Christopher B. Zydel
czydel at cv.net
Thu May 24 02:00:38 UTC 2001
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:02:45PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > From: Christopher B. Zydel [mailto:czydel at cv.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:03 PM
> > ISPs that subscribe to MAPS RBL are saying that
> > they believe
> > that open relays should not exist, that MAPS should be able
> > to test for this
> > condition, and that they don't want to receive e-mail from
> > non-compliant
> > hosts.
> This is the source of confusion... right here. This person does not know the
> difference between MAPS and ORBS.
Wow, this text was incredibly ambiguous.
"Currently, the most common reason for a host or network being in the MAPS RBLSM is that it was used by a spammer as a mail relay. We call this third party relay spamming since the owner of the mail relay is neither a spammer nor a spamee." - http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl/candidacy.html#ByRelaying
Does MAPS cover other things as well? Certainly.
"Blackholing Due to Spam Origination (Then)
Blackholing Due to Spam Origination (Now)
Blackholing Due to Spam Relaying
Blackholing Due to Spam Support Services
Blackholing Due to Netblock Inheritance"
Now for the removal process:
"If we are contacted, a staff member will confirm that the listed site is no longer relaying spam. If it is not relaying, the site will be unlisted, usually within a few minutes of the email or phone call.
If the site is still permitting relay, the listing will continue unless there is a clear and short timeline to get anti-relay code deployed."
The language seems pretty plain to me.
More information about the NANOG