dnsbl's? - an informal survey

Sat May 31 13:43:48 UTC 2003

	Hello Jack ,

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> <snip>
> > 	White listing is NOT what was being discussed .  Tho is can be
> > 	adventagous in the right circumstances .
> <snip>
> > 	And neither was Static addressing .  Filtering was being discussed
> > 	based on some unknown (to me probably others as well) methodology .
> > 		Twyl ,  JimL

> White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular
> being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at
> easynet. Both lists quite clearly state how they build their lists and
> what they are designed to block (dynablock only takes out dialup, and
> PDL takes out all dynamic addressing).
	Query ,  How is it determined that the address in question is
	dynamic or not ?  Who/how/what makes that determination ?
	This is the core of my concerns .

> Given the number of insecure client systems on dynamic addressing (proxy
> servers, trojans, etc), accepting email from dynamic addresses is
> becoming inherently more dangerous. If smarthosts can't be used from
> those addresses, then special whitelisting can be done.
	Highly agreed .  But sure am hoping some better solutions are
	being developed .

> Of course, the person implementing email blocks of any type, especially
> public blacklists, must take some ammount of responsibility in
> maintaining legitimate email communications as dictated by users.
	YES !  Without this there is no check &/or balance to the
	procedure/s in use .  Twyl ,  JimL

-- 
       +------------------------------------------------------------------+
       | James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
       | Network        Engineer |     P.O. Box 854     |  Give me Linux  |
       | babydr at baby-dragons.com | Coudersport PA 16915 |   only  on  AXP |
       +------------------------------------------------------------------+