James Gray wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
James Gray wrote:
Sorbs sux, don't use it. Last time we had this problem they wanted
money (and not an insignificant amount either) to remove a listing
from their systems. They arbitrarily add addresses to a database
the IP's owner can't control, then
James E. Pratt writes:
> > Do your own queries and whois lookups...but these address blocks are
> > INCORRECTLY LISTED BY SORBS and they refuse (yes, I've heard from
> > them) to remove them. Apparently because our inbound and outbound
> > MTA's don't use the same addresses! I have no idea what
>
> Do your own queries and whois lookups...but these address blocks are
> INCORRECTLY LISTED BY SORBS and they refuse (yes, I've heard from
them)
> to remove them. Apparently because our inbound and outbound MTA's
> don't
> use the same addresses! I have no idea what crack-monkey at SORBS
> wro
Matt Kettler wrote:
James Gray wrote:
Sorbs sux, don't use it. Last time we had this problem they wanted
money (and not an insignificant amount either) to remove a listing
from their systems. They arbitrarily add addresses to a database the
IP's owner can't control, then demand money to re
James Gray wrote:
Sorbs sux, don't use it. Last time we had this problem they wanted
money (and not an insignificant amount either) to remove a listing
from their systems. They arbitrarily add addresses to a database the
IP's owner can't control, then demand money to remove the listing;
wh
James Gray wrote:
[snip]
I didn't ASK FOR HELP! I asked what people's thoughts were on keeping
a list like SORBS_DUL in the base/default spamassassin rules. I'm
quite capable of fixing the mess I inherited.
As long as
- it doesn't cause FPs
- it helps catch spam
- it is free for use/access
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
practically useless
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I don't find it useless. It works qu
James Gray wrote:
[snip]
According to SORBS:
Netblock:202.147.75.0/26 (202.147.75.0-202.147.75.63)
Record Created:Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Record Updated:Thu May 11 02:23:32 2006 GMT
Additional Information:[MU] Dynamic/Generic IP/rDNS address, use
your ISPs mail server or ge
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
while you are at it, fix your DNS. your domain has been succesfully
submitted to rfci (boguxms):
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=gray.net.au
On 26.03.08 11:30, James Gray wrote:
Yes - that's one
mouss wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
James Gray writes:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was
from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those
> >
> > Why? Can you remove them from the SORBS_DUL? No, then it's not
> really
> > relevant then is it ;)
>
> I was trying to help you find the real problem. If you don't want
help,
> stop
> bitching.
>
> I have seen more requests here to stop using some blacklists because
of
> the
> requestor
Justin Mason wrote:
James Gray writes:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those domains poin
James Gray writes:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
> > Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
> >
> >From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Now you are using:
> >
> >From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > BOTH of those domains p
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
> > while you are at it, fix your DNS. your domain has been succesfully
> > submitted to rfci (boguxms):
> > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=gray.net.au
On 26.03.08 11:30, James Gray wrote:
> Yes - that's one of my personal dom
> >On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
> >>Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> >>SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
> >>practically useless
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >I don't find it useless. It works quite well
On 26
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:59:19 pm mouss wrote:
> James Gray wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
> >> James Gray wrote:
> >>> Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> >>> SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
> >>> it's practi
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:47 pm D Hill wrote:
> Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
>
>From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now you are using:
>
>From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> BOTH of those domains point to an MX that has a CNAME to:
>
>
James Gray wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
it's practically useless and if you are an unfortunate who ends up
incorr
Now your confusing the subject. The previous response you made was from:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now you are using:
From: James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BOTH of those domains point to an MX that has a CNAME to:
smtp.mas.viperplatform.net.au
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 at 00:51 -00
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:51:32 am D Hill wrote:
> Actually, closer inspection shows your:
>
> ns2.viperplatform.net.au
>
> is still reporting back:
>
> smtp.mas.viperplatform.net.au
You're assuming gray.net.au and the viperplatform.net.au domains are the
same...they're not. If you query MY D
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 at 00:47 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 at 11:39 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dy
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 at 11:39 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
it's practically useless and i
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
> James Gray wrote:
> > Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> > SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
> > it's practically useless and if you are an unfortunate who ends up
> > incorrectly listed
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:31:34 am mouss wrote:
> James Gray wrote:
> > Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> > SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
> > it's practically useless and if you are an unfortunate who ends up
> > incorrectly listed
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
practically useless
I don't find it useless. It works quite well
Unless you receive ma
James Gray wrote:
Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that
it's practically useless and if you are an unfortunate who ends up
incorrectly listed in it, good luck getting off it! Case at hand, the
compa
It does makes sense that they would list unused/unowned netblocks in
APNIC in their database probably because of the probability that such
blocks would get assigned to an ISP which more than likely offer it up
as dynamic. I haven't looked there in a while but I thought it
explained conditions for
On 25.03.08 07:57, James Gray wrote:
> Why are rules that look up against this list still in the base of
> SpamAssassin?? The SORBS dynamic list is so poorly maintained that it's
> practically useless
I don't find it useless. It works quite well
> and if you are an unfortunate who ends up
> in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the slight delay, replies inline:
At 01:39 07-07-05, Daryl C. W. O'Shea - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Received: from host-212-158-194-14.bulldogdsl.com (HELO
phoenix.example.com) (212.158.194.14)
by secure.example.name with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP;
Sorry for the slight delay, replies inline:
At 01:39 07-07-05, Daryl C. W. O'Shea - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Received: from host-212-158-194-14.bulldogdsl.com (HELO
phoenix.example.com) (212.158.194.14)
by secure.example.name with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP;
1 Jul 2005 10:00:52 +0100
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Received: from host-212-158-194-14.bulldogdsl.com (HELO
phoenix.example.com) (212.158.194.14)
by secure.example.name with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1
Jul 2005 10:00:52 +0100
What SMTP service generates
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Received: from host-212-158-194-14.bulldogdsl.com (HELO
phoenix.example.com) (212.158.194.14)
by secure.example.name with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1
Jul 2005 10:00:52 +0100
What SMTP service generates this header?
Hi Daryl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Received: from host-212-158-194-14.bulldogdsl.com (HELO
phoenix.example.com) (212.158.194.14)
by secure.example.name with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1 Jul
2005 10:00:52 +0100
What SMTP service generates this header?
phoenix.example.com is a machine NATte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just sent myself two test-mails from my home machine, and realised
that they were both triggering the RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL and
RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL tests, and scoring alarmingly high, but brought down
again due to the Bayes tests:
-- Complete Mail
34 matches
Mail list logo
