Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4054 mails)

[Michael W Cocke <cocke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:53:15 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>The Tuesday 2006-01-03 at 08:21 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>
>> * Ken Schneider <suse-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [01-02-06 23:31]:
>> > I can see the dynamic IP's being blacklisted for an ISP but not the
>> > static used for the email servers for that ISP. After all the ISP has
>> > no control over the users that fail to keep their PC's secure.
>>  
>> That's a bad rap.  And an ISP certainly has control over errant users.
>> It's called 'Cutting off service'.  The ISP's just fail in their
>> responsibility.  You (at least in all of my experiences) agree to a
>> usage form to get service and that form designates a loss of service
>> for varying from their (ISP's) rules.
>
>Hold on, you are all getting off-mark :-)
>
>Comcast is not being blacklisted because of posters using dynamic IPs, or 
>users doing "Bad Things", or anything of the sort. They are or were listed 
>because the people responsible for the comcast domain are not following 
>some internet rules, some of the RFC documents. They took the liberty to 
>ignore some of the "rules", so they got listed as not following the rules 
>in the www.rfc-ignorant.org site.
>
>For example, it seems that the information they give in the WHOIS database 
>is incorrect, or at least was incorrect at the date Eric Hines posted his 
>original email, for the domain contained in the "envelope from" (usually 
>the same as the from address), as seen when the email got to the list 
>server at SuSE.
>
>It also seems there is or was some problem with the mandatory postmaster 
>email address (http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php).
>
>
>I say "was" because I was unable to find the complaint report at 
>rfc-ignorant.org.
>
>
>And, of course, another completely different issue is that SA should give 
>such a high spamminess score for an ISP not being fully compliant with 
>such RFC rules. It is certainly a Bad Thing, but perhaps not a good 
>indicator for spamminess.

One of my clients is stuck with Comcast- they have many MANY problems,
starting with a postmaster who defines spam as anything he feels is
spam, irrrelevant of what the customer wants.  I'm completely
unsurprised that they're on the rfc-ignorant list.

Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed 
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com.  If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,