On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 09:55 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
As for "didn't authorize you to block", two thoughts come to mind: first, the person with the last clear chance in a mail blacklisting situation is the mail admin in question, is it not?
Many administrators avoid complaints by placing within the message refusal, the name of the real-time black-hole list. In many ways, this is a better situation for the sender than filtering, which places messages into junk folders or silently drops messages. (Some filter programs even toss these DSNs because they appear to be spamvertisements.) In some cases, the administrator may return the wrong list. This is why most list providers offer a query form. Many abusers fake DSNs, just to get someone reading them, as DSN tend to avoid the junk folder. The real-time black-hole list operation takes the task of reviewing complaints, notifications, and response records to assist in resolving issues, to maintain acceptable use policies as part of the service. Some providers do not wish to enforce policies demanded by the community using the list, such as opt-in for bulk email and controlling access. This disregard of policy may cause collateral blocking affecting their other customers, and, although unfortunate, is often unavoidable. With growing reliance upon RBLs as a means to protect resources, in addition to establishing acceptable practices, few are confused as to how these lists work, and contracts further ensure these details are understood. Is there a cogent means to abate abuse that does not include some form of reputation or accreditation? Pattern recognition within filtering is a type of reputation based upon content, but alone, this does not scale and may create worse problems. There is no perfect system, but what system is better? -Doug