On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me get this straight - You claim you already know of a specific user
> that is abusing you over and over. You complain that this ISP is not willing
> to help. I'm offering to help you, and I'm in the position to do so.
> Y
2008/7/24 Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How many people in this list thinks it's a good idea?
>
By default, yes. If someone needs to send email from localhost, let
them specifically request it from their ISP. Then they can't claim
stupid when SPAM is sent from their IP (be it static or dynamic)
1. vauge and general, what can I do with with misconfigured systems around the
globe? These system might not return a bounce for many other rejections/errors.
How can you *ever* know?
2. So now *you* are deciding for other people (say, Oleg) what to do with their
internet access? Who died and
Let me get this straight - You claim you already know of a specific user that
is abusing you over and over. You complain that this ISP is not willing to
help. I'm offering to help you, and I'm in the position to do so.
You refuse with the lame excuse I (or the company I work for) might sue you?
On Thursday, 24 בJuly 2008, Noam Rathaus wrote:
> Oh a friend of mine (thanks) pointed me to this:
> ISPs that block Port 25
>
> This list contains some of the major ISPs that block port 25 on their
> servers
That does not mean we want every ISP to copy their behaviour.
> Comcast ATTBI
Yes, th
shimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have any better solution? :)
Well, merits and downsides of different solutions may be (and are)
discussed at length. I do not intend to spend my time on it. However,
I do postulate the following: no solution that prevents me from doing
something perfectl
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Or did you just use users dial-up/DSL/cable IP ranges in your test,
> > which SHOULD be blacklisted (why would a home user need to emit SMTP
> > traffic on his own instead of his I
shimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or did you just use users dial-up/DSL/cable IP ranges in your test,
> which SHOULD be blacklisted (why would a home user need to emit SMTP
> traffic on his own instead of his ISP SMTP servers, where proper
> authentication and thus logging and auditing can be ta
It means they have 208 IPs that sent at least *one* spam in the past 7 days
from a range that includes 131070 hosts!
The way they are calculating it, it means it could be that they only got 208
spam emails in the last 7 days, and that was enough to block the whole A class.
I'm sorry, but this is
Oh a friend of mine (thanks) pointed me to this:
ISPs that block Port 25
This list contains some of the major ISPs that block port 25 on their servers
(http://www.postcastserver.com/help/Port_25_Blocking.aspx):
AT&T (can be unblocked at the request)
MindSpring
BellSouth
MSN
CableOne
NetZero
Chart
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Arik didn't disappear, maybe he has work to do beside answering emails here
> -
> I trust Arik to get back to you.
>
> > Only one person (Arik) complained about actual problem, and when I asked
> > for information he dis
You are again misreading what I wrote.
I never said we are not dealing with it, but that I don't think that
blocking people access all together is a good solution.
Again, you are clinging to *ONE* RBL, ignoring the *GOOD* scores at
other major RBLs.
Please don't distort my words.
-Original
Hi,
1) You are right, but not every plays by the rules, we recently had to prevent
ezmlm from sending bounces for unsubscribed people as it was being used for
spam, and getting us spam marked - so playing by the rules might be the right
thing, but it is not always the intelligent thing to do.
1. Usually it would block the sending system during the SMTP session - so if
the mail system you are using is properly configured you should get ALL the
bounces.
2. You ignored my repeated question - Do you think blocking port 25 all
together (as they suggest) is a good idea? Keep in mind that
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It means they have 208 IPs that sent at least *one* spam in the past 7 days
> from a range that includes 131070 hosts!
> The way they are calculating it, it means it could be that they only got
> 208 spam emails in the last 7
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can only assume you are addressing me.
>
Due to the latest trend of libel suits, I cannot confirm nor deny.
> You are just flaming now. You have no idea what we are doing to stop or
> fight spam, and this public list is
Hi,
This RBL, even if is a bit extremist, is something used by a few of our
customers's commercial spam filtering product.
So this affects not just me, but others, but I am getting the feeling here
that the messenger is getting shot, and we are giving a lean hand to the
ISPs, as it is too diff
Hi,
My last email on the subject :)
As it appears that some people are pro-ISP, some are con-ISP, and I don't care
which is which
All I wanted to see, whether this is a global issue, apparently it is, more
than one is willing to talk about it, I believe others simply don't know they
are black
Just my two cents, I checked a few IP addresses that are listed under the AS
of zahav.net.il, as well as the mail server of zahav.net.il
And it is very close to getting RBL blocked:
84.94.0.0/15 - ATTENTION Increased Listingrisk - Level 1 listed spammers
within the last 7 days 208 -Escalati
Hi,
I am not completely blocked, but I don't want to be partially blocked either.
At least two emails bounced (to two unique destinations) saying we were
blacklisted, I cannot tell you how many were blocked and didn't bounce - it
will take me days, if ever to know.
I will solve your security p
Imri,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Imri Zvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know abuse@ doesn't "really take care of users"? It seems like
> your whole response is generalizing and vague.
>
I know because if after two weeks from their reply that they will "handle
it" I see the same
Again, you are putting it as if you are completely blocked and you cannot send
mails at all. Can you please tell me how many of your mails were blocked due to
this listing, and to how many unique destinations?
Only one person (Arik) complained about actual problem, and when I asked for
informat
Imri,
Ok - don't block anything.
Continue as usual
I understand that this war was lost when I renewed my contract for server
hosting in Israel.
I should have seen this and moved them to somewhere better.
If that doesn't bring to light the issue - causes to to understand that this
needs to be
Noam,
You do realize that what you mean is that the ISP will block port 25 all
together - meaning, that all of you people running your own mail server
at home will be forced to use your ISP as a smarthost (either with
manual configuration, or using traffic redirection at the ISP routers).
I'm sur
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I am taking my "stuff" elsewhere, the ISP's responsibility is to provide
> service, and it should be good service - meaning stopping others from
> abusing
> the network, which in turn is used against me - as I am blocked in
Noam,
Again, and I will try to type it slowly so you can understand - You are
talking about *ONE* RBL, which is notorious for blocking whole AS, and
refusing to work with it's abuse departments. You are clinging to this
RBL listing as if being listed at this particular RBL means that we (as
in Isra
You misread it. If a dynamic and non-dynamic IP sits under the same AS number,
they will both get blacklisted, no matter if the dynamic IP was "clearly
marked" as dynamic and the static "clearly marked" as one.
They want the ISP to block port 25 all together from "dynamic IPs".
-Original M
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't dropped water into a boiling pan for nothing if you go here:
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>
> You will see that the IP (a hosted server):
> 192.117.232.213
>
> Is all ok, beside the last one
Hi,
I never said they marked the whole country, maybe you should read the email
better.
I asked why doesn't the ISP mark the AS of the dialup, and DSL, etc as a
separate entity - like hosting/teleco companies do in the US, and Europe.
If the answer (yours or theirs) is because we are:
1) Too s
Hi,
You are right, it is easy to get RBLed, and semi-easy to get out of an RBL,
but it doesn't help to email abuse@ or anything else, if your ISP is marked
as bad.
On Thursday 24 July 2008 14:31:48 Imri Zvik wrote:
> *Sigh* Don't you have anything better to do? I can report that Israeli
> ISPs
Hi,
Exactly you prove my point, you proved that none of the Israeli ISPs are doing
anything to:
1) Clearly mark what is an DSL, modem, etc connection so they will all be
listed as spammer by default
2) Clearly mark what are 'static'/'hosted' IP address so they will not fall
under category 1
3)
You are *SO* wrong.
It takes the following to get your whole AS blocked:
"UCEPROTECT-Level 3 lists all IP's within an ASN if more than 100 IP's, but
also a minimum of 0.2% of all IP's allocated to this ASN got Level 1 listed
within the last 7 days."
Now, to get listed in their Level 1 DB you n
Noam,
They are blocking the *WHOLE* AS, not IP ranges. They blocked the whole
AS number I'm using because 0.596 % of the ips in that AS sent "spam".
Do you think that is that reasonable.
I've just googled for that RBL, and found out a lot of ranting
(including a recent thread in NANOG). Apparently,
Sorry but I don't understand why you guys think I checked dynamic ranges?
I checked hosting ranges, and these SHOULD BE CLEAN, no one in the hosting
farm should be sending out SPAM, it is against the policy of the hosting
company, it is clearly written in the agreement you sign when you come in
Hi,
I haven't dropped water into a boiling pan for nothing if you go here:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
You will see that the IP (a hosted server):
192.117.232.213
Is all ok, beside the last one, which is due to the fact that Bezeq Int is
blacklisted, at first I thought it was just
*Sigh* Don't you have anything better to do? I can report that Israeli
ISPs get decent cooperation (well most of the times, and from most
RBLs). No one is going to block Israel completely.
If you have a specific email that was blocked, or a specific RBL (with
reasonable demands) you want to be rem
I'm sorry, but checking hosting/dynamic ranges is just misleading. It is
impossible to clean these ranges, and even though the ISPs try.
I don't know this specific RBL, but I don't think it's a widely used one
- Anyway, they "punish" whole AS numbers which seems quite harsh.
If you would _actually
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone here tried to get the Bezeq Internation, Barak or Netvision to
> get
> them off the blacklisting found here:
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>
> Apparently all the Israeli ISP are blacklisted
On 2008-07-24, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So you use an external service for emails?
>
> If so who?
>
> Otherwise, do you have you server in the US (or elsewhere) just for that?
>
Yes, I have a server in the US for handling email to dotancohen.com. I
use gmail for mailing li
Hi,
I have no idea who is the guy to talk to, anyone has an email list
of "manager" of ISP we can send our email to?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] won't cut it here.
On Thursday 24 July 2008 13:37:41 Omer Zak wrote:
> I have E-mailed my ISP about this.
>
> You may want to add to your E-mail to your ISP als
Hi,
So you use an external service for emails?
If so who?
Otherwise, do you have you server in the US (or elsewhere) just for that?
On Thursday 24 July 2008 13:14:26 Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 2008-07-24, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Has anyone here tried to get the Beze
I have E-mailed my ISP about this.
You may want to add to your E-mail to your ISP also your concerns that
since ALL Israeli ISPs are blacklisted, the entire country is in danger
of being backlisted as a country.
While the real reason for such an action would be political, the spam
handling situat
Hello all,
I'm trying to setup a temporary ad-hoc wireless connection between my
firewall (CentOS5) and my laptop. (F9, NM disabled)
The wireless connection will sit on the "red" side of the firewall (and
will be disabled most of the time), so passphrase security should be OK.
(At least for now)
On 2008-07-24, Noam Rathaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone here tried to get the Bezeq Internation, Barak or Netvision to get
> them off the blacklisting found here:
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>
> Apparently all the Israeli ISP are blacklisted here (any host you pu
Hi,
Has anyone here tried to get the Bezeq Internation, Barak or Netvision to get
them off the blacklisting found here:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
Apparently all the Israeli ISP are blacklisted here (any host you put there in
their hosting range) - and all because they don't have
FYI,
i removed the nfs-user-server and install nfs-kernel-server and
everything works now ...
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Erez D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi
>
> i have a diskless client booting with tftp and nfsroot (debian lenny on
> kurobox-pro, as client, pc with hardy64 as server)
>
>
46 matches
Mail list logo
