Cc Bcc: Subject: Re: UCEProtect Level 3 Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20090507161041.f1711126.darcy@druid.net> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:10:41PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
It is. I understand what they are trying to do but we were cut off from some places because someone else in the huge upstream we are with did something that appeared to be spam. It's too broad of a brush.
(a) This discussion should probably be happening someplace other than NANOG (spam-l or mailop, perhaps?), and (b) If you feel that UCEProtect L3 paints with too broad a brush, then you're certainly free not to use it. I happen to agree with you on this particular level of this particular DNSBL for my particular applications, so I don't use it either. However: I'm aware of other folks who are using it quite effectively as *part* of a scoring system. ---Rsk
On Thu, 7 May 2009 16:21:26 -0400 Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
(a) This discussion should probably be happening someplace other than NANOG (spam-l or mailop, perhaps?), and
True. I didn't bring it up but this is my last post on the subject.
(b) If you feel that UCEProtect L3 paints with too broad a brush, then you're certainly free not to use it. I happen to agree with you on this particular level of this particular DNSBL for my particular applications, so I don't use it either. However: I'm aware of other folks who are using it quite effectively as *part* of a scoring system.
I don't use it but my problem was that other ISPs whose clients were trying to email my clients were using it. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
participants (2)
-
D'Arcy J.M. Cain -
Rich Kulawiec