>From: Ned Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The easy solution for you is to whitelist any such domains that you
absolutely don't want blocked at the smtp level.
Well Ned, the thing is our company is located in 12 different countries
and dealing with an endless amount of domains situated all ov
Rasmus Haslund a écrit :
We do business all over the world and I see a lot of fp's on Zen.
>>> in which sublist? xbl, sbl or pbl? and when you say "a lot", how
>>>
> many?
>
>>> can you show an example of an IP that you consider as an FP?
>>>
>
>
>> I am int
On Mon, October 6, 2008 16:26, Rasmus Haslund wrote:
> Another fresh example from today is 193.173.161.178 from XBL inherited
> from CBL.
please contact postmaster at that ip, maybe thay are intrested to know
there problem users give them ? :-)
> From what I can see something on the IP is suppo
Rasmus Haslund wrote:
We do business all over the world and I see a lot of fp's on Zen.
in which sublist? xbl, sbl or pbl? and when you say "a lot", how
many?
can you show an example of an IP that you consider as an FP?
I am interested in to, since I had uses and then and
never gotten FP
>> >We do business all over the world and I see a lot of fp's on Zen.
>>
>> in which sublist? xbl, sbl or pbl? and when you say "a lot", how
many?
>> can you show an example of an IP that you consider as an FP?
>I am interested in to, since I had uses and then and
never gotten FPs
>Greetings
Am 2008-09-25 09:43:06, schrieb mouss:
> >We do business all over the world and I see a lot of fp's on Zen.
>
> in which sublist? xbl, sbl or pbl? and when you say "a lot", how many?
> can you show an example of an IP that you consider as an FP?
I am interested in to, since I had uses
and then
>> For us, the only FP we have seen are some servers in Argentina,
Brazil
>> and 2 legit fish newsletters from Russia.
>> Otherwise it is looking very good here.
>maybe if you received more mail from argentina, brazil or russia, you'd
see more FPs. The problem is, while spam >spews everywhere, so
On 30.09.08 15:12, Rasmus Haslund wrote:
> > I'd like answers to many of the same questions, although I've
> > already implemented the list. So far, I've only had one
> > complaint though it wasn't much of a false positive. I'd
> > started receiving junk from a legitimate server that normally
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-09-22 11:36:39, schrieb Joseph Brennan:
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My top rejections for today are:
x28 smtp-out.orange.net[193.252.22.118]:
Orange is a major ISP. Their mail-sending hosts are in 193.252.22 and
80.12.242. Mail from Ora
Rasmus Haslund wrote:
For us, the only FP we have seen are some servers in Argentina, Brazil
and 2 legit fish newsletters from Russia.
Otherwise it is looking very good here.
We've been testing it using SpamAssassin with the lastexternal option,
and while it catches a whole lot of obvious junk
Michelle Konzack writes:
> Am 2008-09-22 11:36:39, schrieb Joseph Brennan:
> > Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My top rejections for today are:
> >
> > x28 smtp-out.orange.net[193.252.22.118]:
> >
> >
> >
> > Orange is a major ISP. Their mail-sending hosts are in 193.
Am 2008-09-22 11:36:39, schrieb Joseph Brennan:
>
> Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My top rejections for today are:
>
>
> x28 smtp-out.orange.net[193.252.22.118]:
>
>
>
> Orange is a major ISP. Their mail-sending hosts are in 193.252.22 and
> 80.12.242. Mail from Orang
Jason Bertoch writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Hutchinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:53 PM
> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Bertoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30. september 2008 15:01
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation
> Block List
> I'd like answers to many of the sam
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Hutchinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:53 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
>
> For instance, how do Barracuda gene
Michael Hutchinson writes:
> Hello All,
>
> There were so many messages regarding this new Block List, I have to
> admit I have not read them all. I get the general idea that this new
> Barracuda Reputation Block List isn't all that hot.
You should read them all, then ;)
--j.
Hello All,
There were so many messages regarding this new Block List, I have to
admit I have not read them all. I get the general idea that this new
Barracuda Reputation Block List isn't all that hot.
For instance, how do Barracuda generate their Block List? I don't think
this has been answered
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:51:37PM -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> [Pardon the spam; thought this new blacklist might be worth at
> least trying.]
>
> Apparently Barracuda will be publishing a free-to-use sender
> blacklist called BRBL:
>
> http://www.barracudacentral.org/rbl
In case someone shares
Rasmus Haslund wrote:
anyway,
- zen is widely used. so even if it has an FP, the originator will have
problems sending to >a lot of places, and has enough incentives to get
delisted. In other words, the FPs caused by zen are "passed to the
originator" and are no more "our FPs"! (I hope you see w
>anyway,
>- zen is widely used. so even if it has an FP, the originator will have
problems sending to >a lot of places, and has enough incentives to get
delisted. In other words, the FPs caused by zen are "passed to the
originator" and are no more "our FPs"! (I hope you see what I mean).
> - we do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was actually hoping to use it like I use zen.spamhaus.org and
dul.sorbs.net and just reject emails listed on those. It is very rare
that I get a false positive from either, but their efficacy isn't what
it used to be, e
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was actually hoping to use it like I use zen.spamhaus.org and dul.sorbs.net
and just reject emails listed on those. It is very rare that I get a false
positive from either, but their efficacy isn't what it used to be, either.
So, I just configur
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
>>> this DNSBL? For example, how does it compar
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
this DNSBL? For example, how does it compare to zen.spamhaus.org,
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.o
Just an update. I contacted Barracuda and they have resolved their rDNS
issue. They also provided a link so that those that did not receive
their original confirmation emails can have it resent.
Original Message
Subject: RE: BarracudaCentral Contact
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:13:
Joseph Brennan wrote ... (9/23/2008 2:37 PM):
> No, they don't, really. They 'may' do that (see below). Try it.
>
> Effective immediately: AOL
> 220- may no longer accept connections from IP addresses which
> 220 have no reverse-DNS (PTR record) assigned.
According to AOL's Poli
On 9/23/2008 5:25 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
FIW:
12 hr stats / tiny traffic trap box - no ham
I use a couple of DNSWLs to reject traffic from potential hammy IPs
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
1RCVD_BARRACUDA 19721 83.30
"RobertH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.org
On my primary mx, today I had 94 mails that hit a zen list but not brbl,
591 that hit a zen list and brbl, and 8042 that hit brbl but not zen.
I am checking -lastexter
\
> It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.org
>
> On my primary mx, today I had 94 mails that hit a zen list but not brbl,
> 591 that hit a zen list and brbl, and 8042 that hit brbl but not zen.
>
> I am checking -lastexternal addresses only.
>
> Looking through the 2400 or so domain
On Tue, September 23, 2008 09:00, ram wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:58 -0500, Matt wrote:
>> Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
>> those email admins would get a clue.
> We tried, But when the client yells "I am losing my mails", you got to
> change your rul
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 17:21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
> this DNSBL? For example, how does it compare to zen.spamhaus.org,
It hits significantly more spam than zen.spamhaus.org
On my primary mx, today I had 94 mails
SM wrote:
At 11:24 23-09-2008, Kris Deugau wrote:
I can't think of ANY reasons (beyond sysadmin and/or ISP
incompentence) that a public IP originating legitimate SMTP traffic
should not have a reverse DNS entry. (Never mind a properly-formed
one, a whole other argument on its own.)
There wa
Getting back to the subject...can anyone enlighten us to the efficacy of
this DNSBL? For example, how does it compare to zen.spamhaus.org, varius
DUL type lists, etc. I would love to reject more before SA gets involved.
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
Jason Bertoch wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kris Deugau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:27 PM
To: users
Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
IMO there's little excuse not to have *some* kind of rDNS on
every sing
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Deugau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:27 PM
> To: users
> Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
>
> IMO there's little excuse not to have *some* kind of rDNS on
&
Jesse Stroik wrote:
Bowie,
What does having the mail gateway on an internal network have to do with
anything? If it is going to send mail to the Internet, then it must
have a public IP address in order to do so. This address may be local
to the machine or it may be translated by a router or
Jesse Stroik wrote:
Kris Deugau wrote:
Jesse Stroik wrote:
There are plenty of places still using mail gateways where the mail
server used for sending is still on an internal network, for a
variety of legitimate reasons, and those mail servers may resolve to
a private address. If you discard
Jesse Stroik wrote:
> Bowie,
>
>
> > What does having the mail gateway on an internal network have to do
> > with anything? If it is going to send mail to the Internet, then
> > it must have a public IP address in order to do so. This address
> > may be local to the machine or it may be transla
> The originating mail server could have a private address of, for
> example, 172.17.1.60, for exmaple. It could then send that message
> through another SMTP server that trusts the internal server. And now
> you've got 172.17.1.60 in your headers as the originating server and
> that doesn't (and
Jesse Stroik wrote:
In my experience, I've come across exchange servers in private networks
behind mail gateways that were the originating server. In this case,
whether or not you and I think it is a poor configuration, it is a
legitimate SMTP configuration via the RFC and it will have no
rev
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Joseph Brennan wrote:
Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
those email admins would get a clue.
AOL.com does just that.
No, they don't, really. They 'may' do that (see below). Try it.
Effective immediately: AOL
220- may
Bowie,
What does having the mail gateway on an internal network have to do with
anything? If it is going to send mail to the Internet, then it must
have a public IP address in order to do so. This address may be local
to the machine or it may be translated by a router or firewall, but
either
Kris Deugau wrote:
Jesse Stroik wrote:
There are plenty of places still using mail gateways where the mail
server used for sending is still on an internal network, for a variety
of legitimate reasons, and those mail servers may resolve to a private
address. If you discard all mail with no app
At 11:24 23-09-2008, Kris Deugau wrote:
I can't think of ANY reasons (beyond sysadmin and/or ISP
incompentence) that a public IP originating legitimate SMTP traffic
should not have a reverse DNS entry. (Never mind a properly-formed
one, a whole other argument on its own.)
There was a mailing
Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
those email admins would get a clue.
AOL.com does just that.
No, they don't, really. They 'may' do that (see below). Try it.
Effective immediately: AOL
220- may no longer accept connections from IP addres
Jesse Stroik wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> >
> > Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then
> > maybe those email admins would get a clue.
>
> No, they shouldn't.
>
> There are plenty of places still using mail gateways where the mail
> server used for sending is still on an inter
Jesse Stroik wrote:
There are plenty of places still using mail gateways where the mail
server used for sending is still on an internal network, for a variety
of legitimate reasons, and those mail servers may resolve to a private
address. If you discard all mail with no appropriate reverse DNS
> This would probably only reach the list??? I have a
> dynamic IP-address and no reverse DNS. I use Outlook
> Express as client.
Your smart host (mc.sverige.net (Sverige.Net Mail server v2.1.3)) has a rDNS,
so no problems.
My SA did not report missing rDNS from this mail.
>
>
>> Justin M
Matt wrote:
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with the RFCs.
That would explain why I got no confirmation, we do not accept
John Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rob McEwen wrote:
>
> > Or, these could be "False-False Positives"... which is a very good thing
> > because that would mean that those were really spams that would have
> > scored "below threshold" without use of the new list. (or, some mix of
> > th
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rob McEwen wrote:
Or, these could be "False-False Positives"... which is a very good
thing because that would mean that those were really spams that would
have scored "below threshold" without use of the new list. (or, some
mix of these two)
So, for the
On 9/23/2008 5:12 PM, Johnny Stork wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 9/21/2008 8:51 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
[Pardon the spam; thought this new blacklist might be worth at
least trying.]
Apparently Barracuda will be publishing a free-to-use sender
blacklist called BRBL:
http://www.barracudacen
>> Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
>> those email admins would get a clue.
>>
>
> We tried,
> But when the client yells "I am losing my mails", you got to change
> your rules
We had same experience as well. But I still think it should be done,
even though w
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rob McEwen wrote:
Or, these could be "False-False Positives"... which is a very good thing
because that would mean that those were really spams that would have
scored "below threshold" without use of the new list. (or, some mix of
these two)
So, for the purposes of an an
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
FIW:
12 hr stats / tiny traffic trap box - no ham
I use a couple of DNSWLs to reject traffic from potential hammy IPs
RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
1RCVD_BARRACUDA 19721 83.30 83.46 8.00
Spam detection seem
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 9/21/2008 8:51 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
[Pardon the spam; thought this new blacklist might be worth at
least trying.]
Apparently Barracuda will be publishing a free-to-use sender
blacklist called BRBL:
http://www.barracudacentral.org/rbl
Haven't tried it myself but t
> I've had servers listed on Barracuda before, despite 17 emails to
their
> support systems we never had any response, and had to change a
customers
> mail architecture to compensate.
>
> Very wary of them ..
>
> Chris
>
>
> That would be because they were spamming then. Shame on you.
Thats
On 9/21/2008 8:51 AM, Jeff Chan wrote:
[Pardon the spam; thought this new blacklist might be worth at
least trying.]
Apparently Barracuda will be publishing a free-to-use sender
blacklist called BRBL:
http://www.barracudacentral.org/rbl
Haven't tried it myself but thought it may be of intere
;
-- Mark Twain
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Koontz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
Justin Mason wr
Err, the default behaviour is NDR's are off, in fact.
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:08 -0700, fchan wrote:
> You can set up Barracuda to not to reply to spam which is default
> behavior, which I hate. This is the backscatter we all experienced
> from Barracuda devices. I set one up for a friend but i
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:24 +0100, Chris Russell wrote:
> > The problem is in false positives - you won't get any mail with it
>
> I've had servers listed on Barracuda before, despite 17 emails to their
> support systems we never had any response, and had to change a customers
> mail architectur
Justin Mason wrote ... (9/22/2008 11:29 AM):
> In fairness -- if you drop mail with no rDNS, you are dropping 3.6% of
> legit email in general, going by the test results for our RDNS_NONE
> rule... ;)
>
> --j.
>
Thanks for that stat Justin. I was always curious what others were
seeing here. A
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:58 -0500, Matt wrote:
> >> > I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
> >> > (216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
> >> > You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
> >> > with the RFCs.
>
McDonald, Dan wrote:
Henrik K wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:23:45AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:14 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:23:45AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:14 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >>>
> On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
> > We're trying it today.
Joseph Brennan wrote:
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My top rejections for today are:
x28 smtp-out.orange.net[193.252.22.118]:
Orange is a major ISP. Their mail-sending hosts are in 193.252.22 and
80.12.242. Mail from Orange runs about 85 to 90% spam here. The
minority
Matt wrote:
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with the RFCs.
That would explain why I got no confirmation, we do not accept
Henrik K wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:23:45AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:14 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
We're trying it today.
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 da
identify their netblock and never hear from them again.
>
> Is this hypothetical or does this happen to you in real life?
Real life. Some 'rbl testing' companies make money by monitoring rb's.
Some rbl testing software includes blocked.secnap.net
Seems to come in spurts. Won't hear from anyone
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > * Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> SOUNDS LIKE MY FREE BLACKLIST: blocked.secnap.net (google for it), lists
> >> all ipv4 addresses in the world.
> >> (and for some reason, one of the perl maintainers used it)
> >
> > Finally. No. More.
* SM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 08:58 22-09-2008, Matt wrote:
>> Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
>> those email admins would get a clue.
>
> Assuming you have signed up for that service,
Service? Sign up? It's a simple setting in the MTA.
> would you whiteli
> * Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> SOUNDS LIKE MY FREE BLACKLIST: blocked.secnap.net (google for it), lists
>> all ipv4 addresses in the world.
>> (and for some reason, one of the perl maintainers used it)
>
> Finally. No. More. Spam.
Now lets see how many idiots start using it.
F
At 08:58 22-09-2008, Matt wrote:
Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
those email admins would get a clue.
Assuming you have signed up for that service, would you whitelist the
sending host or wait for the postmaster to get a clue?
Regards,
-sm
You can set up Barracuda to not to reply to spam which is default
behavior, which I hate. This is the backscatter we all experienced
from Barracuda devices. I set one up for a friend but it does take
awhile to look for the instructions and to get this setting correct
which I don't understand wh
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:23:45AM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:14 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
> > >> We're trying it today.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm I sign
Matt wrote:
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with the RFCs.
That would explain why I got no confirmation, we do
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> SOUNDS LIKE MY FREE BLACKLIST: blocked.secnap.net (google for it), lists
> all ipv4 addresses in the world.
> (and for some reason, one of the perl maintainers used it)
Finally. No. More. Spam.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des GB IT) [EMAIL
* Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In fairness -- if you drop mail with no rDNS, you are dropping 3.6% of
> > legit email in general, going by the test results for our RDNS_NONE
> > rule... ;)
>
> Everyone should block/defer ALL email with no reverse DNS. Then maybe
> those email admins would get a
* Dave Koontz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rose, Bobby wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:24 AM):
> > I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
> > (216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
> > You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
* Joseph Brennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> My top rejections for today are:
>>
>> % fgrep www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation /var/log/mail.log |
>> awk '{print $10}' | sort |uniq -c | sort -n | tail
>>
>> 18 mx35.ispgateway.de[80.67.29.41]:
> . . .
>> 21 mx20.ispgateway.de[80.67.18
>> > I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
>> > (216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
>> > You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
>> > with the RFCs.
>> >
>> That would explain why I got no confirmation, we d
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My top rejections for today are:
x28 smtp-out.orange.net[193.252.22.118]:
Orange is a major ISP. Their mail-sending hosts are in 193.252.22 and
80.12.242. Mail from Orange runs about 85 to 90% spam here. The
minority remaining are legit use
My top rejections for today are:
% fgrep www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation /var/log/mail.log |
awk '{print $10}' | sort |uniq -c | sort -n | tail
18 mx35.ispgateway.de[80.67.29.41]:
. . .
21 mx20.ispgateway.de[80.67.18.53]:
21 mx43.ispgateway.de[80.67.29.52]:
. . .
Dave Koontz writes:
> Rose, Bobby wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:24 AM):
> > I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
> > (216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
> > You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
> > with the R
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Dave Koontz wrote:
Rose, Bobby wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:24 AM):
I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
(216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
with
mouss wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation
e-mail from them? What is the RBL name?
They send from an IP without rDNS.
Received: from barracudacentral.org (unknown [216.129.105.40])
you may have rejected or quarantined it.
and
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation
e-mail from them? What is the RBL name?
They send from an IP without rDNS.
Received: from barracudacentral.org (unknown [216.129.105.40])
you may have rejected or quarantined it.
>> The problem is in false positives - you won't get any mail with it
>
> I've had servers listed on Barracuda before, despite 17 emails to their
> support systems we never had any response, and had to change a customers
> mail architecture to compensate.
>
> Very wary of them ..
>
> Chris
>
Rose, Bobby wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:24 AM):
> I had the same issue and found that the system that's relaying
> (216.129.105.40) those confirmation emails doesn't have a PTR record.
> You'd think someone selling a antispam/email appliance would be familiar
> with the RFCs.
>
That would explain wh
Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Daniel J McDonald
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago
Dave Koontz wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:14 AM):
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation
e-mail from them? What is the RBL name?
Justin.
Same here. For those currently running this, how long did it take to
get confirmation email and setup?
I ran i
ssin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation
> Block List
>
> Justin Piszcz wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:14 AM):
> > Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation
> > e-mail from them? What is the RBL name?
> >
> > Jus
About 10 minutes. I've had it up and running for about 30 minutes now and
I've gotten 127 hits. Pretty impressive. Now we will need to see what
fallout occurs. :)
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
Justin Piszcz wrote ... (9/22/2008 10:14 AM):
> Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation
> e-mail from them? What is the RBL name?
>
> Justin.
Same here. For those currently running this, how long did it take to
get confirmation email and setup?
~ Sparky ~
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Daniel J McDonald
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: New free blacklist: BRBL - Barracuda Reputation Block List
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmati
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 10:14 -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
> >> We're trying it today.
> >
>
> Hmm I signed up for this 1-2 days ago but never got a confirmation e-mail
> from them? What i
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 18:18 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
We're trying it today.
For the same period of about 4.5 hours, zen had about 110 hits, while
b.barracuda had about 165.
In about 26 hours I had 885 hits on b.barracuda, and 309 hits on the
* Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The fact that there's a prominent removal-request link is a good
> sign, in my opinion ;) Let's see how it goes.
My top rejections for today are:
% fgrep www.barracudanetworks.com/reputation /var/log/mail.log |
awk '{print $10}' | sort |uniq -c | sort -
DAve wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
[Pardon the spam; thought this new blacklist might be worth at
least trying.]
Apparently Barracuda will be publishing a free-to-use sender
blacklist called BRBL:
http://www.barracudacentral.org/rbl
Haven't tried it myself but thought it may be of interest.
We
SM writes:
> At 03:24 22-09-2008, Chris Russell wrote:
> > I've had servers listed on Barracuda before, despite 17 emails to their
> >support systems we never had any response, and had to change a customers
> >mail architecture to compensate.
>
> It's a free blacklist. People will use it until
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
