From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 20:23:29 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:20:15AM +0100, mouss wrote:

> >Sure it is, provided that the owner of the netblock in question does not
> >allow outbound e-mail by "policy" (hence the "P" in PBL).
> >
>
> well, for one, they say:
>
> "Additional IP address ranges are added and maintained by the Spamhaus
> PBL Team, ..."

There are two PBLs, the 127.0.0.10 listings (owner) and the 127.0.0.11
listings (SpamHaus), one is free to use either or both. At last count
there are:

        219627507 SpamHaus listed IPs
         46254083 Owner listed IPs

I early January this was 190,000,000 vs 4,000,000. Draw your own
conclusions.

> This would hardly be described as "the owner of the netblock does not
> allow outbound e-mail by policy".

This is what 127.0.0.10 is for.

> secundo, if the said policy of the said owner is good, why doesn't he
> enforce it (block outbound stmp is one among other possibilities).

This allows the users to reach port 25 services that they are legitimately
allowed to use, where 587 is not an option for one reason or another.

The PBL has an easy self-delisting policy, the FP rate from this RBL
is going to be substantially lower than the best content filters, don't
sweat it.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]