Author: W B Hacker Date: To: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] What's up ith the uceprotect blacklist?
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Rene Marticke wrote:
>
>>Hi, there,
>>
>>let me explain two scene why this callouts are abuse.
>>
>>1.
>>me@domA send mail to you@domB
>>--> domB callout whith postmaster@domB if me@domA is valid.
>>--> domA use callout to -> so call domB if postmaster@domB is a valid
>>user .... loop
>>
>
> That doesn't apply to Exim because Exim by default uses a sender of <>
> which isn't going to create a loop like what you are claiming. In my
> case I use a real email address on my system to avoid the problems of
> servers who block <> but my real address is regged to never generate a
> return callout.
>
>>2. if someone sends spam with you@yourdomain around the net
>>every mailserver asked you if there is a vaild account at yourdomain. I
>>think it's a fine DOS ...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Exim caches callouts so as to minimize the callout traffic. I think it
> has a 2 hour memory? And - the callout is short, never delivering a real
> message. So the load factors would be really insignificant.
>
> What I see happening here is that UCEPROTECT is deliberately and falsely
> listing servers as spammers who really are not spammers. They are trying
> to change everyone's behavior using the listing as a threat. If you
> don't comply with their ideas about spam filtering then they punish you
> by falsely listing you as a spammer. I have contacted them several times
> about this and they refuse to whitelist me or fix the problem.
>
> So when they know that I'm a spam filtering company yet they refuse to
> take me off their list of spammers, what does that say about their list.
> It tells me that their list is worthless.
>
> My solution if they won't fix their problem is to make the spam
> filtering community aware of their business practices and hope that
> enough people quit using their blacklist that they have to go back to
> listing just spammers. When a company knowingly and deliberately lists
> people as spammers who they know are spam filtering companies then that
> needs to be exposed. I think they need to keep their politics separate
> from their lists.
>
>
Marc,
I suspect that you and I are in 'full agreement' only about once a year.
But this is one of those times.
Blacklisting for legitimate use AND NOT misuse, of an RFC-provided-for service
renders the blacklist not only worthless - but 'in violation'.
David's point is a cogent one - your verify = sender probe was processed on the
server it hit in too-much under one second to differentiate, despite triggering
a PostgreSQL lookup in the middle of the router-chain verify-walk.
The 'vetting' needed, and byte-count handled of a full bounce is massively
greater here. IF we even accept it.
Not sure where this is going, but one can hope that
