[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The anti-abuse rDNS check that FTP gave up
On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I don't know which ones are responsible and which ones aren't. But the idea that some third party gets to say, effectively, whether your mail gets delivered, and you have no recourse against that third party, is fundamentally broken and intolerable.
> That third party doesn't "get to say" whether your mail gets delivered.
I did say "effectively".
> The recipient of your message asks a third party for their opinion of you, and then your recipient makes a decision on whether your mail gets delivered/accepted or not.
> Perhaps you need to re-examine your understanding of how DNSBLs actually operate.
I understand them quite well. It's called dilution of responsibility. It's a great mechanism for causing harm while escaping blame. The destination MTA blames the RBL, the RBL blames the MTA, the end users get screwed.