RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...

(While Dave's response to this is exactly correct - notihng in my original
note had anything to do with sacrificing small scale setups - our failure
to discuss these matters sensibly has some very important implications for
small operators that deserve further comment.)

> ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> > ...
> > Maybe it's just me, but I'll take the evidence presented by  someone
> > who has access to the operational statistics for a mail system
> > that services 10s of millions of end users and handles thousands of
> > outsourced email setups over someone like myself who runs
> > a tiny little setup any day.

> While large scale is important, small scale setups must not be sacrificed
> along the way.

Of course not. But that's precisely the effect our current approach - or
rather, non-approach, is having.

> We must not create a system where a small cartel of players
> hold the keys to 'interoperability' at the deployment level.

We're not creating much of anything - we seem to prefer endless religious
arguments and discussions of irrelevanyt anecdotes to actually getting stuff
done. And one of the results of this is that the big players, who would very
much like to see the development of standards for accessing reputation systems,
standards for so-called feedback loops, and so on and so forth, get tired of
waiting and simply roll their own. And when that happens the little guys have
no place at the table.

> Current
> filtering practice creates way too many false positives already because the
> large organizations can't afford to bother with identifying the source. My
> lowly server just handles my wife, myself, and my daughter's business, and
> way too often I hear complaints about bounces because largeispmailer.com is
> refusing to accept mail from an insignificant non-member-of-the-club server.

Exactly. You and I are not able to play because the standards for the
reputation systems and other antispam measure these guys are using are designed
in private with no consideration given to open access.

The way you change that is by, you know, codifying ways to do these things in
openly available standards. But we don't seem to be able to do that.

				Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf