What are your thoughts on.....

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...
[...]
My domain is optonline.net, which is a major cable internet ISP. If you
block optonline.net then you stop email from millions of legitimate
addresses.

Why you replied by email, I don't know. However, as far as the blocked
domain goes, it's likely he has nothing to do with that.

Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
to its database. Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.

My ISP provides this kind of "service", and once I found out what was going
on, I told them to disable it for my email. I don't get any more spam than
I used to, and I don't have friends and family complaining that they can't
send me email anymore.

Pete

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:

Probably his ISP is using one of those obnoxious black-hole lists that
automatically detects spam and adds IP ranges from which the spam originated
to its database.

The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.

Of course, since a third of all spam these days is being
sent from compromised but otherwise legitimate users, this sort of idiotic
solution results in innocent bystanders getting their email blocked.

Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
lists I assume you are refering to. There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:RSR5c.27524$JL2.318706@attbi_s03...
The problem is that some people get so much spam that if they didn't
take drastic filtering measures they wouldn't get your email anyway --
they wouldn't have time to sift through the spam looking for it.

Did you read my post? I had my ISP *** DISABLE *** the black-hole list
functionality for my email account, and it produced NO CHANGE in the amount
of spam I receive.

Not only was it blocking legitimate email, it turned out it did not appear
to be blocking any spam that SpamAssassin (which my ISP also runs) wasn't
already catching.

Obviously it is possible to filter out spam without resorting to such
drastic measures.

Not really. 'Compromised' broadband users infected with viruses that
turn them into spam zombies should still be sending their legitimate
email through their ISP's server, which will not be on the DUL-style
lists I assume you are refering to.

You have no clue about what you're talking about. The reason that I had my
ISP disable the black-hole list was that domains such as aol.com,
comcast.com, and cox.net were being blocked. These are all "respectable"
ISPs who take a no-tolerance stance toward their users sending spam.

The same tool, by the way, was blocking another friend's email because he
was running his own email server behind a dynamic IP address. Yet another
inappropriately blocked, perfectly legitimate source of email.

Your claim that those sources of email "will not be on the DUL-style lists"
is just plain wrong.

There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.

Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.
And yet email sent to me was getting blocked on a regular basis, because
those spam-intolerant ISPs that my friends and family do use were still
getting blocked.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

Pete

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:

You have no clue about what you're talking about. [...]

I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".
I agree that the fallout from spam (false positives especially) is
reaching unacceptable levels. Don't be so quick to condemn those who
have been burned by insufficient filtering who have resorted to stronger
measures. Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.

There is plenty of collateral
damage from IP blocking, but the cause of those blocks is usually ISP
supported spam.

Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam.

How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
about how the blocks are never legitimate. The server in question is
listed on 4 out of 31 blackhole lists at the moment. The policies of
at least a few of those require that actual spam come from the actual
server to one of their traps. I wouldn't use them at blacklists because
I find their policies too extreme. But then again I only process tens of
thousands of junk email messages a day, probably a few orders of magnitude
below a medium sized ISP.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:XyT5c.28636$J05.189678@attbi_s01...
I don't know why you've decided to elevate this straight to "flamewar".

Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

[...] Just because you don't need them (on the scale of your own
personal inbox) doesn't mean they're useless.

I never said they were useless. I said they didn't provide a benefit worthy
of the cost.

How would you even know? And besides, I said "collateral damage". I'm
including the case where small ISPs have IP blocks that are near known
spammers and overzealous blackhole list admins hit them too.

Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
to some spam-friendly ISP.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

That's a loaded question, you just spent the rest of your message ranting
about how the blocks are never legitimate.

It's not a loaded question. It has everything to do with the post to which
you made your original, idiotic reply.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Again, have you even bothered to read my post? ISPs being blocked are not
just small ISPs with "IP blocks that are near known spammers". In fact, the
ones I've had the most trouble with are AOL, Comcast, and Cox; typically,
when they get blocked, it's a *sub-block* within their total allocated range
that is blocked. They are NOT being blocked as a result of being adjacent
to some spam-friendly ISP.

Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP. You don't want to receive spam/virii
from their users computer acting as their own SMTP server...

Rooting out the true SMTP servers of each ISP (especially a stealth
spammer like E@rthlink or a proxy based one like A0L) is the tough part
of IP blocking. C0X and RR both use regional mail servers which make it
that much harder again. Anybody on Comc@st or @delphia, needs to get a
Hotmail or Yahoo email account...

Getting spam from adjacent blocks, just helps keep the filter file list
smaller, as they are added together...

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
. ..
Blocking the dialup/cable/dsl modem pooled IP's of another ISP are the
necessary evils of being an ISP.

No, they are not. Not when the ISPs being blocked are actively anti-spam.

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:
Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:OV06c.31312$Cb.514996@attbi_s51...
Because I have a very low tolerance of fools who insist on contradicting
what I say, even when they don't have a clue.

You know, after your last bit of frothing I looked at some of your
older usenet posts. You didn't used to be such a dick. What happened?

You quoted the explanation. I've always been this way. It's just it takes
a particular kind of idiot to set me off. I don't mind people disagreeing
with me, but I do mind people flat out calling me a liar when they don't
have the facts on their side.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
The same tool, by the way, was blocking another friend's email because he
was running his own email server behind a dynamic IP address. Yet another
inappropriately blocked, perfectly legitimate source of email.

No it is not inappropriate or legitimate. Your friend is an idiot and
should have known that running a mail server under a dynamic address
(probably by using a DNS service) is one of the surest ways of getting on a
blacklist or ten.

Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of mail servers should know this or know
ways of getting around it.

He shold pay the extra bucks for a static address like other "legitmate"
mail servers. If not, well, you get what you pay for.

Baloney. I receive practically no email from anyone using an ISP that
supports spam. I doubt I know ANYONE who uses an ISP that supports spam.

Hate to break it to you, Pete, but your own ISP is a fairly well-known
spammer. "They" don't actually spam, but they are a friendly host to
spammers. They are known to ignore spam complaints and not take appropriate
action on abuse reports. A quick Google on the NANAE Usenet group will
reveal all.

They are not alone, of course. Cox cable was blacklisted by many for the
longest time. Verizon, AOL, Level3, Roadrunner, Yahoo and many other very
well known and popular ISPs have been listed on the major blacklists at one
time or another. "Unfair" blacklists the only way to get these big
providers attention sometimes.

Do you really believe that Ben or his ISP at rrcnet.org have blocked the
optonline.net domain as a spamming network legitimately?

Why wouldn't they? When I (or my customers) get desperate enough, I will
also make use of a half dozen well known blacklists. Yeah, you might miss a
few legitimate emails but the alternative is a flooded mailbox and bandwidth
problems. It's a desperate measure and one that you do not adopt with
haste. But when all else fails and your small customer doesn't want to pay
the big bucks for decent filtering, you make do.

--
Jim Fisher