On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Deric Kwok wrote:
Our upstream provider said that destination network is blocking our ip.
Now my question is how we can know it
you can't really, if they do things right. (Aside from just not getting there)
Have you tried contacting the destination network.
My point exactly, I am perfectly happy authenticating and relaying
through either my MX at the office or with Google's SMTP server. But I
just can't do that if SMTPoSSL ports are blocked by some lazy net
admin.
And I definitely hate it when I have to "pay" (in terms of delay and
overhead) the pric
>
>
>
> In a perfect world we would all have as many static globally routed IP
> addresses as we want with nothing filtered, in the real world a
> residential ISP who gives their customers globally routable IPv4
> addresses for each computer (ie. a CPE that supports multiple
> computers without
On 25 Oct 2011, at 09:34, "Tim" wrote:
> This sadly is very common. It is getting more common by the day it seems but
> this practice has started almost a decade ago.
>
> An easy work around is to use a custom port as they seem to just block port
> 25 as a bad port but leave just about everythin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo providers
> don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only) customers.
Yes, hosting. I did indeed misspeak.
Hello
I run a few Wordpress sites here and there, but I'm amazed at the
amount of spam that comes from xsserver.eu's clients. Their abuse
department is non-responsive: they do not even have auto responders to
emails and the offending IP addresses keep spamming weeks after my
email.
I have CC'd my
We provide service to about 1,000 public schools and libraries in the
state of Maine.
For those users, we block SMTP (port 25 only) traffic unless it goes
through our smarthost for incoming mail, and our mail-relay for
outgoing mail.
Otherwise we would be constantly ending up on blacklists, as ma
2011/10/25 Jay Ashworth
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Keegan Holley"
>
> > I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo providers
> > don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only)
> customers.
>
> Most?
>
> I'm sure there are exceptions to that
- Original Message -
> From: "Keegan Holley"
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Keegan Holley"
> >
> > > I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo
> > > providers
> > > don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only)
> > customers.
> >
>
On Oct 24, 2011 7:55 AM, "Robert Bonomi" wrote:
>
>
> > You can even download it all and erase yourself
if
> > you want out.
>
> Don't count on it. You may 'disappear' from public view, but that does
> not necessarily mean the data is truely 'gone'. Specific example -- i
> From: "steve pirk [egrep]"
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:24:04 -0700
> Subject: Re: Facebook insecure by design
>
> On Oct 24, 2011 7:55 AM, "Robert Bonomi" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > You can even download it all and erase yourself if
> > > you want out.
> >
> > Don't count on it. Yo
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12:33AM -0400, Chris wrote:
> Before somebody screams the path of least resistance of "just install
> Akismet or (insert spam plugin here)", that type of thinking just
> makes spam even worse because we just keep large, possibly stale,
> databases of IP addresses that ma
For folks who do not understand, I'm trying to "McColo" XSServer so
their lack of response in regards to abuse is gone rather than the
suggestions of scripting (guess you didn't read the full text of the
email) or you pushing a product on me because you work for the ISP
that the product is hosted o
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:24:23PM -0600, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Firewalls are perfectly valid and I have no general objection to
> filtering packets based on the policy set by a site. What I object to is
> having someone I pay to move my packets tell me that they won't move
> some of those packets b
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12:33AM -0400, Chris wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations of where to go next because I'm
> just limited to doing a whois on the IP address, emailing the abuse
> contact and tracerouting.
Chris,
Can't help much - but can say we find ourselves in a similar boat
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell
wrote:>
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
system integrator -- I've never seen an "in house" network run like that.
(and for the record, they were charging for that shitty network ac
On our retail footprint we block outbound traffic from customers with dynamic
IPs towards port 25, our support tells them to use their ISP's port 587
server That being said, since all of our home users have 50 mbit/sec or
greater upload speeds we are pretty paranoid about the amount of spa
All,
After a fantastic meeting in Philadelphia we're getting ready to provide you with another content rich
meeting at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego. Registration is now open for the meeting, and you can
take advantage of the Early Bird Registration Discount and save $75 by registeri
In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell
> wrote:>
> > Why do they do that?
>
> You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
> system integrator -- I've never seen an "in house" network run like that.
> (and for the reco
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:47:03 -0400
Chris wrote:
> For folks who do not understand, I'm trying to "McColo" XSServer so
> their lack of response in regards to abuse is gone rather than the
> suggestions of scripting (guess you didn't read the full text of the
> email) or you pushing a product on me
Jack Bates wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has a pointer on traffic manipulation for
classified traffic.
Basics, I have a really cheap transit connection that some customers are
paying reduced rates to only use that connection (and not my other
transits). Though I've considered support for cases
Anyone using a CACHEbox? I need to know if they can operate as a layer 2
bridge/proxy.
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Oct 2011, at 23:13, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell
>> wrote:>
>>> Why do they do that?
>>
>> You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
>> system integrator -- I've never s
> On our retail footprint we block outbound traffic from customers with dynamic
> IPs
> towards port 25, our support tells them to use their ISP's port 587 server
> That being said, since all of our home users have 50 mbit/sec or greater
> upload
> speeds we are pretty paranoid about the amou
On 27/10/11 11:11, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell
>> wrote:>
>>> Why do they do that?
>> You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
>> system integrator -- I've never seen an "in house" net
> McColo and Atrivo were disconnected for much larger sins than spamming
> someone's wordpress blog.
Many of you do not understand the scope of "just spamming a Wordpress blog".
This is a huge business. Shady "SEO" companies are charging
individuals at least $250 per month to use their spam tools
In message <4ea8a021.9000...@blakjak.net>, Mark Foster writes:
> On 27/10/11 11:11, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message , "Ricky Beam" writes:
> >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell
>
> >> wrote:>
> >>> Why do they do that?
> >> You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'
- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Andrews"
> Now most people don't care about this but you shouldn't have to get
> a business grade service just to have secure email sessions and if
> you want to run a SMTP server to do that you are not changing the
> amount of traffic going over the con
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
> users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
> user.
>
MAAWG have considered this a best practice for residential/dynamic IPs since
2005 - http:
On 10/26/2011 10:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
> wrote:
>
>> Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
>> users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
>> user.
And it's not just 25. I'm on Charter,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
> days...
>
> to-local-domain, no auth needed.
> relay, auth needed.
>
> auth required == TLS required.
>
> Anything else on either port seems not best practice to me.
>
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
> days...
>
> to-local-domain, no auth needed.
> relay, auth needed.
>
> auth required == TLS required.
>
> Anythi
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:22:53 -0400
Chris wrote:
> > McColo and Atrivo were disconnected for much larger sins than
> > spamming someone's wordpress blog.
>
> Many of you do not understand the scope of "just spamming a Wordpress
> blog".
I do understand the scope of shady SEO companies.
> This i
33 matches
Mail list logo
