Problems with a black hole list in the netherlands

Sat Mar 9 22:16:46 UTC 2002

On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 08:25:10 -0500, Richard Irving <rirving at onecall.net>
wrote:

>Actually, I did... I doesn't seem too on the level.

<shrugs> It seems pretty typical of the pages that most black-list
maintainers have, albeit with slightly fractured English. (Which is not
to insult him - his English is dramatically better than my nonexistant
Dutch. ;)

>With lines like:
>> Even we don't block, we just send a 471
>> reply and let the monkeys determine whether the e-mail looks legitimate or spammy. 
>
>However, after explaining all this about 127.0.0.2, there is a little
>note on the bottom:
>
>>What does 127.0.0.4 mean?
>>
>>Not much, it's the only code we return, 
>>"not whitelisted" is perhaps the most accurate description. 
>
>Guess the number returned for us ?

Well, if he doesn't want to accept mail from your business, that's his
right & there's not a lot you can do about it. If it's one of your
customers complaining they can't send mail there, you should probably
explain to them that it's the target domain's policy that's bouncing
their email, then point them directly at him & stop worrying about it.

>Ironic, at least.
>
>Were it not referenced by http://Relays.OsiruSoft.com./, 
>Frankly, I would care less.
>
>* Hint * Hint *

The guy's black list is a private list for his domain. He explicitly
states that you have to be white-listed to get mail through to there. He
also states explicitly that no other lists are picking up his
black-list, so you're really complaining about a non-issue.

This bit of the page seems pretty clear to me: " Also note that while
http://relays.osirusoft.com/ cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi does also check our
blocklist, the data from our blocklist are not incoporated into their
blocklist."

-- 
   W          
 . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
  \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------