[SpamCop-List] Re: DBSBL (ip4r) blocks all incoming messages

[Brian Stevens]

> If you're not aware that the use of DNSBLs on an MX has nothing to do
> with and is in no way influenced by the IP address of that MX, you
> shouldn't be running an MX.

My understanding was that it does a lookup of the sending server only but 
would it not be technically possible for a DNSBL to see who is asking and 
make to decision to reply that the message should be refused if the 
requestor was using a dynamic IP? There are bigots who believe that you 
can't be a responsible net citizen if you are on a dynamic IP. I will 
disagree until major ISP's like Rogers stop their highway robbery for static 
IPs. And yes I know why spammers like dynamic and proxies, etc. At one time 
Rogers provided me a static IP for $60/mth then they dropped support all 
together. Two years later they offer it again at $100 for a slower speed 
link!!!

> Secondly, if the MX software you're using doesn't have the ability to
> use DNSBLs built-in and requires the use of a third-party extension,
> maybe you should be looking at something slightly more modern, like
> post-1980s.

Many small businesses still use Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 which 
includes Exchange 2000. Upgrading to SBS 2003 with Exchange 2003 would be 
nice but would require +$$$ for new hardware and software. I needed to 
upgrade my Symantec AntiVirus anyway so this kills two birds with one stone.

> Thirdly, many here, myself included, are of the opinion that
> M$-sExchange shouldn't be exposed directly to a public network and that
> it should be front-ended by a real MTA such as Postfix, Exim or sendmail
> running on a Unix machine.

A front-end/back-end MX is slight overkill for a 5 user network. Why SBS 
2000? Because I support it for a number of customers. Why Microsoft? Because 
many small and large businesses including the likes of Accenture find that 
using Microsoft products reduces their TCO. The installed base of MS SBS 
software which supports networks of up to 75 computers is a fast growing 
segment of the market. By using the included ISA firewall software on a dual 
NIC server, these networks can be adequately protected from Internet hackers 
and all violations can be logged to a SQL server for further evaluation. I 
have been supporting MS Exchange for 10 years and it gets the job done thank 
you.

> In short, you're using an unsecure and feature-poor product on an
> unsecure O/S, while not knowing the mechanics of mail delivery.
> Believe me, you have bigger problems than trying to get your DNSBL
> extension not to reject all inbound mail.

Dozens of hackers from all over the world knock on my gateways every day but 
so far Microsoft with some help from Symantec is keeping them out. If you 
don't know some of the advantages of running Outlook on Exchange server then 
maybe you shouldn't be taking such a snobbish position. You won't find me 
trashing UNIX just because I support Microsoft. It has its place and I think 
many would agree that Microsoft does too. I certainly wouldn't want to go 
back to the monopolistic days when "IBM" and "computer" were synonymous 
terms. I also learned early in my career that the best technical product 
doesn't always win the market. That's why I decided in 1995 to join the 
Microsoft camp. I could see that the future was in small businesses just as 
in 1974 I decided the future was in personal computers when I started 
working for Datapoint. Datapoint's computers resembled the PC with an OS 
much like MS-DOS. Later they invented ARCNET and their next OS (around 
1980), RMS was a cross between UNIX and Multics - very secure. Great stuff 
but dead today!