[governance] Spamhaus

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That is the main reason MAAWG regulars got together to publish that informational RFC

But rfcs, informational or not, are not "enforceable"

I can no more tell SORBS to stop their listing practices (though those have considerably improved after they were acquired two or three years back by a commercial vendor, Proofpoint) than I can, as I pointed out, force some of the people here to stop what they post [I wouldn't do that, ever .. though I would criticize them, like I have criticized poorly run blocklists before]

On 28-Mar-2013, at 18:18, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Chaitanya's message gives a hint of what is wrong with several of the blacklisters. The point is that a legitimate service might have a user which for a number of reasons (email account hijacked, for example) sends "bad" messages. This happened a few times in our service in our 20+ years of operation. Most  of the blacklisters block first and ask later (if they do take the trouble to ask, which is not true of most of them) even for perfectly identified services (meaning fully identified in WHOIS and for which you can easily reach the admin).
> 
> This is the main point: blacklisting is a welcome service for users and providers alike, provided that a basic code of conduct is followed (like the elementary principle of "innocent until proven guilty") and its main mission is providing a service to the community and not just gain money from providers or sponsors.
> 
> []s fraternos
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 03/27/2013 11:39 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote:
>> I agree with Suresh on Spamhaus being one of the more focused and
>> well-operated DNSBLs out there. I've used them over years and have had
>> superb performance and very effective spam filtering. If they blocked off
>> someone, it's a very rare possibility that the message is good.
>> 
>> We did maintain a positive whitelist to ensure our key clients dont get
>> "filtered" out though; but thats a different matter... Spamhaus had put up
>> something about a whitelist they're working on; which I think was
>> invite-only when I last checked.
>> 
>> -C
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> <suresh at hserus.net>wrote:
>> 
>>> Barracuda is a single vendor .. One out of two or three comparatively more
>>> obscure ones that seem to do this.
>>> 
>>> In the over a decade spamhaus has operated I have not seen spamhaus people
>>> take a single penny from anyone at all in matters to do with listing or
>>> removal of IPs.
>>> 
>>> Did you get listed by spamhaus ever?  I am not counting any of the dozens
>>> of poorly operated blocklists out there, most of which have one guy and his
>>> family dog using them compared to spamhaus that has a footprint of billions
>>> of mailboxes across ISPs, civil society organizations, industry and
>>> individuals with their own mail servers using it.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>> On 27-Mar-2013, at 23:20, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have been reporting cases revealing the absurd autonomy antispam
>>> businesses have, our services being one of the thousands of victims. Now it
>>> seems that finally more voices are joining in trying to at least discuss
>>> the issues.
>>>> 
>>>> We have all of our addresses perfectly identified in *thick* WHOIS, we
>>> keep to all rules regarding relating our addresses to our services, and
>>> still we eventually get caught by an antispam "service" proposing we pay
>>> them money to get out of it. I recall the case of the infamous Barracuda,
>>> which sells antispam software, as the first to try and extort money from
>>> us. Since we protested in quite strong terms and made a bit of a noise,
>>> they left us alone. But there are plenty of others.
>>>> 
>>>> Where is the technical community when we need it? :)
>>>> 
>>>> frt rgds
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>>>> And meanwhile, quietly, and apparently below the radar ...
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21954636
>>>>> Deirdre
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t