On 9/28/20 1:54 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
Different folks have different views on abuse reports, and that's perfectly OK. But "taking it up with list XYZ" isn't going to change that (see discussion on NANOG a few months ago on this very topic =D) - people are always going to have their own views on who's responsibility it is to solve "abuse" (under their current definition). My personal abuse policy is "I reach try to help you, but if you keep sending the same automated stuff over and over and don't reply when I reach out, I drop your mails". I figure there are several Tor exit node operators with similar policies and collaborating on such blocklists would save all of us with similar policies time.
Absolutely. I suspect the problem is ideological. The abuse resolution camp seems to be largely subscribe to the "force ISPs to identify abusers and ban them" model. They do not want to hear about mitigation strategies or alternatives, other than their banhammer and abuse notice spamming approaches. Making a banlist of banhammer spammers like that is a brilliant move.
I grew so tired of my personal email sever constantly ending up in DNSRBLs for no reason (even with DKIM and SPF), that after 20 years of DIY email, I was forced to moved to paid provider.
This model is broken, its assumptions are contrary to our values, and it serves to support the business interests of tech oligarchs that believe that the world should be run by a handful of oligarchical ISPs and email providers, with government-issued identity for all.
Fuck that.
Good luck, Matt! Thanks for being awesome!
P.S. Your mails ended up in my provider's spam filter. Dug them out for great justice ;)