On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:33:55PM -0500, redhat wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 20:09, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:23:38AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 00:02, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote: > > > > Blacklisting for an ISP is not a good thing but it can also be used to > > > > advantage. > > .... > > > If you follow this policy, the likely result is that all your nets would > > > end up blacklisted anyway. Many of the blacklists would initially list > > > only the "problem" net,... > > > > You are correct. However in this case the initial poster was at a > > Public Utility (electricity, phone, and ISP). I suspect that his > > service obligations as a utility might be different than many service > > providers. > > > > Almost all dial-up nets are known and if not blacklisted they are on a > > grey list. i.e. > > RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address > > > > In almost all 'utility' situations there must be a well documented > > process to turn off service. .... .... > Tom, > You have really hit the nail on the head. Being a public utility we are > under different constraints than a normal ISP. This one reason why I > did not post a response to many of the other replies to my initial > letter. Most people do not understand that we cannot just "turn off" a > customer like a regular ISP can. Nor can you reject mail from major ISPs the way that Paul's service can ;-). http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ Interesting.... -- T o m M i t c h e l l May your cup runneth over with goodness and mercy and may your buffers never overflow.
