value that is
supposed to be a message to a mail admin that they are using URIBL
wrong
A mail filtering system that gets URIBL_BLOCKED hits is broken. A
mail filtering system that gets them chronically is mismanaged.
Nonsense. There is no such implication here. While URIBL_BLOCKED may
and
most of the time apparently does mean that system uses DNS server
shared
with too many clients, any system that receives and checks too much
mail may
get URIBL_BLOCKED just because they have crossed the limit, withous
using it
wrong or being broken.
Operating a system in a manner which chronically crosses that limit is
abusive.
The DNS reply that results in URIBL_BLOCKED is not "free" for the URIBL
operators and depending on their software may be as expensive as sending
a real reply. It has the advantage over simply dropping abusive queries
that it does not impose timeout delays on abusive queriers and sends a
clear signal that can and should be acted upon.
