Mark Andrews wrote:
> Actually there can be false positive. ISP's
> who put address blocks into "dialup" blocks
> which have the qualification that the ISP is
> also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
> allow email from the block but the ISP's
> policy explicitly allows email to be sent.
>
Actually that's debatable - the SORBS DUHL is about IPs assigned to
hosts/people/machines dynamically. We do not list addresses where the
ISP have sent the list explictitly saying 'these are static hosts, but
they are not allowed to send mail' - similarly we do list hosts in the
DUHL where the ISP has said 'these are dynamic but we allow them to send
mail' - it's about the people using the SORBS DUHL for their purposes,
not for helping ISPs getting around the issue of whether to use SORBS as
a replacement to port 25 blocking.
I wasn't thinking about SORBS. It was a general warning to
only put blocks on lists where the usage matches the policy
of the list.
I was thinking about a Australian cable provider that doesn't
do the right thing. I'm sure there will be other ISP's that
also fail to check the list policy before nominating the
address blocks for the lists.
In reality there shouldn't be the need for dialup lists.
Also most people don't really use the "dialup" lists correctly.
They really should not be a absolute blocker. They should
also turn off "dialup" pattern matching tests otherwise you
are getting a double penalty for the same thing.
Mark