Not a chance.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 2/7/11 1:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36
-0500 >> Michael Scheidell wrote: >> >>> because
HELO doesn't match RDNS. > On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote: >>
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of fal
On 2/7/11 1:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
It's also violation of all SMTP RFCs (forme
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> > because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
It's also violation of all SMTP RFCs (former and current), because they
explicitly s
Le 03/02/2011 22:51, Adam Moffett a écrit :
>
>> That's good. The only useful list (BogusMX) can be discovered without
>> querying rfc-ignorant anyway. Just get the MX records for the sending
>> domain (which are almost certainly in cache) and make sure they resolve
>> to real IP addresses.
>>
>
On 2/4/11 4:54 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
to use it for an IP address that is allocated and is controlled by you. O
I think the ip of your router might work. as long as
a) you never have an ip on it
b) you don't load 'hits' on it to dshield.
your dns server, the ip of your outbound nat (as long a
On 03/02/2011 22:51, Adam Moffett wrote:
That's an interesting point of view. It was suggested on this list
fairly recently to publish a fake secondary MX as a way to reduce
spam. The stated reason being that some spamming software hits the
backup MX first and if that doesn't work will give
Ha! I tried posting some log lines and they
got rejected because of SURBL hits! :)
Here goes again... remove the capital X from domain names and IP addresses :)
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:51:15 -0500
Adam Moffett wrote:
> That's an interesting point of view. It was suggested on this list
> fair
That's good. The only useful list (BogusMX) can be discovered without
querying rfc-ignorant anyway. Just get the MX records for the sending
domain (which are almost certainly in cache) and make sure they resolve
to real IP addresses.
We reject domains that publish MX records in 127/8 or the R
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:42:27 -1000
"Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6526
> We finally agreed that rfc-ignorant.org is useless, or slightly more
> harmful than good. Spamassassin will be disabling these rules by
> default sometime soon.
That's
On 2/2/2011 7:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
RFC Ignorant is deep into kook territory, as should be apparent if you
look at which RFCs they expect people to follow, and what their
definition of "follow" is.
abuse.net has been listed for years, since there is an autoresponder
on ab...@abuse.net, and I
Hello David F. Skoll,
Am 2011-02-01 10:02:50, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> The battle raged for a while, but eventually we were delisted.
> (We block mail from <> to postmas...@roaringpenguin.com because we never,
> ever send mail from postmas...@roaringpenguin.com)
Hmmm, if you could know
Hello Giles Coochey,
Am 2011-02-01 15:46:05, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Personally, rejecting a message on the basis of a single criteria is
> pretty harsh. You don't need to be the RFC-police to catch nearly
> all spam and I'm sure that rejecting on a single issue or dubious
> fact will af
Hello Danita Zanre,
Am 2011-02-01 07:30:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
> Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Thats interesting, because my Courier-MTA does it to and it does not
bounce a singel message from this list si
RFC Ignorant is deep into kook territory, as should be apparent if you
look at which RFCs they expect people to follow, and what their
definition of "follow" is.
abuse.net has been listed for years, since there is an autoresponder
on ab...@abuse.net, and I've never noticed any delivery problems.
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
The battle raged for a while, but eventually we were delisted.
(We block mail from <> to postmas...@roaringpenguin.com because we never,
ever send mail from postmas...@roaringpenguin.com)
We do the same for postmas...@columbia.edu for the same reason, and I
don't thi
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:52:04 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> [204.89.241.253] mail from: <>
> 250 OK
> rcpt to:
> 550 Missing, invalid or expired BATV signature
A long time ago, I was involved with an argument with the RFC-Ignorant
maintainer. The thread starts here:
http://lists.megacity.org
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should reject your email if y
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
Regards,
David.
On 01/02/2011 15:49, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should reject your email if you are on the rfc-ignorant
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
We add a
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
> rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
We add a small score [1.2 poin
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
because HELO doesn
On 01/02/2011 15:43, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Personally, rejecting a message on the basis of a single criteria is
pretty harsh. You don't need to be the RFC-poli
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have re
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre wrote:
> Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
> Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
* Danita Zanre :
> Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
> Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Enforce how exactly?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Default Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address: 193.79.237.39
> hermes.apache.org
Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address: 193.79.2
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Thomas Cameron wrote:
> I dunno, I thought the mention of the Army Corps of Engineers and
> pumping in the same message as a "lose weight" message was pretty funny
> as well...
Hmm.. Mil-spec liposuction? Ouch.
At 03:21 PM 9/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
J, I think the "unfortunate"
At 03:21 PM 9/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
J, I think the "unfortunate"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bart Schaefer writes:
> The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
> ...
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
... and on top of that, they spammed our abuse address.
(Links to spammer site deleted.)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:45:40 +0500
From: Nadia Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: abuse
Subject: R
Kris Deugau wrote:
> This is why you don't blindly filter for spam based on single, simple
> criteria... (Or filter a subscribers-only mailing list.)
And even worse is the backscatter that is caused by filters such as
that which bounce mail to likely forged from address. My mailbox is
continuous
> System Attendant wrote:
>
> Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
>
> Place = ; mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com;
> users@spamassassin.apache.org; ; mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
> Sender = Kris Deugau
> Subject = [Mimedefang] Re: Frustration...
> Delivery Time = No
36 matches
Mail list logo
