Anyone using zen.spamhaus.org?

[John Rudd]

On Sep 5, 2006, at 12:37 AM, Glenn Steen wrote:

> On 05/09/06, Alex Neuman van der Hans <alex at nkpanama.com> wrote:
>> John Rudd wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sep 4, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Glenn Steen wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I for one work under legislation that prohibit me from flat-out
>> >> rejecting _based on sender alone_ (it's a bit more involved than 
>> that,
>> >> but lets leave that:-)
>> >
>
> It's a brew of different (Swedish) laws governing "principal of
> availability and open equal dealing with all subjects"... Laws
> covering everything from freedom of speech(!) to how public documents
> are to be archived and handled. I'm certainly no lawyer, but
> thankfully a central .gov agency (Statskontoret for those who really
> want to know) has made a set of guidelines for us poor "public
> mailadmins" to follow. They're pretty generic, and open for _some_
> interpretation, but paramount is that the collected body of laws does
> not allow us to use "generic blacklists" for rejecting messages. If I
> could somehow complement everything to know that a sender was actually
> a Swedish subject, then perhaps I could use BLs, but... Alas not now.
>

Except... RBLs don't block senders.  They block hosts (actually, that's 
not true either: they block IP addresses; a host can change IPs over 
time, and a sender can change hosts frequently ... especially when you 
consider relaying).  Seems to me a distinction could be made...

I mean, if I use a DUL type RBL to block ISP customer IPs, I'll still 
receive the sender's email via the ISP's proper mail gateway.  I could 
go on, but RBLs are not even remotely about "based on sender", IMO.