Adam Funk wrote:
> On Sunday 20 November 2005 10:20, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>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?
At risk of being regarded as rude and unhelpful, I'd suggest
that such is not the list operator's job. They're merely
offering a list to MTA admins, not dictating that it be used
nor how. If the MTA admins want to punch holes in a list
used as a blacklist, perhaps by overlaying a different list
used as a whitelist, they can. If they want to maintain
such a list, intended to be used as a whitelist, they can -
and if they want to offer that list to others, they can.
In the meantime, any argument should be between the users
at each end of a mail connection, and their mail admins.
But this is not really an Exim topic, and might be better
carried on in news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Cheers,
Jeremy
