Autor: Renaud Allard Data: A: Andrew - Supernews, exim users Assumpte: Re: [exim] UCEPROTECT Blacklists and why callouts are abusive
Andrew - Supernews wrote: >>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Eiloart <iane@???> writes:
>
> Ian> 3. People using sender verification callouts. They seem to think
> Ian> it's as bad as sending email,
>
> Because ultimately it is.
>
> Ian> but my sender verification callouts don't fill mailboxes or
> Ian> server queues. And, they do stop lots of spam.
>
> Only at the expense of others, which isn't acceptable.
>
In a perfect world we would need neither callouts neither blacklists as
people wouldn't send spam in the first place. But we are not in a
perfect world.
It is a fact that callouts stop spam, are better than full fledged
bounces (or TMDA) and don't fill mailboxes.
It is also a fact that DNS lists that list IP ranges without any proof
of spam just prevent other people from sending ham. This is also at the
expense of these "others", which is also unacceptable.
So we are just talking on what expense is the worst.
On one hand we have much spam that is stopped at the expense of a small
bandwidth usage.
On the other hand we have ham (maybe urgent one) that is stopped just
because 1 ON on 256 or 65536 did do ONE callout which probably stopped
spam and bounces.
