Re: [exim] Who is APEWS.ORG

Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> --On 29 March 2007 11:39:49 +0100 Peter Bowyer <peter@???> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 29/03/07, Ian Eiloart <iane@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, the only thing 'Perkel specific' here is the objections that
>>>> are being raised. Had anyone else started this thread, I don't believe
>>>> those objections would have been raised.
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly not unusual to discuss the merits of implementing certain
>>>> features that Exim provides. Indeed, it's quite common for people to
>>>> reply "you should not do that" in response to a "how to question".
>>>>
>>> True, but the merits or otherwise of sender callbacks are a path
>>> well-trodden - a bit like the SPF example that Nigel quotes in the
>>> list info on the wiki.
>>>
>> Perhaps. I've not checked, but I don't recall any discussion of RBLs
>> listing (or claiming to list) servers *because* they do sender address
>> verification callouts. I'm grateful to Marc for alerting us to this. I also
>> think its interesting to find out something about the RBL, and the people
>> behind it (including what disinformation is out there).
>>
>> So, I think this thread has been useful, and would have died already were
>> it not for the unnecessary complaints.
>>
>
> The two lists I mention UCEPROTECT and APEWS block people who do sender
> verification callouts. And they have manually added me to the list
> because I'm standing up to them about it. If you search google you'll
> find that they started blocking Verizon for the same thing.
>
> The reason I know that they manually entered my data into their system
> is that they list specific IP addresses of mine that I used for dummy MX
> records that they claim to have received activity from when I know that
> there has never been a computer on those IP addresses. That why I'm
> trying to hunt these people down and expose them. I'm pretty sure at
> this point that APEWS is just a front for UCEPROTECT allowing them to do
> more mischevious stuff than they would do under their company name.
>
> Here is the policy of UCEPROTECT

*trimmed* (policy quoted, opinions on Exim & SAV effectiveness)

> So - when someone is adding people to spam block lists like me and
> Verizon because we use SAV then that's an issue that is worth discussing.
>

Or at least passing an alert with - most useful - their having added
equipment-less IP's, a sure sign of something not being honest in their realm.

Fair enoug, I can only wish that you had been as clear and informative in your
*first* post...

That said.. ISTM that the very act of blocking some of the largest providers on
Planet Earth (and, yes, the Yahoos. and Verizons, and Comcasts et al are
sometimes *very* rudely behaved!) will reduce the likelihood of such an RBL
gaining wide acceptance and use.

I am more concerned with the claim on their site that SORBS is including them,
as that makes it potentially harder to use THAT list.

Bill