On Sunday 20 November 2005 10:20, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > Even then it doesn't help since some provider *cough, SPRINT,
> > cough* insist on not changing reverse DNS on their static blocks or
> > in any way identify them as different then their dynamic blocks. As
> > a result the RBLs list both ask dynamic.
>
> That makes sense really, because the intent of such a DNSBL is to list
> IPs which are in the 'probably belongs to a home user who might be
> more likely to harbour a trojan spambot, and who has an alternative
> route for outbound email via their ISP's relays' class. The 'dynamic'
> tag is merely a shortcut, and doesn't cover the whole scope.
It's one thing for admins to say, "We regret inflicting the collateral
damage on all home users but we feel we have to to blacklist dynamic IPs
because of all the infected Windows machines." But it's just obnoxious
snobbery to say that all home users *should* be blocked.
What about some responsibility among blacklist operators? Why not provide
a way for users who pass some tests to register dyndns-type hostnames for
whitelisting?
