Re: [exim] UCEPROTECT Blacklists and why callouts are abusiv…

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 18:51 +0100, Chris Edwards wrote:
> I think Ian meant listing of people who bounce viruses is fine.

Er, yeah. Good point.

>
> | Yeah, this is just the UCEPROTECT folks being muppets. I'm with Nigel;
> | they're best ignored.
>
> The classic DNSBL argument! Assuming they are muppets, they will
> ultimately be ignored, with few mail admins using them to block. If
> however enough mail admins are using them to block as to cause pain to
> those listed, then one might at least sit and think whether or not their
> listing policy has some merit afterall.

s/merit/marketing/ in the above.

There are always enough mail admins out there who are stupid or lazy
enough to use any given blacklist or moronic scheme if it's marketed
well, regardless of the technical merit. If they either can't or don't
want to think sensibly about it for themselves, they'll be taken in.
Just look at SPF, for example.

--
dwmw2