Re: Website link for 86.31.226.85

[ Note: I do not represent DSBL. I just track [email protected] to keep abreast
of possible issues that might affect my use of DSBL, and occasionally I help
out with questions. You may get responses from other subscribers to
[email protected], possibly even with dissenting opinions. ]

In this case, I completely agree with Alexey's earlier response, but 
would like to throw in my two cents to give a different perspective.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Stanley Accrington wrote:

> Why are you messing me about?

What makes you think anyone has it out for you? Don't answer that; but 
despite the occasional allegation to the contrary, DSBL does not cause 
significant "collateral damage" when used within its design envelope 
(which means using it to reject mail sent "direct to MX" from an IP 
address listed on list.dsbl.org). As a corporate postmaster I get to see 
all complaints about inappropriately blocked e-mail from my 10,000 
users, and content based filtering is orders of magnitude worse than all 
IP-based blocklists we use combined (and content based filtering is 
about the only thing one can key off, after IP-based filtering has been 
disqualified, as you seem to advocate).

> I was not sending e-mail but commeting on a blog.

DSBL was not designed to protect blogs. As Alexey pointed out, there are 
compelling reasons to use DSBL in this fashion, and some webmasters get 
good mileage out of it, but this use is outside the design envelope. 
DSBL does not and cannot control the use its list is being put to.

Unfortunately, the block list most suited for protecting blogs, Blitzed, 
was shut down after its donated hardware died. I hope you are aware that 
DSBL is not a commercial venture either, and that commercial offerings 
to protect blogs against Trojaned home PC's are, to the best of my 
knowledge, nonexistent.

> Ironically I was commenting about the incompetence of many companies 
> selling themselves as centres of web expertise. Should I report you to 
> ICANN ot just to your clients who would have appreciated my witty and 
> informative comment.

DSBL doesn't have paying clients. If you find any, feel free to tell 
them they're being ripped off.

Of course, feel free to engage whomever uses DSBL in a way it wasn't 
designed to be used. Do be prepared to get an earful about the sheer 
number of badly run ISPs though. In my experience, people who pick DSBL 
know bloody well what they're doing, especially the people who use it 
for purposes it wasn't designed to achieve.

> BTW I am a UK based IT consultant who writes in the British press as 
> well as advising many top companies.

You may wish to do a comparison of British ISPs. You may be surprised at 
just how long some of them take to quaranteen a Trojaned user's PC, and 
you may be shocked at learning how many do not take any action (whether 
proactive or reactive) after being informed. Or, for that matter, how 
much abuse they think is acceptable from any given user as long as the 
user is a victim too.

The bottom line is this. DSBL can probably best be described as an 
automated clearinghouse for demonstrated security issues with IP 
addresses; issues which would allow sending unauthorized e-mail spam 
from said IP address. Anyone using it to block other forms of Internet 
abuse is sending you a message, and you'd better take it up with them.

I apologize beforehand for any Americanisms that crept in. Apologise, 
whatever, I'm not using a spell checker either, and I'm not a native 
speaker.

Cheers,

                                -- Bert