On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
Hmm...actually, YOUR spam is MY problem. That's how this works.
I applaud njabl.
Then you've never been on receiving end of their (and their ilk) viligantine "justice" for no reason other than being in the same block of addresses as some hacked windoze host (NOT on your network, mind you) and using business-grade DSL.
Oh, sure have. Spews has listed an entire /19 of ours before, merely because of a multi-stage relay (customer had an open relay configured to dump everything to our mailserver). NJABL isn't Spews. To my knowledge, NJABL doesn't write off entire subnets...thus the need for scanning so many IPs. It's possible you were grouped in with dynamic IP DSL...but from the njabl.org website: http://www.njabl.org/listing.html "2. If an IP is listed because we think it's in a dial-up range, show us that it not. If it really is a dial-up, it'll most likely remain in the list, but we may add non-dial-up range IP's to the list thinking they are dial-up range IP's. In these cases, we'll be happy to correct the error."
I wish you have an opportunity to try that being YOUR problem, _then_ we'll hear your opinion on spam nazi.
Having used NJABL for well over a year, the collateral damage is almost nil. I'm well aware of the issues involved. I still think proactive scanning is better than reactive scanning. I'm also completely aware that others will disagree with that sentiment. It's not really something that's worth our time debating, we may as well debate abortion. You're either offended that somebody is probing your systems or you aren't. No amount of conjecture is going to change an opinion on this issue. But I felt somebody needed to stick up for them, lest people think there is some sort of consensus. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---