>How can providers be proactive in removing spammers and supportive of RBL lists when they are damaging their business by not notifying them of their inclusion.
what makes you think there wasn't any notification?
if you have an abuse dept with a clue and the clout to be able to actually dump the scum..er clients when the complaints start rolling in you would know who your spammers are WELL before you get listed.
it is hosters that fail to respond to complaints about their spamming/spam supporting clients that wind up listed.
i used the blacklists listing some of my ex employers servers as smarthost relays as a tool to discover stupid users with open proxies/mailservers. i cut off their access to outbound mail and fwded their ip to the policy team to follow up with the user and get them fixed. once they were fixed, i would test them and if they were no longer relaying, i'd let them send mail again.
unfortunately i was not allowed to use the lists inbound...and as such the inbound mailservers often were seriously overloaded with inbound spam. we had a private blacklist based on spam arrival, but usually spent hours cleaning up after each massive spam hit.
in case any of you wonder what it's like there now? don't worry, they are out of business by the end of this month.
schon said:
>This is a good thing - and what every blacklist's ultimate goal is.
>Speaking as a mail server admin, I'd be interested to know which lists are not removing you - so that I can make sure I'm not using them.
there is a point that i think has been missed (at least so far as i have read).
organized blacklists are overall MUCH easier to get off of, even the less rigorously maintained ones, than those run by admins who block on their own.
getting off of private blocklists is a gargantuan, perhaps even an impossible task. each individual private blacklist owner must be discovered, contacted and be convinced that the problem has been solved, before they will (if they ever do) unblock.
this is precisely why organized blacklists SHOULD be used...imho.
Slashdot Mirror
>How can providers be proactive in removing spammers and supportive of RBL lists when they are damaging their business by not notifying them of their inclusion.
what makes you think there wasn't any notification?
if you have an abuse dept with a clue and the clout to be able to actually dump the scum..er clients when the complaints start rolling in you would know who your spammers are WELL before you get listed.
it is hosters that fail to respond to complaints about their spamming/spam supporting clients that wind up listed.
i used the blacklists listing some of my ex employers servers as smarthost relays as a tool to discover stupid users with open proxies/mailservers. i cut off their access to outbound mail and fwded their ip to the policy team to follow up with the user and get them fixed. once they were fixed, i would test them and if they were no longer relaying, i'd let them send mail again.
unfortunately i was not allowed to use the lists inbound...and as such the inbound mailservers often were seriously overloaded with inbound spam. we had a private blacklist based on spam arrival, but usually spent hours cleaning up after each massive spam hit.
in case any of you wonder what it's like there now? don't worry, they are out of business by the end of this month.
schon said:
>This is a good thing - and what every blacklist's ultimate goal is.
>Speaking as a mail server admin, I'd be interested to know which lists are not removing you - so that I can make sure I'm not using them.
there is a point that i think has been missed (at least so far as i have read).
organized blacklists are overall MUCH easier to get off of, even the less rigorously maintained ones, than those run by admins who block on their own.
getting off of private blocklists is a gargantuan, perhaps even an impossible task. each individual private blacklist owner must be discovered, contacted and be convinced that the problem has been solved, before they will (if they ever do) unblock.
this is precisely why organized blacklists SHOULD be used...imho.