--On 20 June 2005 10:07:58 +0100 Peter Bowyer <peeebeee@???> wrote:
> On 20/06/05, Ian Eiloart <iane@???> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On 17 June 2005 15:40:20 -0400 "Greg A. Woods" <woods@???> wrote:
>>
>> > [ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 14:05:21 (+0100), Ian Eiloart wrote: ]
>> >> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are
>> >> refusing bounces...
>> >>
>> >> Part of the problem here is that some people are using
>> >> rfc-ignoratant.org as a whitelist. So getting a listing there may be
>> >> regarded as desirable!
>> >
>> > Hmmm.... I hadn't heard of that yet. I don't quite see how this helps
>> > the ones who want to be listed either....
>>
>> Getting listed makes it more likely that your email will be accepted - if
>> the sites using rfc-ignorant as a whitelist outweigh the sites using it
>> as a blacklist. So, if I'm a site refusing null senders, and my mail is
>> being refused because of that, then I can fix the problem (for some
>> sites) by listing myself at rfc-ignorant!
>
> The term 'whitelist' is probably wrong here- various people are using
> dsn.rfc-ignorant.org to cut down on sender callouts because such
> callouts are a waste of time if you know in advance that the answer
> won't be indicative.
>
> I doubt if anyone then accepts the address without further testing..
> which is what a more conventional ue of the term 'whitelist' would
> imply.
Well, I was using the term to refer to accepting a message which would
otherwise be rejected - I guess that is somewhat different. My objection to
the practice is twofold: (1) it encourages people to misconfigure their
servers (1) it negates the point of maintaining the rfc-ignorant list -
which is surely there to discourage people from being non-compliant.
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: peter@???
> Tel: +44 1296 768003
> VoIP: sip:peter@???
--
Ian Eiloart
Servers Team
Sussex University ITS
