Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 21:14:43 -0500 From: Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com> To: dever@getaclue.net Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <3E0E5A93.4060108@quadtelecom.com> References: <3E0DAAF3.7090103@quadtelecom.com> <20021228130209.A79151@getaclue.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Douglas A. Dever wrote: > Previously, Harry Tabak (htabak@quadtelecom.com) wrote: > >> I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported >>package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me >>to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll >>probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a >>freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't >>be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest >>that you check it out.] > > > > Any server admin who chooses to use some sort of blocking list > understands the risks involved - that clean mail may get rejected > with the dirty. If someone chooses to run a blocking list, they > should be aware of the consequences of each list. That said, once > they decide to do so, they do not have to accept your mail - it is > their server, after all. > Not necessarily. The implication in the literature is that the false-positive rate is low. > >> Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully >>described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the >>inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this >>product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I >>am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, >>but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. > > > It sounds like your complaints need to be addressed to the > maintainers/authors of this particular application. > > >> My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. >> The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's >>66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a >>right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me >>because of my neighbors. > > > Or, you could choose not to do business with a company that supports > spam. That's the point of adding such large blocks to a blackhole > list - to put pressure on the company to change its practices by > affecting other customers. No one is publically tarring you because > of your neighbors - they're choosing not to accept mail from you > because you keep bad company. > > I do not do business with Inflow. I have absolutely no business relationship with them. I do business with SteelCity Telecom. Black-listing me is simplying incorrect, it is based on a faulty assumption, and doesn't reduce spam one iota. > >> If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not >>only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on >>their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business >>receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from >>Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) >>telemarketing. > > > They're not the only people who do this. SPEWS is notorious for > this sort of thing. That's why some folks like the SPEWS list, and > others prefer the SBL or another realtime blocking list. > SPEWS, www.five-ten-sg.com, and all the other RBL's that I can find have no problem with my addresses. Harry Tabak To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E0E5A93.4060108>