On 2/26/21 2:10 PM, b...@uu3.net wrote:
> Hmm right... Somehow I tought that having that special Null MX
> will silently discard message... I dont know why...
>
> So, RFC 7505 is pretty much even pointless in my opinion.
> You have to do more.. to pretty much achieve the same..
> Its just easier to
On 10/28/19 1:43 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Hi,
This is not an assumption, it is my experience.
Mine as well. My mail server's PTR records are identical for IPv4 and
IPv6. IPv6 fails and IPv4 is fine. I disabled IPv6 for gmail.com.
Sorry it didn't fit your case.
-
Alain
On 5/24/19 11:36 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 08:17:31AM -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
Anne, the way that such addresses are often harvested is that one of
the spammers (or his agent) becomes a member of the list and simply
records the addresses of persons posting to the list.
On 3/19/19 10:49 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:23:34AM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
We would prefer, but don't require, that you use the web form because that
is integrated into the workflow of the groups that respond to those
reports.
Why isn't abuse@ integrated into the w
On 10/23/2018 08:47 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Sorry all. I misread Owen's email. I'm not trying to air his private
business to the list.
There is no secret - a quick search on the terms HE, Cogent and peering
(and possibly cake) will give you the answer. Presumably Owen is not
expounding because
On 06/29/18 13:53, Daniel Corbe wrote:
Can someone from Comcast contact me off list?
Your customers can’t reach my network right now.
They appear to have a nationwide outage:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=comcast%20xfinity%20outage&src=typd
--
John
PGP Public Key: 412934AC
On 06/01/2018 08:47 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
On 06/01/2018 05:24 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 06:56 CEST]:
The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key
On 05/31/2018 02:37 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
favor of Tucows/EPAG.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
Welcome to contact-free whois?
-Dan
Already been bitt
https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/gmail.com
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:49:31 -0400
Josh Luthman wrote:
> Web interface is broken, downdetector sure sees activity. This
> attempt is from mobile.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH
Mine, whilst not identifying me personally, has detail down to the
correct town and zipcode.
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:30:31 -0500
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> > Contrary to your repeated assertions, HE tunnels are NOT anonymous.
> >
> > HE operates a perfectly fine
The whois information on the HE IPv6 address, does give the location.
At least, it does on mine.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:03:16 -0400
Spencer Ryan wrote:
> As an addendum to this and what someone said earlier about the
> tunnels not being anonymous: From Netflix's perspective they are. Yes
> HE kn
I too reported this issue here and an AOL postmaster contacted me
offlist and got our servers sorted.
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:54:13 -0600
Blake Hudson wrote:
> Aaron, I reported an issue here almost a month ago (521 5.2.1 : AOL will
> not accept delivery of this message). AOL support did, eventu
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:30:17 -0600
Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>
> John Peach wrote on 11/19/2015 8:08 AM:
> > Has anyone else with relatively large volumes of email seen a huge
> > spike in rejections from AOL recently?
> Yes.
>
> > There is no obvious reason why t
Has anyone else with relatively large volumes of email seen a huge
spike in rejections from AOL recently?
There is no obvious reason why they are being rejected as it is a
generic message:
Nov 18 12:10:39 pp-serve02 sendmail[1391]: tAIHAcPT001383:
mailin-04.mx.aol.com.: SMTP DATA-2 protocol error
I added this to my postfix header_checks:
/^Subject:.*\bFw: new message/ REJECT No more new messages
please
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:13:58 -0700
anthony kasza wrote:
> Has there been a recent uptick in crap sent to the list or is it just
> me? Is there anything that we can do to filter
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:06:56 -0700
"Paul B. Henson" wrote:
> > From: John Peach
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:02 AM
> >
> > smtps was deprecated years ago and is not implemented in postfix,
> > hence the need for stunnel. I should have said they don&
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:38:13 -0700
"Paul B. Henson" wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 05:35:35PM -0400, John Peach wrote:
> > and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I
> > can send email from home because they don't even use TLS. H
The only reason I have FIOS is because they gave me a 2 year deal of
15/15 internet for $30/month. Their advertising is basically just lies
and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I can
send email from home because they don't even use TLS. Having said
that, I have an H
-
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> ----
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:30 AM, John Peach
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:24:10 -0500
> > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:11:07
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:24:10 -0500
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:11:07 -0500, Jay Ashworth said:
> > I will give them their props: I only had to sign in *once*, last
> > year; their auth controller has recognized my MAC address at every
> > spot I've used since.
>
> Actu
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
No, it's not
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:16:58 -0700
Stuart Sheldon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Yeah, it looks like it's down
>
> stu
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2014 10:14 AM, Brian Christopher Ra
traceroute to 2001:500:84::b (2001:500:84::b) from 2a04:840:0:2::8baf:41a6, 30
hops max, 24 byte packets
1 2a04:840:0:2::1 (2a04:840:0:2::1) 0.299 ms 0.299 ms 1.03 ms
2 2a00:1c10:3:667::a (2a00:1c10:3:667::a) 1.172 ms 1.42 ms 1.355 ms
3 rtr-23-121-141-2914.thn.v6.custdc.net (2a00:1c10:
Looks to be godaddy. No surprise then.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:56:59 -0400
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:21:34 -0600, Steven Briggs said:
> > Yeah...I know. Unfortunately, the domain was "mishandled" by our
> > registrar, who imposed their own TTLs on our zone, THEN tur
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:46:59 -0500
Jorge Amodio wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying
> >
> > The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back
> >
>
> Who is we ?
If you bothered to read the 1st paragraph you wou
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:47:03 -0600
Randy wrote:
> I'm hoping to reach out to google's gmail engineers with this message,
> Today I noticed that for the past 3 days, email messages from my
> personal website's pop3 were not being received into my gmail inbox.
> Naturally, I figured that my pop3
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:05:36 -0400
shawn wilson wrote:
> can some op filter this asshole?
>
Please stop forwarding the whole message; I'd already dropped him in my
procmail rules.
--
john
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:52:23 -0400
Christopher Singhaus wrote:
> Not sure if this is the right list to send this out to, but I figured
> I'd give it a try. I'm looking for anyone with a contact at
> Eircom.net. Customers on their network are continually trying to
> brute force RDP machines on our
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:32:42 -0800
Everett Batey wrote:
> facebook.com DNS not found 20120218 2125 UTC
> Is there any outage information for DNS for facebook.com / www.facebook.com
> ?
> "Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.facebook.com"
Not here
dig +trace www.facebook.com
; <<>> DiG 9
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:27:05 +0100
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> toor (lists) writes:
> > I use http://www.startssl.com/ for all my personal certifcates. I have
> > not had any issues with the validations (once you have an account you
> > can validate a domain by sending an email to a predefined list of
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:30:47 +
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:20:08PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Randy Epstein
> > wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> I missed the part where ARIN turned over its address database w/
> associ
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:36:08 -0600
"John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\)" wrote:
> Well look what was in my in-box this morning! Looks like Barracuda
> Networks is sending out spam again. Maybe word is getting around
> about their less that value-full renewal policy. Could it be that
> people are starting
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:25:56 -0400
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:39:13 EDT, John Peach said:
> > not really, given that he is not the sender, the mailing list is
>
> We want to get pedantic, who generated the Message-ID: for the
> mail in ques
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 03:50:08 +
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> John,
>
> Bit hard for Geoff to devnull them, he is the author ;-)
not really, given that he is not the sender, the mailing list is
>
>
[snip]
> --
> John
>
>
--
John
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 23:17:58 +0200
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> John Peach (john-nanog) writes:
> > > Normally I'd have just made this point privately, and perhaps only on
> > > Futures, but since it seems to be a recent change, I'm doing the public
> > >
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:51:55 -0700
Lynda wrote:
>
> I see that someone has instructed Mailman to munge the reply-to. Please
> don't do that. I was about to make a *private* reply to someone, and
> realized that the setting had changed, and that I was trapped into
> replying to the list.
>
>
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:26:36 +1100
Geoff Huston wrote:
> While I am at it, does anyone read this report, or is this weekly report also
> just part of the spam load on this list?
If you don't want them, filter them to /dev/null.
>
> regards,
>Geoff
--
John
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:45:55 -0400
Rafael Rodriguez wrote:
> I recommend you look into the Juniper SSL VPN products (SA Series). Very
> power boxes, intuitive admin interface (web driven) and are perfect for the
> "Vendor Access" type of applications.
They work fine (mostly), but your definitio
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 -0400
Steve Richardson wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher
> wrote:
> > Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they
> > requested a "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can
> > only think of one reas
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:11:21 -0400
Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 6/5/2011 19:39, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > The title is misleading, as this is more about "denying" access. But
> > this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
> > operational implications, but every operator to see this w
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
goe...@anime.net wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> > as a european provider, we have no liability whatsoever for what customers
> > do or do not do
>
> about the best reason i can think of for listing this block until the heat
> de
Common phishing scam; we see them all the time, nearly always from
accounts which have been compromised by others who respond to the same
scam.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:30:53 -0600
imNet Administrator wrote:
> Is anyone else getting spam similar to this:
> I started getting this (albeit in Englis
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:20:30 -0500
cocoloco wrote:
> Anyone have a working contact for the msn.com NOC? I tried the email
> listed in Arin - n...@microsoft.com and it bounces back.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
whois msn.com
Tech Email... msn...@microsoft.com
Tech Phone... +1.4258828
Waste of time; I don't accept email from them, it's all spam.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
goe...@anime.net wrote:
> Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
>
> I have tried the usual channels (ab...@limestonenetworks.com, phone calls,
> "live chat"
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:14:15 -0500
William Warren wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 12:00 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
> > It appears the site is under a sustained attack, CNET reports.
> >
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024966-38.html
> >
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> It's only their main w
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:17:30 -0600
Jorge Amodio wrote:
> > However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the
> > government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so
> > thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses
> >
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:16:04 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
> > Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >
> >> John Peach writes:
> >>
> >>> It's common k
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Peach writes:
>
> > It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
> > say.
>
> It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
> never gone anywhere, a
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200
Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Peach writes:
>
> > It is on all Linux distros:
> >
> > ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>
> So file bug reports.
With IANA?
It's common knowledge that 465 is
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:39:33 +
Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > >> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port
> > >> for STMPS.
> > >
> > > It is? That's not what's recorded at:
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
> > >
> > > urd 465/tcpURL Rendesvo
It does not need MS DNS. $dayjob uses Infoblox appliances (BIND under
the hood) for DNS and it works fine with AD. You just need to make sure
you allow the Domain Controllers to do dynamic updates (AD uses SRV
records).
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:04:49 -0600
Tom Mikelson wrote:
> Presently our orga
On Thu, 27 May 2010 21:26:27 +0200
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-05-27, at 20:47, jacob miller wrote:
>
> > Am running an application on Sco Unix but am having the following problem.
> >
> > Application is hunging sporadically.
>
> That seems consistent with my memory of SCO Unix.
>
>
Did yo
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:03 +1000
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> --- Forwarded Message
[snip]
>
> : host firewall.verizonbusiness.com[199.249.25.205] said: 530
> 5.7.1 This system is not an open relay.: n...@uunet.ca (in reply to RCPT
> TO
> command)
I sent verizonbusiness a complaint a
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:48:38 -0700
Jim Burwell wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> > Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
> >
> >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
> >> David Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are some classical case
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen wrote:
> There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
> machine in a batch, resetting the counter used to number them, etc.; unless
> shown otherwise, these are likely to be errors, not accidental collisions.
>
>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:00:45 -0500
Tim Sanderson wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE
> INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT
> IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:49:25 -0800
"Tomas L. Byrnes" wrote:
> Right, because GCHQ doesn't/hasn't/never would do such a thing...
>
plonk - moron
--
John
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:28:41 -0800
Scott Howard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> >> Barracuda's engineers apparently think
> >> that using SPF stops backscatter -- and it most emphatically does not.
> >>
Damn forms; whatever happened to abuse@ addresses?
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:39:20 -0700
Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:54 AM, John Peach
> wrote:
> > Does anyone know how to get Yahoo abuse to recognize that they're
> > hosting a phishing site? All I
Does anyone know how to get Yahoo abuse to recognize that they're
hosting a phishing site? All I can ever get back from them is
boilerplate telling me they know how frustrating it is to get spam,
that it did not originate from them and how to read the headers. Not
half as frustrating as their ignor
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:10:22 -0800
"Scott Weeks" wrote:
>
>
> Did anyone here get spam from this idiot? It appears someone is
> harvesting email addresses from nanog.
>
> If you do get any contact from this company PLEASE do not do business
> with them and tell them you don't buy from spamme
It's a phishing scam:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=7918&rss
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:41:07 -0700
Blake Pfankuch wrote:
> I too have been receiving these to my spamtrap domain... again any
> ideas to combat this would be helpful.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shane Ronan [mai
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:28:41 +0100 (CET)
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Are this Blacklistservers since x-mas down. We receive in the last
> > days many errors from this servers...
>
> > Exemple enclosed Anonymsed.
> > Greeting
> > Xaver
> >
> > Dec 31 10:12:37 linux-1ij2 named[14306]: t
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:48:35 -0800
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote:
> >>> ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole
> >>> Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being
> >>>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:16:15 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Michael Peddemors
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Could you elaborate on what constitutes correct swip information?
> >>
> >
> > Sure, you just opened the door to my opinions on this :)
> >
>
> Dysfunctional
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:25:27 -0800
Michael Peddemors wrote:
> >
> > Could you elaborate on what constitutes correct swip information?
> >
>
> Sure, you just opened the door to my opinions on this :)
>
hmmm - odd that the 2 you chose to show as wrong, both feature highly
in my postfix reject_
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:09 -0500
David Ulevitch wrote:
> On 11/9/09 6:06 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
> > Anything else is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand how or
> > why this could possibly be controversial.
>
> Because some people want the ability and choice to block DNS
> response
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:10:43 -0800
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
> I don't think AT&T cares, since I complained about a massive snowshoe
> spamming campaign a couple of months ago--no action taken it
> seems--and they have netblocks all over the place there. A bunch of
> customers were calling me sinc
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:24:35 -0700
Charles Wyble wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/09 2:19 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
> > Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> >> Barring that, what recommendations might the NANOG community have for
> >> an extremely rock-solid e-mail hosting company? I realize that may
> >> mean self-prom
netmask:
netmask 192.168.0.0/30 192.168.0.4/30 10.0.0.16/29
10.0.0.16/29
192.168.0.0/29
Certainly available in the ubuntu repositories.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:00:16 -0500
"Ric Moseley" wrote:
> Does anyone know of a tool/script that can aggregate subnets feed to
> it via command
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:12:33 +1000
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4a9c45d2.1000...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> > na...@wbsconnect.com wrote:
> > > Any and all nefarious activity alleged in this lawsuit was
> > > conducted by a c
> > ustomer, of a customer, of a customer yet the host
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:34:58 -0500
James Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Christopher
> Morrow wrote:
> > >From www.sorbs.net:
> > "It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
> [snip]
>
> You might want to read the June 25th update they made to the
> announce
Turn off whatever you have listening on port 80.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:25:48 -0400
Mark Price wrote:
> Turn off your DSL modem for awhile, and hope for a new dynamic IP?
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Charles Wyble
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I'm currently experiencing a D
On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:46:38 -0400
"Matt Liotta" wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
>
> > Why do you believe people which are using Level 3 are not aware
> > what it is
> > doing?
>
> I am guessing the emails from uninformed victims wondering why their
> mail is
On 25 Mar 2009 11:52:20 -
John Levine wrote:
> >> And yes indeed, its a way for us to automate termination of
> >> spammers, and to discover other patterns (in signup methods / spam
> >> content etc) that we can use to update our filters.
> >
> >That's a great theory. Would you be willing
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:16:49 -0500
"TJ" wrote:
> > The SOX auditor ought to know better. Any auditor that
> > requires NAT is incompenent.
>
> Sadly, there are many audit REQUIREMENTS explicitly naming NAT and
> RFC1918 addressing ...
SOX auditors are incompetent. I've been asked abo
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:18:20 +0100
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Foster wrote:
> > deadfake.com offer anonymised email services with no signup. Does
> > this not immediately raise questions in itself?
> >
> > Or am I just unnaturally suspicious of such services?
> >
> > Have to a
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:16 -0500
Chris Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> So should I have bounced all 4,602? Since ninety some percent of
> them came from forged addresses that would not only be pointless but
> would be contributing to the problem (and get us into bl.spamcop.com).
>
77 matches
Mail list logo
