Re: Are the GCC lists intended to be open lists?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:11:28AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Koning writes:
>
>Paul> In particular, the list policy explicitly states that it blacklists a
>Paul> large block of addresses of Sprint customers, on the grounds that the
>Paul> list manager has some gripe with Sprint.  (Note: he didn't block
>Paul> Sprint -- he blacklisted third parties who happen to use the "wrong"
>Paul> ISP.) 
>
>The explanation on the 510 group website for the Sprint policy is:
>
>"NOTE: we are currently listing large blocks of Sprint address space
>for their failure to remove the DNS server at 65.174.218.253 which is
>being used by Ralsky to support running spamvertised sites on a variety
>of dialup links.  If you get connectivity thru Sprint, you might want
>to call your sales representative and complain.  Sprint won't listen to
>non-customers; perhaps they will listen to their customers."
>
>We can debate whether that policy is going too far, but that is more
>than "some gripe" with Sprint.  If you are going to complain, present
>all the facts.

The other fact is that if you find yourself blocked by the gcc.gnu.org
spam blocking software, it's easy to add yourself to a global allow list.

This is what I did for Paul Koning after I noticed that he was being
blocked yesterday.  I sent him email informing him of that fact and
indicated how he could unblock himself in the future.

After receiving my message, he tried to unblock himself using the method
that I outlined, apparently doing so from another account, which
required moderator approval.

I had been operating under the assumption that the bounce message that
people get when they are caught by an RBL outlined the method for
removing yourself from the