On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 06:13 AM 4/23/2003 +0800, you wrote: > >IMHO, the RBL is an attempt at spam control that discriminates against a > >group of people based on their circumstances. > > > >Hummm...but this is all OT isn't it? > > I think it's very much on-topic. Most Red Hat users want to reduce the spam > they receive and don't want to get on any blacklists themselves, so by > definition it is a topic of interest to many in this community. I'm suggesting it is OT since I feel that the "psyche", "valhalla", "shrike", etc. lists are for discussion of problems related to those distributions. There is a generic RH list that may be more appropriate. > Do you mean the RBL lists (where supposedly you get blacklisted by sending > spam), or do you mean a DUL list (where all dialup lines are blacklisted)? > In theory a good RBL list (which not only is amenable to blocking people > but also to UNblocking them) should not be that bad a thing. Maybe both? :-) Both have the ability to block entire networks....and do so. > Still, I prefer SpamAssassin's approach of analyzing the subject and > headers and even body text looking for clues, adding points, and > marking/deleting (at user's choice) anything exceeding a certain score. > Seems like pretty much the best approach out there today. I tend to agree. Of course that is hit/miss and a never ending battle. A fairly good non-technical article can be viewed at.... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/technology/22SPAM.html What I dislike (I have stronger words) is the guilt by association associated with the RBL's and the DUL's or whatever acronym is in use today. It is like saying "I saw a (insert ethnic group) man robbing a 7-11. I think all (same ethnic group) are bad people". Regards, Ed -- http://webcams.greshko.com/ Do you know this man, Peter Boeni? http://www.shorewall.net/ for all your firewall needs -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
