...
It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by "RBL" when he
repeats
that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a
product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims
that should not be used to reject mail sound silly.
Yes, "RBL" did indeed reject valid mail,
I never heard of any examples of mail considered valid by its targets
that was rejected as the result of RBL listings.
Maybe you ought to get out more.
Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to
theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate
by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL
listing?
Yes, but I'm not going to dig back through backup tapes looking from
complaints from users who didn't get their na-digests just because
you're in denial.
In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is
rejected by other peoples SMTP servers?
Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue
is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a blacklist.
I think that as long as
those using blacklists get what they ask for, no outsiders have any
business commenting, and particularly not would be senders of
unsolicited bulk mail.
Apparently you also think that it's acceptable to forward mail from
people you don't like to DCC, misrepresenting it as spam. The only
reasonable response to people with this kind of attitude ends with "and
the horse you rode in on". Actually, that's being far too polite.