3 ms·
It's not laziness; the intention of collateral blocklisting, as with UCEPROTECT L2 and L3, is punitive. Unfortunately the people it punishes are the legitimate
by Silhouette 5y ago
It's not laziness; the intention of collateral blocklisting, as with UCEPROTECT L2 and L3, is punitive.
Unfortunately the people it punishes are the legitimate users of both systems who only wanted the system to do its job and let them communicate. The bad actors will just move on and abuse another system instead.
- denton-scratch 5y ago> who only wanted the system to do its job and let them communicate "The system" you are referring to consists of a bunch of private networks. Your opinion about what the job of those networks is may not coincide with the opinions of the operators of those networks. Email is not a public service, and there is no entitlement to send whatever "vital business communications" you like to anyone you want. It's not even reasonable to require a postmaster to state what their rejection policy is; that would just tell spammers what they have to do to evade your blocks. If email doesn't work for your business, then switch to another channel, such as huge billboards or whatever. Ranting about blocklists isn't going to help, people have been doing that for two decades. I take it you've never run a mailserver?