X-Originating-Server: inaccessible.scottishaccommodationindex.com
Hey, just what I want! An inaccessible Scottish Accomodation! I'll look
one right up on the web!
Loren
> How exactly do we determine what other sites are hosted on a
> given server, i.e., sites that don't appear in spams? IOW
> how do you know there's "one internal site"?
You'ld think that there should be some way to do a reverse DNS to determine
from an ip the domains that exist on that ip. I su
On Saturday, June 4, 2005, 6:20:11 AM, jdow jdow wrote:
> One tiny quibble. For each machine blocked there is perhaps one whole
> internal site that is blocked as well. But it means that site is
> throwing spam out to the universe and the company doing it or the
> individual doing it should stop th
>Robert Menschel said:
>> Lots of emails from Staples, and as
>> far as I can tell every one has
>> been subscribed for.
>
>Sounds like you are giving them the "benefit of the doubt"... which is fine.
>
>But I don't really think that so many of my clients actually explicity checked
>"subscribe"
>> >[previous stuff snipped]
>> >Loren
>>
>> Loren is correct. And Jeff and I have had this conversation many times.
>Jeff
>> would rather not risk the FPs by doing it. I can see his point. But I
>agree
>> with Loren that we have IPs that are pure spam.
>
>One tiny quibble. For each
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Craig Jackson wrote:
> I notice that the return-path: is often different from the from:
>
> But my return-path: tests all fail. Here's one:
>
> header RETPATH_NUMS_CJ Return-path =~ /[0-9]{6,}/
> score RETPATH_NUMS_CJ 3.000
>
> It will successfully match From:addr or Reply-To:
I notice that the return-path: is often different from the from:
But my return-path: tests all fail. Here's one:
header RETPATH_NUMS_CJ Return-path =~ /[0-9]{6,}/
score RETPATH_NUMS_CJ 3.000
It will successfully match From:addr or Reply-To: but Return-path is
silent. Yes, I tried Return-Path,
Robert Menschel said:
> Lots of emails from Staples, and as
> far as I can tell every one has
> been subscribed for.
Sounds like you are giving them the "benefit of the doubt"... which is fine.
But I don't really think that so many of my clients actually explicity checked
"subscribe" somewher
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>> If that statement is true, perhaps the surbl lists could
> >automatically
> >>> include the dotquads for hosts that are known to be
> >pure spam sources and
> >
