Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting

[Lou Katz <lou () metron com>]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 01:19:45PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Charles Sprickman <spork () inch com>
> Subject: Re: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Lou Katz wrote:
>
> > Complain to the domain who got listed in the first place, wink wink,
> > nudge nudge.
>
> Ummm, the DUL is a list of dialup ports.  When it was started, the intent

Right. It is then surprising that an IP address which was listed as a
dialup suddenly wasn't.

> was not to punish ISPs listed there, but to give mail admins a list of IPs
> that represent dialup ports, which generally should not be sending mail
> directly.  It is not a mark of shame to be on the DUL.  Some of us
> actually *volunteered* such information to maps.
>
> Which brings me to another point that's been eating at me since maps went
> commercial...  DUL seemed like more of a community effort than RBL or RSS.
> Many entries were added by people volunteering their own information with
> the idea that it was for the "common good".  I for one, feel shafted that
> this list to which I contributed, is only available if I choose to pay a
> sizable amount of money.

A very good point - the DUL was/is different from the other two lists, and
perhaps should have been treated differently. As I understood it, some ISPs
'contributed' their configurations as part of ensuring that direct-to-mx
spam would be reduced.

> As for MAPS working out deals for smaller customers, I've not yet received
> any replies from their sales kritters, which I will interpret as a "NO".

Likewise. All I got was an autoack and a ticket number.


-=[L]=-