rlsnyder asks:
"I'm the inadvertant co-administrator of e-mail a for company that relies pretty heavily on it for daily business (e.g. sending confirmations of financial transactions). At one point in the not-too-distant past, our server was an open relay. I admit I'm a sinner for letting it happen, and I'm ready to do my pennance. Given the relatively low volume of mail our server moved that did not originate from inside, I doubt I was a major contributor to the world of SPAM. In any event, we've been blacklisted on a number of sites. Some lists have reasonable policies, and we've since been removed. Other places are a little more arbitrary as to removal policies, and although I can prove we're not a relay, we're still listed." While I approve of the basic concept of SPAM Blacklists, there are dozens of SPAM blacklists out there who are real keen on adding open relays to the list, but not so keen on taking rehabilitated hosts out. I would posit that SPAM blacklists that are not properly maintained are a part of the problem, not the solution. What are your thoughts on the subject?
rlsynder continues: "Am I way off base here, or is this self-appointed mail police thing going in the wrong direction? Given that I can't reliably deliver e-mail to a number of places due to being blocked, I've got a big exposure. Is this making spam less of a problem, or are we trading one problem (SPAM) for another (the reliablility of proper maintenance of SPAM Blacklists)?
I could draw a bunch of analogies here, but isn't the bottom line that no one owns the internet e-mail system? I realize no one makes ISP's subscribe to the blacklists, but basically, I'm trying to move data from one point to another, and some machines in the middle are discriminating against my data because a corrected, perfectly legal system configuration error. How is this helping? Has SPAM really decreased universally thanks to these lists?"
Slashdot Mirror
I see it like this:
Think of it as a type of "Megan's Law". If you're a sex offender, then you're put on the list. I don't care if you reformed or not, you're still on the list for everyone to know.
Now here you are. A verified spammer (or cause of my daily headaches, i.e. spam). So now you're blacklisted and partially fscked... And back to being your fault?
You got what you deserve.
Whether or not blacklists are a good idea? Well, that can be questionable because DNS #'s do and will change over time. Blacklists are not completely kept up.... Maybe someone on slashdot has the answer so keep checking...
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Do you know what it takes to run one of these lists? Its not that easy. We dont like blocking people, but when your server is an open relay, you are a liability, which means I must keep you from causing my server a possible problem.
I dont ask much. All that I expect is for people to setup their access lists correctly - use pop before smtp, smtp auth, ANYTHING BUT OPEN RELAY.
We process removals once a week because we make it a requirement all additions/removals be done by hand to prevent errors in the file. If you dont like that, then either #1 learn your lesson about running an open relay and not do it again or #2 support those people who are running these lists so they can work faster and better.
Brielle
I think if people are going to use blacklists, they should also take the responsibility of keeping them maintained, both in additions and removals.
So you're saying that unpaid volunteers have a "responsibility" to jump when someone says "I closed my open relay"?
You want them to be responsible to you? Pay them. If you screwed up and created an open relay on your mail server, then you should pay people for their time to update their databases. This idea that you can create a problem for someone else and that this makes them indebted to you is one that I don't follow.