> On Nov 6, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
>
> Am 04.11.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Holger Schramm:
>
>> If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that easy.
>
> That's the one part, the other part is what Dianne wrote about. If this
> happens to you better be sure to ha
Am 04.11.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Holger Schramm:
If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that easy.
That's the one part, the other part is what Dianne wrote about. If this
happens to you better be sure to have a 2nd MX ready with a totally
different IP address.
Every
On 11/4/2016 11:03 AM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:23:16 +0100
Holger Schramm wrote:
If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that
easy.
It's not that easy. If you provide email services to a large number
of people and someone they are trying to correspond
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:23:16 +0100
Holger Schramm wrote:
> If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that
> easy.
It's not that easy. If you provide email services to a large number
of people and someone they are trying to correspond with uses UCEPROTECT,
you are basically a
Am 04.11.2016 um 11:33 schrieb Marc Stürmer:
> Am 2016-11-03 15:34, schrieb MHielder:
>
>> A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
>> Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
>> No, it didn't. The guys telling lies in the public just made fools
Am 2016-11-03 15:34, schrieb MHielder:
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
No, it didn't. The guys telling lies in the public just made fools out
of themselves.
The fact that every person interested
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:32:00 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
> >MHielder wrote:
> >
> >> > Zitat von Marco :
> >> >
> >> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason
> >> > is that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >> >
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> Zitat von Marco :
>
> UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> that they do charge money for delisting entries.
>
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
On 03.11.16 15:27, RW wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> > Zitat von Marco :
> >
> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> > that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >
> A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
No, not really. What
W dniu 2016-11-03 15:34, MHielder napisał(a):
UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
that they do charge money for delisting entries.
And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this
kind of information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there
> Zitat von Marco :
>
> UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> that they do charge money for delisting entries.
>
> And no one knows who's behind them, since they do not publish this
> kind of information. They want to stay anonymous, that's why there is
> no easy way
outh Seward Street
> Juneau, Alaska 99801
> Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4588 Registered Linux User No: 307357
>
> From: Joe Quinn [mailto:jqu...@pccc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 2:56 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: uceprotect issu
, 2016 2:56 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: uceprotect issue
On 11/2/2016 2:46 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Zitat von Marco <mailto:fa...@ruparpiemonte.it>:
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to contact
uceprotect, their contact form is unava
On 11/2/2016 2:46 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Zitat von Marco :
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to
contact uceprotect, their contact form is unavailable.
It seems the problem starts on 30 october. Did you have noticed too
something about?
UCE Protect has a very
Zitat von Marco :
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to
contact uceprotect, their contact form is unavailable.
It seems the problem starts on 30 october. Did you have noticed too
something about?
UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason
Hello Marco, hello List,
There was a DNS issue we are currently investigating.
If your system still response a hit to any queries against our RBL
please flush your dns cache or use temporarily another dns resolver
until the cache of your upstream is cleared.
We apologize and will take steps to pr
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Per,
>
> Am 2010-04-23 19:48:14, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> It sounds like all you need to do is report them to the German
>> authorities. You know who they are, and you know that they are
>> spamming you, and you care about that - what else do you need? I
Hello Per,
Am 2010-04-23 19:48:14, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> It sounds like all you need to do is report them to the German
> authorities. You know who they are, and you know that they are spamming
> you, and you care about that - what else do you need? If you can't be
> bothered with the
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> My legitim server is also blocked and I can not reach more then
> 20 customers and manufacturers du to this problem.
>
> Some of them have already stoped using UCEPROTECT and I assume, you
> know WHO owns ths enterprise...
>
> I am spamed (more then 200.000 per mo
Hello Nigel,
Am 2010-04-22 13:53:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
>
> They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
> per year to remove individual IP's
>
> Does anyone have any information about thi
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
> > abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
>
> Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
> such proof??
Honestly - I have no idea since I had not be
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> But I wouldn't count on that, and I think that if you have spammed,
> >> they'd have proof against you...
> >
> >Well... There is no way to contact them if you're listed. Even if it's not
> >level1. Not to mention that they never provide
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
> abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
such proof??
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:02 +0200, Mariusz Kruk
wrote:
>On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
>> including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
>> doing this now, even because
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 22.04.10 13:53, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
>> For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is
>> working hard to resolve it.
>>
>> I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
>>
>> They seem to have taken entire netbloc
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
> including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
> doing this now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
> reasons.
Of co
On 22.04.10 13:53, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
> For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
> hard to resolve it.
>
> I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
>
> They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
> per yea
corpus.defero wrote:
> Uceprotect has some strange listing policies that have been questioned
> numerous times. But the crux of it is this, the people who use
> UCEProtect are well aware of it - and it's not widely used. Personally
> it's one of those lists I don't trust to block at an SMTP level,
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> First of all - anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP
> servers as long as he does it conforming to relevant RFC's.
Anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP servers, period.
> Been there, done that, got blacklisted for one mail. That's just p
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:44:53 -0400, Jared Hall wrote:
>Nigel,
>
>It takes two to tango.
>
>1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
>be having this issue.
>2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT
>zone file(s), they could simply
On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote:
> It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-)
> 1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
> In terms of extortion, I don't see any liability whatever.
> Level 1 addr
Nigel,
It takes two to tango.
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address.
3) If your recipient's ISP ran a local
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 13:53 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
> hard to resolve it.
>
> I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
>
> They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are
UCProtect and backscatterrer.org are BOTH doing this. In my opinion they even
could well be controlled by spammers and taking money on both ends of the this.
I personally feel abused by them since they appear to be stroking their lists
simply to make money.
Ron Smith
postmas...@pmbx.net
"Havin
> >> Alex wrote:
> >> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> Don't use UCEPROTECT for catc
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Don't use UC
> Alex wrote:
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> > works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> > wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
> Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> But yes, some other RBL's have also unclear rules - I admit.
> Yet, the delisting is kinda different isn't it?
Yes, but that has not been a problem for me so far. As far as I can
tell, the automatic process also works very well.
>> - which is why I don't block with UCEPRO
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> > 1. Listing
> Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
> rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, you have (for example on spam
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> 1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3
I too _would_ like to know how the
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> >> and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>> >
>> > Yes, UCEPROTE
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> >> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> >> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
> > Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big sc
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Alex pisze:
>> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
>> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
>> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam.
A scam?? You'll have
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
here. What's a more reasona
Alex pisze:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. Only thing it seems to care
about is the money for 'expr
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch a
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 10:53 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> > of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> > lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
>
> Alex,
>
> we use all 3 and adjust
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how
> it works here. What's a more reaso
50 matches
Mail list logo
