Post by RobI believe that because so many people come here to complain that they
are blacklisted at backscatterer.org, and that their mail is being blocked
because of it. And so they want to be removed.
And you are entitled to that belief.
Post by RobMail should not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org.
Is that part of your philosophy?
Do you have a reason for anybody else to care about what you believe
should be the state of the world?
Post by RobApparently the mailserver operators do not understand that.
You offer no evidence for that claim. It's quite possible that they
do fully understand it, and knowingly choose to do what they are
doing.
I know that I, for one, understand that you believe that mail should
not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org. You
undoubtedly also believe that mail should not be blocked because of a
listing on noprimes.org. I understand that. I even agree with you.
But I still choose to block mail coming from prime number IP addresses
on my home machine.
Post by RobPost by Claus v. WolfhausenSince it is written in *BIG RED LETTERS* at the backscatterer.org
website how we recommend to use the list, we (tinw) have to assume that
those people using ips.backscatterer.org like a spammer dnsbl do exactly
know what they are doing.
That is a wrong assumption.
But it's one they're [tint] required to make.
Post by RobPeople can use the list without ever visiting
the website, e.g. because it is in a suggestion list of a blocklist handling
product where you only need to apply a checkmark to use it.
Even if true, so what? Whose fault would that be?
Post by RobPost by Claus v. WolfhausenHave you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
backscatterers completely?
That would be even more clueless.
Is there any shortage of cluelessness in your universe? This one has
an oversupply.
Post by RobA lot of legitimate mailservers are
listed on backscatterer.org
FSVO "legitimate". I don't consider a server that spams me (with
backscatter or otherwise) to be fully legitimate. YMMV.
Post by Roband this is not going to change.
Remember that statement.
Post by RobPost by Claus v. WolfhausenPost by RobWhat other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
make that mistake??
Again, the fact that you can not believe someone is willfully using the
backscatterer.org blocklist for blocking all mail from listed systems,
does not make your believe true.
What proof do you have that your view is true?
Logic says so. Your inability to believe something is not binding on
the state of the universe.
Post by RobApparently you believe that your own beliefs are better than other people's.
You don't believe that your beliefs are better than other people's?
Then why don't you adopt theirs instead, since they're better? Do you
enjoy having bad beliefs?
Post by RobPost by Claus v. WolfhausenIt would not make sense to empty the list, because those listees that
did not stop their abusive behavior in the meantime would be back
afterwards almost immediately.
Of course I mean: empty the list and stop filling it.
That would be worse than worthless: as it is, the list provides
information that is useful to some. An empty list provides no
information.
Post by RobPost by Claus v. WolfhausenPost by RobChanging the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
no option. It is not his server.
There seem to be lots of people sharing my opinion of what is abusive,
otherwise there would be no need to discuss about it.
Oh and i believe changing the mailserver can of course be an option if
the change includes the new server becomes his server.
You seem to disregard the fact that not everyone wants to be a mailserver
operator. Some people just use a service made available by someone else.
Then they can switch to a service made available by somebody who
agrees with them.
Post by RobAnd not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse, so this mailserver
may not fit your criteria.
What does that mean?
Post by RobYou criteria are just your criteria,
Precisely.
Post by Robnot criteria for the mailservers of the world.
They are his criteria for the mailservers of the world. Nobody forces
the owner/manager of any other mailserver to agree with him or use his
list.
Post by RobThose are specified in the
RFCs that are to be treated as STD, not on Claus' webpage.
The RFCs specify that the operator of a mailserver may reject messages
for reasons of policy, and the policy is entirely up to the operator
of the mailserver. There's nothing in the RFCs saying that using
"lucky 7" (a dnsbl that answers the question "does the digit 7 appear
in the IP address?") to reject mail is a violation of any RFC.
Seth
--
Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.