[142281] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address Assignment Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==)
Mon Jun 20 17:50:44 2011
In-Reply-To: <EFD18A55-37E9-4B0D-877A-4124EB179EAA@dotat.at>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgTmljb2xsZQ==?= <jerome@ceriz.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:50:17 +0200
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
2011/6/20 Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>:
> An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is incred=
ibly useful.
Greylisting and reverse-DNS checks alone blocks 95-98% with no impact
on mail sent from properly maintained mail servers. RBLs are only
usefull for lazy mailadmins, and to save some network and CPU
resources while avoiding greylisting and rDNS. But it implies you
fully trust the RBL author, and some really ain't trustworthy.
I'd rather loose some mails from poorly managed domains than rely on
any external almighty authority, it looks to me like an incentive to
consider SMTP administration seriously rather than using default
settings from the package maintainer...
--=20
J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle
