Josh Miller wrote: > On 08/11/2011 10:56 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Craig White wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:51 AM, mark wrote: >>>> Always Learning wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 21:36 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: >> <snip> >>>> You don't seem to understand the issue. My hosting provider has >>>> literally hundreds of thousands of domains. The email gets funneled >>>> for all, I assume, except those paying for co-location, through their >>>> heavy-duty mailhost. manitu sees spam coming from that mailhost, and >>>> blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN that goes through it, even though >>>> none of the rest of us are running windows or spamming.... >>> ---- >>> Not sure who it is that doesn't understand the issues. >>> >>> If an RBL has designated a particular SMTP server or range of SMTP >>> servers as a source for spam then the solution lies with those >>> that own the SMTP >>> servers to satisfy the RBL and get the blocks removed. >>> >>> Yes, some RBL's are more aggressive than others but the notion that it >>> blocks EVERY EMAIL FROM EVERY DOMAIN is exactly what RBL's are supposed <snip> >> And that's *EXACTLY* what I'm saying is the wrong thing to do. Dunno >> where you live, but go ahead, for whoever provides 'Net access to your >> home: call them up, or email them, and tell them to contact manitu, >> and to request that manitu put them on a whitelist. >> >> Let me know when they get back to you. I'll look for your email sometime >> around the time when you move and change providers. > > In fact, that is one of the single most effective mechanisms used to > combat spam, in my experience and will cut down the amount accepted at > the gateway(s) by up to 95%. I'm not sure who you're answering or agreeing with, but my point is still that 90% of everybody blocked has no clue whatever about what to do about it, and esp. the people with infected systems. A standard channel *to* an ISP for this kind of technical issue - either the ISP notifying the spammer that their machine needs to be cleaned before they'll be allowed back online, or between ISP, would do something useful. But I doubt very much that most of those 90% of users who are *not* spammers, nor infected, would have any idea to complain to their ISP that something needed to be done, and so the ISP goes on thinking there's no problem. The result that *I* see from that is that people simply drop, or change services, and nothing gets fixed. <snip> mark