On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 09:20:35AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
> I had a look though the README file in masses dir. You end up sending in
> files with lines like:
>
> . 3 /home/jm/Mail/MissedSpam/36 SUBJ_HAS_Q_MARK,WANTS_CREDIT_CARD,SUPERLONG_LIN
>
>
> I would guess you could easily convert you
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> | Has anyone tried GA on the various RBL tests?
>
> No. The GA and DNSBLs don't mix very well. DNSBLs (theoretically)
> can change at any moment, so a DNSBL check is really only meaningful
> for messages received at the time the check is made.
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:45:35AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> | (I'm a bit sensitive about this right now as I just discovered that the
> | entire block of IPs that my new DSL provider uses, are in the DUL.
>
> Nevertheless, the DUL isn't
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 04:51:22AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
| > Dallas Engelken wrote:
| > > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/
| > > Are you guys serious!!
| > >
| > > That's blocking over 250,000 hosts!!! The entire SBIS netblock.
| > > 64.216.0.0 - 64.219
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:45:35AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| (I'm a bit sensitive about this right now as I just discovered that the
| entire block of IPs that my new DSL provider uses, are in the DUL. And
| there is no other DSL provider in this area, the last alternative is in
| bankruptcy
The contact listing for that /14 is in error. That's the
justification. If SBIS cared, they'd fix it. We've certainly pointed
enough people in their direction to tell them to do so. Still not
fixed. They obviously don't care if their customers have problems
because of it.
D
At 10:46 AM -05
