RFCI

[Paul Howarth]

David Cary Hart wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 17:12 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> 
> 
>>That's right, I don't accept mail from random addresses in domains that 
>>don't have working postmaster addresses. If someone in that domain is 
>>causing an issue, who could I report it to? I would ask you to contact 
>>your ISP and ask them to fix this RFC non-compliance in their mail 
>>system, or, if it's already fixed (the listing shown at 
>>http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=verizon.net 
>>indicates a "disk full" error dating back to 2002), to remove their 
>>listing from rfc-ignorant.org.
>>
> 
> FWIW, it works now. I've never had much luck with RHSBLs. Jim Seymour
> has written "RFCI's listing criteria takes RFC requirements far too
> literally, in my opinion, and, some argue, interprets them incorrectly."

Well, RFCI is more about making political statements about 
standards-adherence than blocking spam, but, with the addition of a 
suitable whitelist, I find it does actually keep out a fair bit of spam 
because spammers aren't too good at being standards-compliant. However, 
this is more of a beneficial side-effect than a primary reason for using it.

As with any DNSBL, anyone contemplating using it should look carefully 
at the listing/de-listing policies for themselves first.

Cases of debatable interpretation (e.g. the roaringpenguin issue) are 
best brought up on the RFCI list where they can be discussed. If 
consensus is that interpretation is wrong, it gets changed.

Paul.