Re: mail bounce warning for the list

On 9-nov-2006, at 16:17, Randal, Phil wrote: As someone has probably already pointed out... admins use these lists because they trust their accuracy. If they receive too many complaints (as we did with a particular DNSBL) you stop blocking on that list and move to only scoring. No, you move

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Mike Kenny wrote: On 11/9/06, *Jim Maul* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution. Is it even a solution? I guess that depends o nwhat the

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

On 11/9/06, Jim Maul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs.  Thisis not the point.  The point is, its not a very good solution.Is it even a solution? I guess that depends o nwhat the problem is. If the problem is the volume of mail passing throu

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:55 -0800, Derek Harding wrote: > > > Anyone dumb enough to block outright on the spamcop BL deserves whatever > they don't get. Sorry for the delay. I need to apologise for the short temperedness of my response. I should have tempered my response and been more helpful. M

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Jim Maul wrote: > > I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This > is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution. > Why I have to use RBL's at the MTA level is because many providers still allow direct SMTP. So all the botnets can send their garbage a

RE: mail bounce warning for the list

> As someone has probably already pointed out... admins use these > lists because they trust their accuracy. If they receive too > many complaints (as we did with a particular DNSBL) you stop > blocking on that list and move to only scoring. No, you move on to greylisting based on the less accu

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Am 09.11.2006 um 15:40 schrieb Jim Maul: I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution. If you have 100gb of data you need to back up every day and you only have 50gb worth of tapes to back that data

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

D.J. wrote: Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you received an advertisement. You obviously don't handle a lot of mail

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you received an advertisement. You obviously don't handle a lot of mail volume.  If I had to scan every SM

RE: mail bounce warning for the list

Chris Santerre wrote: > > This isn't the best idea for a large ISP, but for companies I see no > problem > rejecting on RBLs when you have a trained administrator. > I agree! Not that I use spamcop as a blacklist, maybe it's better now but I've seen them blocking mailservers from aol, hotmail

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Mike Kenny wrote: On 11/7/06, Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gary W. Smith wrote: > > Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received > this for messages from October 26th. > Who cares? > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient. > > Remot

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Rose, Bobby wrote: I believe the correct process here is that the moderators of the SA listserver investigate why the listserver got listed on Spamcop. If it is a case where there are addresses to spamtraps in the list, then maybe the list needs to send out opt-in verification messages to wee

RE: Don't use bl.spamcop.net (Re: mail bounce warning for the list)

: Gary W. Smith > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Don't use bl.spamcop.net (Re: mail bounce warning for the list) > > > Gary W. Smith writes: > > Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received this > > for messages from October 26th

RE: mail bounce warning for the list

Title: RE: mail bounce warning for the list Alright, I'll reply to this. I outright block using RBLs, and spamcop is one of them. Here's the deal: Senders get a response of the messege being blocked! It is also logged. The amount of legit mail anually blocked can be coun

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Rose, Bobby wrote: So what you're saying is that the rule that people running listservers should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from the list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for sp

RE: mail bounce warning for the list

nd out opt-in verification messages to weed them out.   -=B     From: Mike Kenny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:15 AMTo: users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: Re: mail bounce warning for the list On 11/7/06, Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gary

Don't use bl.spamcop.net (Re: mail bounce warning for the list)

Gary W. Smith writes: > Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received this > for messages from October 26th. Yes. Turn off use of bl.spamcop.net, it's FP'ing on about 25% of mail last time I checked, including ASF mail. --j. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 209.209.82.24 does not

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

On 11/7/06, Derek Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gary W. Smith wrote:>> Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month?  I just now received> this for messages from October 26th.>Who cares?> < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:>> 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient.>> Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unav

Re: mail bounce warning for the list

Gary W. Smith wrote: Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received this for messages from October 26th. Who cares? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [140.211.11.2] blocked using