On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Florian Sager <sager(_at_)agitos(_dot_)de>
wrote:
3) ISPs like earthlink.net with a high spam ratio didn't respond to our
offer to send them FBLs (I think they didn't understand the system,
professionality in abuse departments is very different)
Earthlink's actually got a great team and pretty good spam levels. I
guess though that a network in Germany would see a very skewed spam vs
ham distribution from them.
And again - for networks .. you might not know who to ask (do you
attend MAAWG regularly? if so you might have known who the people to
ask at Earthlink are .. they are very visible there)
CHANGED setup:
we just send ARFs to trusted, manually confirmed feedback addresses
(that were entered in http://service.dkim-reputation.org)
This is what we do by the way - and have done for all the years we
have operated our FBL (we started just after AOL did, and were the
first to switch 100% to ARF loops)
We might consider tying feedback loops to dkim d= (and treat i= as a
component of d= in that sum of i= published under a d= will be the sum
of d= reputation) .. but even there we'd insist on out of band, vetted
contacts .. as we tie our fbl to a strong whitelist.
srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html