Re: ATTN: Tom Lane

Tom Lane wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid2069.1024022650@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">David Ford <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:david+cert@blue-labs.org"><david+cert@blue-labs.org></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Tom, if you block everyone on cable, dialup, dsl, and adsl, then you're
probablyblocking a lot of legitimate mail.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
 
David, let me explain this in words of one syllable: I am currently
rejecting upwards of 2000 spam messages per day.  If I did not have
extremely stringent filters in place, email would be completely
useless to me.

Advice suggesting that I weaken my filters will be ignored with as much
grace as I can muster, which on most days is not a lot.

This is what comes of having several well-publicized email addresses :-(</pre></blockquote> I sympathize with your
pain.  However, I've found that the five-ten-sg.com list is ofter overly aggressive.  There are many other RBL's that
arenot as aggressive and used in combination provide very good results.   Also, you could even try SpamCop's RBL, if
yourso inclined.<br /><br /> I could not post from my work address to any of the lists strictly because of the
five-ten-sg.comRBL.  They blocked everything from BellSouth's IP allocation blocks.   They only way around it is to beg
themto allow you a static IP and the ask to have that IP unbanned from the RBL.   It's a lot of work.<br /><br /> RBL's
aregood, but I think the one that blocked David Ford and myself  is perhaps a little too strong.<br /><br /> Just my
twocents.<br /><br /> Thomas<br /><br />