On 09/01/07, Malcolm Staudinger <malcolm@???> wrote:
> 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
Yep, makes sense. And one can distinguish owner-added vs
Spamhaus-added results, too.
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???
