From: "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow a écrit :
They use a commercial product, I believe. The trick would be to find
out which one. (I have forgotten the name.) A request to the filter
vendor might do some good.)
(I learned early on that for most cases using Earthlink's spam filter
was not a good thing. I hear it has gotten better with time. But the
early aversion therapy seems to have stuck.)
well, I don't know. I just know that many of the messages I sent you (I do "reply to
all") were rejected by verizon.net. and the messages said to contact an address, which I
tried, in vain... but I don't feel blocking verizon.*...
If Verizon.net is blocking email to me that should never go near the
verizon.net servers I would be VERY interested to learn about it. You
have no idea how ballistic I would go. I use earthlink.net via my
partner's DSL connection. It traverses Verizon wires 'cause that's
all she wrote in this area. But email should never pass through any
Verizon servers at all. It should pass through routers and firewalls
between the earthlink.net servers and my machine as a simple fetchmail
operation between me and earthlink. So if you can document VERIZON
blocking any email set to me at my address listed in this email
I *REALLY* would like to know so that someone at some verizon office
can die a well earned death. (FYI I do not use earthlink's anti-spam,
either. I filter on the linux machine locally after retrieving via
fetchmail. I never bounce. A very few things go to /dev/null. (UOL
is not even into the /dev/null scene yet.) Many things are diverted
to specific spam folders which I check "whenever I remember to check
them", which, to be honest, can leave a several month delay in the
communications channel. I learned my /dev/null lesson early on. {^_-}
same for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year, and it seems their
duhl is arbitrary (see dnsstuff url that I posted before, but I have other "evidences").
so while I appreciate the efforts that sorbs do to fight spam, and I understand that
it's not an easy battle, I won't accept a solution that destroys the benefits of email.
getting "somewhere" is silly. getting one step beyond is good.
Which postfix server? Earthlink uses a highly modified EXIM. It does
seem a communications breakdown happened with Earthlink needing to make
changes and the black lists refusing to verify their listings. In a
large IT department it is easy for internal communications to break down
and the DUL listing for the mail server block was forgotten about. It
would behoove the ISPs to make some observations of their own about
which ports really remain DUL and which are official secure mailing
machines that are reassigned addresses based on mail volume being
processed. It almost appears that indeed the block is dynamically
addressed with names potentially changing at need. But the machines
that can get on those addresses are a very highly controlled set of
machines entirely under Earthlink's net operations direct control.
Nonetheless they may well be technically "dynamically assigned hosts."
To this ISP dynamic addressing means they are agile in the face of
increased demands on resources. They can reassign machines quickly
and efficiently. To a black lister they may see this as a tool for
similar agility for a spammer. Is there a suitable middle ground?
I suspect good sense should enter the picture somewhere. But then,
perhaps the legal climate in wich the black lists live is close
enough to the edge that they cannot tailor rules to situations when
faced with hungry lawyers out to make a buck. I am sure that the
black listers and the legitimate ISPs need a communications channel
that does not require a tedious run up the technical support levels
at an AOL or an Earthlink.
some BLs are well maintained (as of now: cbl, ordb, dsbl, sbl, opm, njabl-*; ahbl-*).
some are aggressive but well-defined (spamcops). some are unrelated to spam but
well-defined (rfci). some seem arbitrary to me (sorbs, ...). others are plain silly
(blars).
Some are indeed just plain fscked up from the gitgo and plagued by
"attitude" and "arrogance". My first BL experience was very unfortunate
and tarnished my opinion of an important Internet benefactor, Paul Vixie.
In his black list persona he was a bull headed arrogant manure head from
Hell with no humor involved. This has also colored my opinion of black
lists and black listers. Those that DO police their lists and wash out
obsolete entries regularly are really good guys. I am arrogant enough
to feel every black lister should be as diligent. But then, the customers
of the flaky ones are their own worst enemies for not thinking this
filtering through.
{^_^}
