Comments on: DSBL is not bad http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:25:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Michael Wolf http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Michael Wolf Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/#comment-29 I don't trust the testers. I don’t trust the testers.

]]> By: Frank Daley http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Frank Daley Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/#comment-30 Sorry, but by its actions, DSBL has shown that it is bad.<p/>DSBL is used by Telstra Bigpond, Australia's largest ISP, and for several months a high percentage of emails from Gmail accounts to Bigpond have been getting rejected - thanks to an absurd DSBL rule.<p/>To me, this smacks of political games.<p/>I don't trust DSBL. Sorry, but by its actions, DSBL has shown that it is bad.

DSBL is used by Telstra Bigpond, Australia’s largest ISP, and for several months a high percentage of emails from Gmail accounts to Bigpond have been getting rejected – thanks to an absurd DSBL rule.

To me, this smacks of political games.

I don’t trust DSBL.

]]> By: bkor http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-31 bkor Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/#comment-31 Again, which list does Telstra use then? Again, which list does Telstra use then?

]]> By: Frank Daley http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Frank Daley Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/#comment-32 You're right in that I was too hasty in linking DSBL and Telstra Bigpond as based on various threads here ><br/><a href="http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=707403&p=1">http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=707403&p=1</a><br/>Telstra may be using mail-abuse and not DSBL.<p/>However, clearly there are some problems for Gmail due to DSBL rules><br/><a href="http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/04/09/note-to-anyone-who-runs-their-own-mail-server/">http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/04/09/note-to-anyone-who-runs-their-own-mail-server/</a><p/>I am so absolutely frustrated in having my Gmail emails rejected due to some Blacklist that suddenly kicks in that I have to agree with the various comments at luis' blog that the RBL solution is not really a solution since it is so easy to abuse it. Any security solution that introduces its own gaping security hole is fatally flawed and should be discarded. You’re right in that I was too hasty in linking DSBL and Telstra Bigpond as based on various threads here >
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=707403&p=1
Telstra may be using mail-abuse and not DSBL.

However, clearly there are some problems for Gmail due to DSBL rules>
http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/04/09/note-to-anyone-who-runs-their-own-mail-server/

I am so absolutely frustrated in having my Gmail emails rejected due to some Blacklist that suddenly kicks in that I have to agree with the various comments at luis’ blog that the RBL solution is not really a solution since it is so easy to abuse it. Any security solution that introduces its own gaping security hole is fatally flawed and should be discarded.

]]> By: bkor http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-33 bkor Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2007/04/10/dsbl-is-not-bad/#comment-33 You seem to blame RBL in general because sometimes they are used incorrectly (e.g. unconfirmed.dsbl.org or spamcop for blocking instead of tagging). That is just the way it is. Further, RBL is not a security solution. It is a way to block mailservers from sending mail to you because they likely will send spam to you or are for another reason unwanted. No RBL guarantees there will not be any false positives. Some RBL lists have as purpose to block valid mail to pressure the sender (e.g. make an ISP remove spammers). It is up to the individual sysadmins of the various mailservers to decide what they find acceptable. You seem to blame RBL in general because sometimes they are used incorrectly (e.g. unconfirmed.dsbl.org or spamcop for blocking instead of tagging). That is just the way it is. Further, RBL is not a security solution. It is a way to block mailservers from sending mail to you because they likely will send spam to you or are for another reason unwanted. No RBL guarantees there will not be any false positives. Some RBL lists have as purpose to block valid mail to pressure the sender (e.g. make an ISP remove spammers). It is up to the individual sysadmins of the various mailservers to decide what they find acceptable.

]]>