On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:54:32PM +0000, Chris Edwards wrote: > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Mike Lima wrote:
>
> | I give you an example. Lists like Sorbs.net, block IPs of dial up
> | accounts, dynamic IPs and entire blocks of IPs, the first time a spam
> | comes from one IP within the block. Imagine blocking from ip 1.1.1.1 to
> | 1.1.1.255, just because 112 sent spam. Doing that you are causing damage
> | to people that have nothing to do with the matter. They are blocking
> | nameservers, as you know, machines controlling hundreds, thousands of
> | domains. My server is now on a nameserver that is blocked. They are
> | blocking large free email accounts, as Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. They feel
> | like prepotent and arrogant gods with final decision to block countries,
> | continents, etc, at the first spam they receive from those places.
> |
> | I agree that you can create a block list, but not by IP. As you know,
> | spammers use dynamic IPs or invade systems and use their resources. So,
> | a list by IP is a picture of a moment in the past.
>
> Yup - you hit the nail on the head - much spam comes from dynamic IPs -
> that's *exactly* why many sites block entire dynamic pools
>
> ( like "1.1.1.1 to 1.1.1.255" in your example )
AFAICT it should be self-balancing anyway: if the RBL lists are being
excessive then email admin would have to respond to user pressure and avoid
using such lists (thus creating a demand for more lenient lists), or put
pressure on the list maintainers.
Mike
--
Mike Richardson
Messaging and Collaboration
Manchester Computing
Email: mike.richardson@???
*Plain text only please - attachments stripped on arrival*
