Consolidated spammy countries rbl

[sandrews at andrewscompanies.com]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I do see your point, from
an ISP perspective you are probably correct.  If my upstream provider
wants to block those networks at the firewall I'm completely fine with
that...down at the customer level, if my clients see no reason to accept
mail from X Y Z countries, that a useful too for them to further cut
spam.

We're just talking about an RBL here that increases score on a message.
This solution tells my mailscanner that messages from X Y Z countries
should be more suspicous.  I've got multiple RBL checks and if they hit
on 2, I call it spam.  This country list is one of them.  If your mail
is clean, it'll get through anyway.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Hugo
van der Kooij
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:49 AM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: RE: Consolidated spammy countries rbl

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, sandrews at andrewscompanies.com wrote:

> I think it's a reasonable list but probably isn't applicable to 
> everyone here.  That's one of the reasons I asked that he release his 
> code so we can implement locally and adjust the inclusion/exclusion of

> countries as we see fit.
>
> For the majority of my clients in the US, this list is worthwhile for 
> them, but again, YMMV.  If you've got clients that are ok with 
> blocking everything from the US, that would be reasonable too for 
> them.  The whole notion that any server should accept mail from any 
> other place and pass it along, although part of the original plan, is
long since gone.
>
> You, yourself have a hall of shame of poorly run networks.  Is 
> blocking them flawed by design?  I dunno, I hate the way SORBS acts in

> that you get penalized if you happen to be hosted close to poorly run 
> networks when they block ranges, but I guess the only thing I don't 
> like about it is the perceived extortion to get unblocked.  More and 
> more I'm of the opinion that the sheer fact I accept your mail (not 
> you specifically, but anyone) is a privilege that may be revoked at 
> any time.  I'm not militant enough to block everything and then only 
> accept upon request and application, but that day is coming for all of

> us.  80% of all email on the internet is junk and that's just freaking
ridiculous.

Blocking based on assigned network blocks is much more accurate. In the
few listed instances it is rather clear the owner of the netblock is not
taking any action at all against problems on their network.

Country bounderies are not relevant on internet. IP delegations are.

And they are my blocking actions. You can see they are present and why. 
But I do not publish them on some RBL list.

But publishing countries in a DNS blacklist for public usage in this
totally random yes/no style is flawed by design at best.

In case of the Netherlands we have quite a bit of detection points that
alert any Dutch ISP as soon as we notice odd behaviours from any Dutch
ISP network.

Hugo.

-- 
 	hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org	http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
 	    This message is using 100% recycled electrons.

 	Some men see computers as they are and say "Windows"
 	I use computers with Linux and say "Why Windows?"
 		(Thanks JFK, for the insight.)
--
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!