RE: OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
- From: "Anthony Michaud" <anthonym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:28:50 +1000
Hi Tom,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas W Shinder [mailto:tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 10:48
> To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> Subject: [isalist] RE: OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
> But you do have false postives with RBLs. You block an entire
> server or
> domain without performing due diligence. Critical mail may come from
> that server and you're not even aware that you missed it
> because it was
> blocked "en bloc".
If its *that* important, the sender will, upon receipt of a bounce, use the
telephone. I don't like making blanket statements, but I'm confident that
we're not going to get some critical email from someone who isn't on our white
lists.
> Also, the RBL does nothing to reduce Internet bandwidth usage, because
> the mail still arrives on your public link.
bzzt. Check out ORF by vamsoft. ORF blocks the email delivery at handshake.
Anthony.
> Thanks!
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Michaud [mailto:anthonym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:35 PM
> To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> Subject: [isalist] RE: OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
>
> http://www.ISAserver.org
>
> Bayesian filtering is still to "iffy" for my liking. There
> is a greater
> risk of "false positives" and the dynamic's of spam change frequently
> enough to avoid filtering (for periods of time).
>
> Finding a few good quality ORDB's has meant that I'm blocking ~35% of
> all email's - spam still gets through, but its significantly lower and
> there is no chance of a 'false positive'. To compensate for known
> clients having a listing on one or more of the ORDB's, we
> white list all
> known correspondence with a dump from the CRM product we use
> (automating
> this is a 'to-do').
>
> As we initiate new business, we send the first email, its in our
> database (or should be if staff follow correct procedure) so its white
> listed. Nothing important is blocked.
>
> Show me a Bayesian filter with a proven track record of no false
> positives and I may think about looking at it - but I probably won't -
> the system I'm using ain't broke, so I'm not going to fix it :)
>
> Anthony.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas W Shinder [mailto:tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2004 10:16
> > To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> > Subject: [isalist] RE: OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
> >
> >
> > http://www.ISAserver.org
> >
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > How does your use of an RBL on your network reduce overall
> bandwidth
> > utilization on the Internet link? How are they superior to a good
> > Bayesian filter?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Tom
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Michaud [mailto:anthonym@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:11 PM
> > To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> > Subject: [isalist] RE: OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
> >
> > http://www.ISAserver.org
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas W Shinder [mailto:tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2004 11:22
> > > To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
> > > Subject: [isalist] OT: Why Friends Don't Let Friends use RBLs
> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ Clip from Fred Langa Newsletter
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kennedy
> > > Space Center Blacklisted I won't bore you with the
> rationale of why
> > > broad-brush "blacklist" tools are bogus--- I've covered the
> > inherent
> > > flaws in this approach many times before. (
> > http://langa.com/u/4v.htm
> > > ) But I admit to a perverse pleasure in emails like this,
> > which show
> > > just how utterly stupid SPEWS, MAPS, SpamCop and the rest
> > really are:
> > >
> > > Three times this year all of the e-mail from Kennedy Space
> > Center was
> > > blocked by our county's largest broadband ISP (RoadRunner).
> > They have
> > > done so because of a large quantity of mail coming from a
> > single user
> >
> > > or because one or more of the following third party spam
> >
> > *snippage*
> >
> > I love these rants. Who I accept email from is *my*
> choice, based on
> > the lattitude that I have been given in my role. If your
> company has
> > sent unsolicited emails, I don't want 'em. If your ISP has
> done it,
> > or a customer of the ISP's - the ISP needs to be contacted
> by you and
> > the ISP fix it. I use dynamic RBL's, that have a quick
> turnaround on
> > removal of blocks, so when your mail system is secure
> again, then you
> > can talk to me. Don't fix it, then get on the phone or fax.
> >
> > Its *my* mailserver. Its *my* bandwidth. Its not free and the
> > spammers / virus writers aren't paying for the bandwidth they waste.
> >
> > I just love those that think they have a god given right to
> send email
>
> > - which is not the case.
> >
> > Anthony.
Other related posts:
