> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/XPl5OZ0y/sorbs.pl
>
> lets just test more dns fails, please fix qname, reduce zones that ends
> in same nameserver ip
>
Yes, seeing that here, too, for months and months.
Spamhaus also sucks real bad.
06-Oct-2023 13:57:12.880 resolver: loop detected resolving '
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
On 15.01.23 10:53, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
I get my mail from this list via that machine:
Jan 15 16:20:51 fantoma
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2023-01-15 17:47:
That's the mail infrastructure run by infrastructure at Apache not by
the projects. See https://infra.apache.org/
i can't confirm infra only
The mailing lists at Apache are run by Infra not the project. If you
are having delivery issues, see that
That's the mail infrastructure run by infrastructure at Apache not by
the projects. See https://infra.apache.org/
i can't confirm infra only
The mailing lists at Apache are run by Infra not the project. If you
are having delivery issues, see that website and make sure you open a
ticket
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2023-01-15 16:56:
On 1/15/2023 10:53 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
Checking more thorough
Kevin A. McGrail skrev den 2023-01-15 16:53:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
or none are using sorbs
https://www.dnswl.org/s/?s=3084
i gave that
On 1/15/2023 10:53 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
Checking more thoroughtly SpamAssassin.apache.org is on 151.101.2.13
>
> https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
>
> but who cares ?
What is the problem? I am even surprised that there are so many green listings.
I have even configured that hosts with a reverse xxx.your-server.de are not
allowed to connect.
On 1/15/2023 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
https://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/95.216.194.37.html
but who cares ?
No one, likely cares. I don't think that machine sends email.
--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Projec
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 08:29 -1000, Alexandre Chapellon wrote:
> I can't see any problem right now with SORBS... is it related to a
> specific Sorbs DNSBL?
>
> Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 09:09 -0700, Marc Perkel a écrit :
> > Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
> >
I can't see any problem right now with SORBS... is it related to a
specific Sorbs DNSBL?
Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 09:09 -0700, Marc Perkel a écrit :
> Not sure what is happening but they appear to be down and when they
> are up they have a lot of people blacklists that shouldn't be. I noticed
Hello R-Elists,
Am 2010-04-20 10:57:54, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Netblock: 217.36.54.0/23 (217.36.54.0-217.36.55.255)
> Record Created: Sun Jul 30 06:12:48 2006 GMT
> Record Updated: Sun Jul 30 06:12:48 2006 GMT
> Additional Information: Dynamic/Generic IP/rDNS address, use your ISPs m
Only BT can request that delisting, sorry, but you are wasting your
time.
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:40 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> On 20 April 2010 14:13, corpus.defero wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:04 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Am I the only one incabale of figu
From: "RW"
Sent: Tuesday, 2010/April/20 10:29
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
$ dig +short -x 217.36.54.20
host217-36-54-20.in-addr.btope
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:26:27 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
>
>What probably happened was something like this:
>
>1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or SORBS
>inferred them via various means.
>
>2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
>
>3) Your ISP
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:34 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
>
> >
> > Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
> >
> > What probably happened was something like this:
> >
> > 1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or
> > SORBS inferred them via various means.
> >
> > 2) SORBS listed those add
>
> Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
>
> What probably happened was something like this:
>
> 1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or
> SORBS inferred them via various means.
>
> 2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
>
> 3) Your ISP ran low on static addresses, and alloc
Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
What probably happened was something like this:
1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or SORBS
inferred them via various means.
2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
3) Your ISP ran low on static addresses, and allocated to you one of
the addr
>
> My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
> 217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
>
yes, very nice... FCrDNS
point for you.
bottom line is you are preaching to the choir...
checking that ip at sorbs shows several blocks that are ok, and w
On tir 20 apr 2010 19:45:35 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
Which of us is wrong?
reverse dns != ripe listning, its 2 diffrent things
sorbs dont care about static / dynamic / dhcp and friends in reverse
dns, its just still static pool on ripe, isp get there ip from ripe
net, thats it
confuse
On 20 April 2010 18:29, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 20 apr 2010 19:17:10 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
>
>> My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
>> 217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
>
> http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/20/10 12:29 PM, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
> Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>
>> My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
>> 217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
>>
> $ dig +short -x 21
On tir 20 apr 2010 19:29:47 CEST, RW wrote
To get out of DUL lists you ideally want something like
mail.example.com or at very least the word static in the rdns.
blame isp assigning dul users in static pools
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
> 217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
>
$ dig +short -x 217.36.54.20
host217-36-54-20.in-addr.btopenworld.com.
This is the kind of reverse dns th
On tir 20 apr 2010 19:17:10 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=217.36.54.209&do_search=Search
seem
On 20 April 2010 18:07, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 20 apr 2010 18:56:37 CEST, John Hardin wrote
>>>
>>> not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp dependice, why care ?
>>
>> You're kidding, right, Benny?
>
> does it looks so ?
>
>> Why care that the ISP providing my IP addresses can't
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
On 20 April 2010 16:08, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 20 apr 2010 15:04:53 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
>
>> If anyone has any ideas - please let me know?
>
> if your isp
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:56:37 CEST, John Hardin wrote
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp dependice, why care ?
You're kidding, right, Benny?
does it looks so ?
Why care that the ISP providing my IP addresses can't be bothered to
properly manage it?
manage what ?, dynamic ip
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:00:23 CEST, Bret Miller wrote
them as an organization. You need your email to be delivered reliably to
everyone on the internet and that's the only way it's going to happen.
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp dep
On 4/20/2010 9:05 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:00:23 CEST, Bret Miller wrote
them as an organization. You need your email to be delivered reliably
to everyone on the internet and that's the only way it's going to
happen.
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp de
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:00:23 CEST, Bret Miller wrote
them as an organization. You need your email to be delivered
reliably to everyone on the internet and that's the only way it's
going to happen.
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp dependice, why care ?
--
xpoint http://www.u
On 4/20/2010 8:10 AM, John Rudd wrote:
Are you the ISP for the IP address, or the client/user?
According to SORBS, requests for removal from the DUHL should come
from the ISP that owns the IP space, not the end user that rents it.
See: http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml
"End users (non ISP
> if your isp give you dul ip, then you must use isp smtp servers as relay
This ins't necessarily true. I've had to deal with this ever time I've changed
hosts (to include Level 3 static IP assignments). Some ISP's just don't
publish their ranges as all static.
> not a fault of sorbs some isp
Are you the ISP for the IP address, or the client/user?
According to SORBS, requests for removal from the DUHL should come
from the ISP that owns the IP space, not the end user that rents it.
See: http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml
"End users (non ISP staff): SORBS support staff may ask you
On tir 20 apr 2010 15:04:53 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
If anyone has any ideas - please let me know?
if your isp give you dul ip, then you must use isp smtp servers as relay
not a fault of sorbs some isp is badly informing users on howto
if you really want to use you ip as server make sure i
On 20 April 2010 14:13, corpus.defero wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:04 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Am I the only one incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
>>
>> I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
>> this list hence mailing from my gmai
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:04 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Am I the only one incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
>
> I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
> this list hence mailing from my gmail account).
>
> When I log on to sorbs, give my det
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:40 +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25708610-15306,00.html
Is that to a Spam Cartel? It's overpriced :-)
Well the article states "Ms Sullivan said the highest "legitimate" offer
was about $
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:40 +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
> http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25708610-15306,00.html
>
Is that to a Spam Cartel? It's overpriced :-)
Any examples of such active lists? I suspect a few of us would be
interested.
-Original Message-
From: J.D. Falk [mailto:jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 4:54 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SORBS bites the dust
Arvid Picciani wrote:
> Mich
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam related mailing list?
There
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 10:59 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> > Michael Grant wrote:
> >> Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
> >> thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
> >> list in years.
> >>
On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam rel
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam related mailing list?
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
I have to say I have issues with your definition of legit mail. Many
people do send mail to other people out of the blue for legit reasons
other than
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 21:06 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> >> > See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
> >> The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
> > That's not my definition at all
>
> The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
It sounds like Charles' user base and cost/benefit analysis is
different, and that's fine.
Actually no, it's not. I arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis and have
instituted the same general policy - I block all hosts on PBL. Thought I
made that part cl
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
> See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
That's not my definition at all
The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat yourself.
. it's not even the definition of any mailadmin I've ever
Am 2009-06-25 08:56:00, schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't like receiving spam from
> companies that don't accept complaints...
Hihi...
[ '/etc/courier/bofh' ]-
badfrom @hotmail.com
badfrom @hotmail.de
b
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 15:23, LuKreme wrote:
> On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I don't care. It's the *meaning* that matters. Not the *word*.
>
> Fine, then, the meaning. Your meaning is *wanted* and my meaning is mail
> from a verifiable source with a verifiable (fixed) IP
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:23:22 -0600
LuKreme wrote:
> That's not my definition at all; it's not even the definition of any
> mailadmin I've ever met. We reject mail users *want* all the time.
> It's our job.
> ...
> Just because the
> recipient WANTS it does not make it legitimate.
> ...
>
On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail fr
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will 'never' see
legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
Accord
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon the
Charles Gregory wrote:
There are always exceptions.
Those can send me (postmaster@) a mail (without beeing blocked)
asking for whitelisting.
The reject message contains a link explaining how to do that.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Imho, the important question is, why such home user wants to send large
amounts of mail
Keep in mind, the definition of 'large' may be arbitrarily SMALL for some
ISP's Maybe just 100 recipients.
if (s)he can't find any (free) h
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
what you do is your choice.
(nod) I've already made my choice clear, and would advocate the same
for anyone else. My argument was only that we should not create a false
sense of confidence that we will 'never' see legitimate mail come from a
PBL-l
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
>> summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
>> please repost.
On 26.06.09 10:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
> Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon
On 6/26/2009 4:18 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
> These people are not without 'other solutions'. But they are making the
best of a bad one. Is this enough to warrant down-scoring the PBL? I no
longer think so. But just so we're clear, just because an ISP says that
they have a 'policy' does not me
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon the weight of
this information, I have upgraded my MTA
On 6/26/2009 4:07 PM, Jack Pepper wrote:
Quoting LuKreme :
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lo
Quoting LuKreme :
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lot of spam, but
the fact that it will block
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 25-Jun-2009, at 07:08, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones grammer
NB: it's spelt grammar
yyyaan
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lot of spam, but
the fact that it will block ham is not an indic
On 25-Jun-2009, at 15:41, mouss wrote:
if you say, I will only block those who I am certain are criminals,
then some criminals will get
in.
s/some/almost all/
--
Battlemage? That's not a profession. It barely qualifies as a
hobby. 'Battlemage' is about impressive a title as 'Lord of
On 25-Jun-2009, at 07:08, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones
grammer
NB: it's spelt grammar
--
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, a
From: "Res"
Sent: Thursday, 2009/June/25 06:08
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
3. The day I give a shit about what an Australian spammer thinks of me,
will be the day hell freezes over.
oh im a spammer now am I, awww poor widdle wicky, go cry to mummy, or tell
someone
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 14:41, mouss wrote:
> James Wilkinson a écrit :
>> If you mean “IP address that should not have been in the PBL but was”,
>> that’s one thing. It’s a consistent definition, but not very useful for
>> stopping spam.
>>
>
> yes, the PBL may list blocks that contain networks w
James Wilkinson a écrit :
> mouss wrote (about the PBL):
>> stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so that we
>> see what you exactly mean.
>>
>> a lot of people, including $self, use the PBL at smtp time.
>
> As usual, it depends on your definition of “false positive”.
>
fu
DAve wrote:
Jack Pepper wrote:
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Yea, this is why when my bosses ask where I get my information I tell
them from a closed forum. If they read the adolescent ramblings that got
posted on ema
Jack Pepper wrote:
> How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in?
It already did.
> 1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
> Now I'm just watching for the fun of it
Try IRC :-P
On 6/25/2009 4:12 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.06.09 12:38, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
Seems it has little to do with SA
spam-l was closed iirc ;-)
yes and no
it was taken over and its nice & busy
http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo
Jack Pepper wrote:
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Yea, this is why when my bosses ask where I get my information I tell
them from a closed forum. If they read the adolescent ramblings that got
posted on email/spam lis
On 25.06.09 12:38, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
> Seems it has little to do with SA
spam-l was closed iirc ;-)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie:
On Thu, June 25, 2009 15:08, Res wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Actually, you were first blocked by a milter because your SPF record
> contains "junk" get someone with a clue to set it up for you
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=buzzhost.co.uk&submit=Go!
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Quoting Res :
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones gramme
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones grammer
2. You could always try setting up your Mickey Mouse 'blocked using
dnsbl.lan' restriction so it works properly LOL.
Act
Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
Seems it has little to do with SA
On 25-Jun-2009, at 03:55, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of "large and
serious ho
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >> > On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
> >>
> >> 3) I wouldn't refer to rfc-ignorant as a blacklist - nobody with half
> >> a brain would block email just because of RFC ignorance on the part
> >> of the sender.
> >
> > Why not? I do that and inten
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of "large and
>> >> seriou
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >
> >> 2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of "large and
> >> serious hosting providers" - I was thinking mo
Arvid Picciani wrote:
>> serious hosting providers" - I was thinking more of organisations
>> such as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
>
> whats the issue with hetzner? I'm a customer so i'd be very
> interested in any spam issue not beeing processed by them.
There is no issue with Hetzner.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
>>
>> 3) I wouldn't refer to rfc-ignorant as a blacklist - nobody with half
>> a brain would block email just because of RFC ignorance on the part
>> of the sender.
>
> Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> 2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of "large and
>> serious hosting providers" - I was thinking more of organisations
>> such as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:24 +1000, Res wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
> >
> >> if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
> >> what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of cours
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of course you become an
authority on the subject in your your case, and
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
> if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
> what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of course you become an
> authority on the subject in your your case, and your opinion matters as
> factual, but you by y
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Personally I have mixed views on charging for delisting. In some
instances it would be appropriate and I would not dismiss it out of
hand. Certainly for repeat offenders I think it would be highly
desirable.
Agreed, its one wya to make the adm
> > On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
> >> and very bad for business.
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
> > http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=ho
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:16 +1000, Res wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if not, stop spreading
> >> rumours. I have delisted an IP in the past, and I have been watching
> >> people trying to delist a block but without
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if not, stop spreading
rumours. I have delisted an IP in the past, and I have been watching
people trying to delist a block but without clues on how to do it...
I have to agree with Mouss here. I'v
Charles Gregory a écrit :
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
>>> listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
>> Got more info?
>
> Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
>
> While I cannot remembe
mouss wrote (about the PBL):
> stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so that we
> see what you exactly mean.
>
> a lot of people, including $self, use the PBL at smtp time.
As usual, it depends on your definition of “false positive”.
If you mean “IP address that should not
serious hosting providers" - I was thinking more of organisations such
as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
whats the issue with hetzner? I'm a customer so i'd be very interested
in any spam issue not beeing processed by them.
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> 2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of "large and
> serious hosting providers" - I was thinking more of organisations such
> as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
My special award goes to 1and1. I get
Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
>> and very bad for business.
>
> http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
> http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=hotmail.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
Got more info?
Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
While I cannot remember precisely, categorically it was a situati
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
> Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
> and very bad for business.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=hotmail.com
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/l
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
