Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 21:52 +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/07, Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@???> wrote:
>>
>>> what's the point? these providers should block port 25 instead. the
>>> providers who don't care to block that port, won't bother to register
>>> their networks in PBL either.
>>>
>> Not true - very many already have. I've promoted zen.spamhaus.org
>> above my other DNSBLs and its not letting a lot through. I check
>> dynablock.njabl.org and dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net later in that order; njabl
>> is getting very few hits now.
>>
>
> okay, perhaps it makes sense, but their claim that it is Policy Based is
> not true. I was surprised to find one of our C-nets in the PBL, this
> was certainly not added by us, and our terms of use do not prohibit the
> use of port 25.
>
>
If you read the PBL FAQ, you'll note that they seeded the list initially
with data from NJABL/dynablock
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=Spamhaus%20PBL
http://www.njabl.org/dynablock.html
