On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Dave Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, John Rudd wrote:
>
> > Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> A postmaster who doesn't check their logs in any fashion deserves
> >>> whatever they get. Including having all of the spam sail through
> >>> unchecked. Or having their domain actually RBL'ed (ie. routed to null)
> >>> because they've continued to do queries well past any reasonable
> >>> expiration period.
> >>>
> >>> Generate all misses: doesn't penalize the good postmasters, don't care
> >>> about the effect on the bad postmasters.
> >>>
> >>> Generate all hits: penalizes the good postmasters, don't care about the
> >>> effect on the bad postmasters.
> >>
> >> I think you're mistaken. Generating all hits does not penalize a
> >> "good" postmaster, because no good postmaster will be using an RBL
> >> that's been dead for over a year.
> >
> > That's only specific to this case. I'm talking about from day 1 of the RBL
> > going dark.
>
> But that's exactly what this whole thread is about, an RBL that wants to
> go dark but is still being hammered upon by unmaintained mail systems.
>
> This thread was started by a mail-admin-wanabe who was asking why his
> systems suddenly started rejecting all mail. That PROVES that he was still
> using the dead RBL and needed the clue-by-4 along side the head to wake
> him up.
>
Does anyone actually read the posts they are responding to here, or is
it normal to just assume everyone is an idiot and start typing?
I started this thread. I was not at all confused about why some of
my clients were having problems (which I had helped them correct
before I posted). I simply made the observation that the RBL's
behavior seemd to have changed, offered what I knew about it, and
asked if anyone else knew more about the situation.
Maybe my post was unclear? Two people have written in to inform me
that the RBL is dead. Strange, since I mentioned that in my post.
Now I am called a "mail admin wannabe" etc?
To put it simply: WTF?
> This is not the first time an expiring RBL resorted to that technique and
> probably will not be the last (sad to say).
>
> --
> Dave Funk University of Iowa
> <dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
> 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
> Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
>
