On 12/10/2011 07:49, Vladimir Vassiliev wrote:
But first line says:
host imx1.rambler.ru[81.19.66.234] said: 452 4.7.1 Try again later (in reply to
DATA command)
How this connects with
relay=imx1.rambler.ru[81.19.66.235]:25, delay=0.38, delays=0.06/0/0.14/0.18,
dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.
On 09/08/2011 18:45, Peter Blair wrote:
fail their sniff test and that's a pretty good indicator that what
you're trying to do won't be very successful.
Or a disreputable one will take you money, hammer out your email and ruin your
business.
Jacqui
On 3/13/2011 4:57 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
How about one more thoughtful post at most and then a threadkill.
Join the spammers.dontlike.us list - its a good place to bring this sort of
general question up.
Join the ongoing marf standards list - it will affect us all!
Finally - there is no magic
Udo Rader wrote:
On 08/07/2010 05:40 AM, Dennis Carr wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
See Zip Attachment
I assumed this was a infection generated zip file...
I certainly had no intention of looking at it and from the email profile it would have
been bounced by wo
LuKreme wrote:
On 29-Jan-2010, at 18:20, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Their theory being that the default of ON makes it easier for spammers to
harvest addresses.
That's a pretty stupid theory though.
I recommend joining the spam-l list and joining the discussion there.
It was noted that the RFCs m
LuKreme wrote:
On 30-Dec-2009, at 11:43, Port Able wrote:
Do the online ESP's develop their own email servers?
Bwahahahahah! Um. No.
Excuse me!
A year or so ago we worked on a postfix mod to enable delivery rate
limiting and active MSP profile management. It did not work as well
as we hoped
LuKreme wrote:
On 24-Oct-2009, at 09:52, Wietse Venema wrote:
ram:
delay=180, delays=0.11/0/0.1/180, dsn=4.4.2, status=deferred
(conversation with 202.162.240.2[202.162.240.2] timed out while sending
message body)
Wietse:
You have set your SMTP client timeouts TOO LOW.
A timeout of 180s for
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Mark Goodge :
I agree. Sender verification has its uses, but it is *not* suitable
for use as an anti-spam tool on inbound email. At least one major
webmail provider is known to blacklist hosts that employ it
excessively.
So use it selectively only.
or use a third p
