> On 28/05/09 9:35 AM, "Matt" <lm7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is there a reason the Barracuda blacklist is not in the official checks by > > Spamassassin yet? I keep thinking sometime "sa-update -D" will add it but > > have yet to see it.
On 28.05.09 09:47, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > Of interest is the verbiage Barracuda sends to listees, stating repeatedly > that the IP is on a compromised host. I suspect this is incorrect as these > IPs never had listings on other DNSBLs dealing with such issues, like the > CBL. The fact the IP is not on other lists does NOT mean it's not compromised. Do they show received spam? > They also assert the mail is not CANSPAM compliant¹. Does anyone care about the "You can spam" act from the spamfighter's point of view? > One aspect of note is their heavy reference during the delisting process to > their pay-for-play whitelist, Emailreg.org (I signed up one of my domains > at the service to see how it worked). They suggest that registration therein > will help to avoid inadvertent¹ listings, but that does raise the question > how a listing due to compromise or lack of CANSPAM compliance could ever be > inadvertent. > > I certainly do not think we should ever suggest or recommend to clients to > make use of the Emailreg.org service, it works on a per domain basis and > this could become very expensive for large senders at $20/each. Also, it is > not clear if domains and sub-domains are treated as equivalents. not this is a problem and this should be strongly considered if anyone (including SA) wants to use their blacklist... However the emailreg.org was mentioned here already, iirc. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.
