At 12:56 PM 12.28.2010 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >On 12/28/2010 12:14 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: >> Folks here are missing the point, that NJABL is catching not much of >> anything, like less than 1% of spam, and with a relatively high FP >> ratio. I don't understand this desire to keep such a poor performing >> rule, especially when it costs a network query. >> > >Warren let me give you a bit of political education. > >When you go to www.njabl.org you get a nice folksy >explanation of what a blacklist is, how to get on it and how to get off >of it, and when you go to www.mailspike.net you get nothing other than >a fancy graphics page of a map of the world. > >The issue with blacklists is such, I have a customer, I block that >customer's inbound e-mail because of a blacklist, I get a FP and now >my customer demands an explanation of why I blocked it. > >I can point my customer to njabl.org and say "that site blocked it" >and my customer can then point his corespondent to njabl.org and >that corespondent can then point their boneheaded system admin to >njabl.org with a demand that said boneheaded system admin fix whatever >the problem is that is getting them listed. > >In other words, sites like njabl.org help me, as the spam-blocking >system admin, shift the blame for a FP from me, to the actual >responsible party, ie: the system admin who is running the open >mailserver that sent the spam to my server in the first place. > >But, sites like mailspike.net, because they are so stripped down, >actually do the reverse - they help concentrate the blame for the >FP on me, because they provide no support whatsoever for anyone using >them. > >I do not deny mailspike.net is probably far better a bl than njabl. >I've used njabl for years and 8 years ago it was great but today it's >admin obviously has not bothered to keep up with maintainence on it. > >But mailspike.net doesn't even have a list of criteria of how to >get off of it, and looking at their site you don't even really know >what the hell it is. If I were to tell a customer I blocked their >mail due to mailspike.net they would think I'm an idiot when they >went to that site to see what mailspike.net actually is. > >This is yet another example, of which there are a plethora, in the >computer industry where a superior product or service, because it comes >in a plain brown wrapper, fails to obtain market share while an >inferior product or service, because it's slicked up, retains and gains >market share. > >Apple Computer Company mastered this product marketing ages ago >when they slicked up FreeBSD & Next code, then came out with MacOS X >that is years behind current FreeBSD with it's internals. But clearly >some people, like the owners of mailspike.net, haven't got the message. > >Just a thought. > >Ted > >> Warren > >
Ted: Very comprehensive coverage. All of my net checks are done at the MTA level (sendmail) and none in SA -- it's turned off. What is the benefit of checking twice? Maybe I missed the benefit. Thanks for this discussion as it is good to keep up with those effective BLs. Jack (^_^) Happy trails, Jack L. Stone System Admin Sage-american
