Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> meant there
>> is no dns list for organizations. something like
>> # lookup_company_by_ip 192.0.2.1
>>
>
> Reverse DNS on the contacting mail gateway?
>
that only gives the domain name. but a single organization may have
multiple domains, and in many cases it is h
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
The advise I've seen (iirc it was in rfc-ignorant lists) was not to allow
send the mail to abuse and non-abuse mailboxes together, e.g. when it's sent
to abuse mailbox, reject rcpt to:non-abuse mailboxes with temporary error
and vice versa.
This is what we're impl
> Do the math. 50% of the spam (if that is indeed the case) is very low,
> considering that the US generates a much larger percentage of the total
> Internet traffic than just half.
The 50% figure was given recently, was that by someone of ICANN or
APNIC, I don't remember.
> In any case, you m
> uu, by default, all organizations get to specifically (or not) define
> network policies on their own networks.
Exactly. Only I expected subscribers to SA list to be a bit wiser than
lambda policy designer.
> Crackers go after easier targets to abuse and the rich ruleth over the poor
> and
> meant there
> is no dns list for organizations. something like
> # lookup_company_by_ip 192.0.2.1
Reverse DNS on the contacting mail gateway?
Bests,
olivier
> actually, there are DNS lists (and I don't call them blacklists) who list
> countries. I've seen some people reporting that they use them to block spam
> from those countries...
True, GeoIP does that for example.
Olivier
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>
>>> The attitude goes by organisation, not by country.
>>>
>
> On 06.11.07 08:37, mouss wrote:
>
>> "we" know almost all countries. I don't even know a small part of the
>> organizations in my own town. and there is no DNS equ
On 06.11.07 07:57, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> However, you don't want to mail to the abuse mailbox to see if it gets
> delivered, and then if it bounced, mail to the OrgTech mailbox
> instead... because that's too much wasted time... So you To: the abuse
> mailbox on the odd chance that it exi
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
The advise I've seen (iirc it was in rfc-ignorant lists) was not to allow
send the mail to abuse and non-abuse mailboxes together, e.g. when it's sent
to abuse mailbox, reject rcpt to:non-abuse mailboxes with temporary error
and vice versa. The result should be, once
Olivier Nicole wrote:
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the "rule of law" in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I d
On 05.11.07 09:20, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
> to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
>
> What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
> their "abuse" mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent th
>
> But hey, that is a too big cut from Internet, so in some way it is
> cultural imperialism.
>
> Bests,
>
> Olivier
Oliver
uu, by default, all organizations get to specifically (or not) define
network policies on their own networks.
Like it or not that is the way it is.
I don't know
> Olivier Nicole wrote:
> > The attitude goes by organisation, not by country.
On 06.11.07 08:37, mouss wrote:
> "we" know almost all countries. I don't even know a small part of the
> organizations in my own town. and there is no DNS equivalent of whois.
actually, there are DNS lists (and I don'
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
>>
>> It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the "rule of law" in cyberspace.
>>
>
> Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
> rather a sign of short view.
>
> It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
>
> It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the "rule of law" in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I doubt you ever got any sp
Olivier Nicole wrote:
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mail45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected to
Hi,
adding to the list, I recently came across domain contacts like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(not sure about the exact domain name)
This "service" also refuses some mails, particularly those that are sent via
one of the mail servers of german telecom and it is operated by verisign
Wolfgang Hamann
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
>From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mail45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected to mail.redfish-solutions
Hi,
> Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
> to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
>
> What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
> their "abuse" mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
> score positively..
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Well, Yahoo is a waste of time for other reasons, right? They
> tell you that it doesn't come from their site...
I generally don't get spam from Yahoo MTAs; most of my reporting is
of fraud spams with yahoo contact addresses.
--
John Hardin KA7O
At 12:54 PM 11/5/2007, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Well, Yahoo is a waste of time for other reasons, right? They tell
you that it doesn't come from their site... but to use the top-most
Received: line's IP address, then to look that up on
ARIN which... surprise! ... typically points to Ya
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
th
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
> > ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
> >
> > What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
> > their "abuse" m
Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their "abuse" mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there i
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their "abuse" mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score p
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their "abuse" mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score positively...)
Sigh.
26 matches
Mail list logo
