news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting only
 
Advanced search
January 2008
motuwethfrsasuw
 123456 1
78910111213 2
14151617181920 3
21222324252627 4
28293031    5
2008
 Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr 
 May   Jun   Jul   Aug 
 Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec 
2008 2007    
total
news.admin ... blocklisting Profile…
RELATED GROUPS

POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
  Re: BACKSCATTERER problem... We are an ISP         


Author: Larry M. Smith
Date: Jan 31, 2008 09:08

Martijn Lievaart wrote:
(snip)
>> Such discarding or "dead.letter" silliness goes against the published
>> SMTP specs.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> First and most important, the RFCs were written without massive spamruns
> in mind. So the argument that something is required by RFC, an argument I
> use in different situations myself quite often, is less applicable to
> todays Internet mailing systems.
>

Irrelevant. If you need to break SMTP in order to fix it; then you need
to either expand it via extensions, or scrap it and write another
transport for email. Either way you will need to write another set of
specs and hope the world also finds them useful.
Show full article (2.83Kb)
no comments
  BACKSCATTERER problem... We are an ISP         


Author: Parthe
Date: Jan 29, 2008 06:43

Whilst I fully appreciate the issues that backscatterer.org and other
RBLs have, what can ISPs like my company do? You won't delist us but
we don't control our customers mail servers.

I do my best to monitor the traffic that is pushed through my mail
servers, I can and do restrict the customers that spam the network but
by the time I do this the backscatter/spam is already forwarded and my
company's IP address is blacklisted, in this case for the next 28
days.

How do you justify this?

|\/|artin

--
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.
27 Comments