On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 10:52 -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
> I see more spam[1] from any one of Hotmail, Yahoo, or GMail than I do
> coming through the whole set of email service providers I've IDed
> (both email-hosting and bulkmailers) of all stripes.
>
> As an ISP mail admin, I **CANNOT** afford t
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 10:44 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 09/17, Noel Butler wrote:
> >I'm sure every network running a mail server would like to assume they
> > are
> >100% whitehat too. I see no reason to treat them special, just like gmail
> >who think they are above it
On 09/17, Kris Deugau wrote:
> As an ISP mail admin, I **CANNOT** afford to block legitimate mail
> from any source, and if I see a report that a legitimate mail was
> blocked by any local rules or DNSBL data, I change the local rule or
> delete the offending local DNSBL entry ASAP.
Some times I e
Noel Butler wrote:
> It is the exact same approach we all take and should take to all
> spammers, if mail.foobar.com was hitting you with shitloads of
> spam from someuser.example.com, someotheruser.example.net and so
> on, you take out mail.foobar.com, because THEY are the mongrels
> that con
On 09/17, Noel Butler wrote:
>I'm sure every network running a mail server would like to assume they are
>100% whitehat too. I see no reason to treat them special, just like gmail
>who think they are above it all, I wont include hotmail in that, as they
I suppose you think you're capab
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 13:30 +0100, Niamh Holding wrote:
> Hello Axb,
>
> Sunday, September 16, 2012, 1:18:59 PM, you wrote:
>
> A> They are 100% whitehat
>
> Why do we see repeat spams from the same customers of theirs? Further
> they never even acknowledge reports of spams from their servers.
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Axb wrote:
> > why should we treat messagelabs any different, they are no more special
> > than anyone else who connects to you.
>
> Depending on your user base, by blocking MessageLabs you'd miss LOTS of
> corporate mail. A "man & his dog" setup may not see F
