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
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Some U.K. providers (such as Fasthosts & Rackspace(UK)) never seem to
> get a listing for any of their ranges - which is interesting when you
> consider they are probably the largest providers of hosting in the UK
> and that Spamhaus hosts with one of them.
Blackli
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
>>> When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
>>> between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
>>> spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase postives.
>> stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives,
> > 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_BLOCK 0 # n=1 n=2 n=3
> > 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0 1.615 0 0.877 # n=0 n=2
> > 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP 0 0.001 0 0.001 # n=0 n=2
> > 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC 0 0.001 0 0.353 # n=0 n=2
> > 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 00:07 +0200, mouss wrote:
> Res a écrit :
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
> >
> >> payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
> >
> > not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a
> > detterent i think sunno we never paid
> >
>
> This is w
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:05PM -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
>>> When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
>>> between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
>>> spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:17 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> >> It does make you wonder why they never seem to end up on any of the
> >> spamhaus lists. Perhaps they are brilliant list washers ?
> >>
> >
> > Same here - I see lots of these and they don't score on many lists.
>
> It might be an unedu
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
On 23.06.09 11:07, Res wrote:
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent
i think sunno we never paid
well, we've had out
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Jeremy Morton wrote:
Maybe it was better back then, but maybe a year ago I had the same problem
and got NO response. Its death actually is good news because it means not so
many innocent people will be able to be listed now.
Perhaps, this was when Matthew was located in
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
Res a écrit :
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a
detterent i think sunno we never paid
This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if no
Res a écrit :
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
>
>> payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
>
> not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a
> detterent i think sunno we never paid
>
This is wrong. if you have evidence, show it. if not, stop spreading
rumours.
Hello.
From: Arvid Picciani
Subject: Re: SORBS bites the dust
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:17:03 +0200
> Should i care to investigate and maybe reject the the entire block? I'm
> pretty new on hunting down sources. All I know is the whois databse
> which is mostly useless for tha
It does make you wonder why they never seem to end up on any of the
spamhaus lists. Perhaps they are brilliant list washers ?
Same here - I see lots of these and they don't score on many lists.
It might be an uneducated guess, but i also have some very annoying
hosts on the radar which i s
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Moss wrote:
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
I respect any bl
> -Original Message-
> From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [mailto:uh...@fantomas.sk]
> > >IMPORTANT: If sorbs does not get picked-up by a new host, will SA
> > >developers be ready to roll-out an SA update to remove the sorbs
> rules, so
> > >that we don't suffer a bunch of timeouts? Or how doe
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Jeff Moss wrote:
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a bad
name.
As an interesting side-note, when I went looking for fresh RBL stats
I found a lot of indications that SORBS ge
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase postives.
stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so th
WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
bad name.
I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
Jeff Moss
All i read is "OMG THEY BANNED MY COLORFULL OPT OUT NEWSLETTER111"
Sorry i
> >On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >>> It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
> >>> closure of SORBS.
> >> crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
> >
> >In the past, I did some tests to
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Moss wrote:
> WHAT? Sorbs and Spamhaus are polar opposites. Spamhaus is a great
> organization while SORBS is a POS that helped give all blacklists a
> bad name.
> I don't know if SpamAssassin has ever used it.
>
I respect any block list for targeting t
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>> It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
>>> closure of SORBS.
>> crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
>
>In the past, I did some tests to determine whic
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
>> payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
On 23.06.09 11:07, Res wrote:
> not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent
> i think sunno we never paid
well, we've had out IPs in the DUL (i asked for listing them) and we
>> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
>>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS and term
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>> It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
>>> closure of SORBS.
>> crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
On 22.06.09 13:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
> In t
Res wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
You can wait 1 year ... or pay $50 to some approved charity. So, yes,
you can not pay anything, if you're willing to wait a year. And if
you do pay, you don't pay THEM exactly. But, it still remains that
they expect some form of financial offset
LuKreme wrote:
> 42U of space seems a bit much though. I'd think a couple of Xserves
> could manage it quite well. I'm probably wrong though.
>
42U does sound like a lot of space, but imagine the hardware you'd need
to serve an average of 350,000 DNS requests per second. (according to
the websi
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 18:07, Res wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
>
>> payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
>
> not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent i
> think sunno we never paid
I think it's fair to hold/criticize/ridicule them to/f
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
payment were only needed for spam, not for "dul"
not really :) despite what their site said/says.. its kind of a detterent
i think sunno we never paid
anyway, this is getting way off topic. whatever you & I think of how
sorbs should have been run (and
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
You can wait 1 year ... or pay $50 to some approved charity. So, yes,
you can not pay anything, if you're willing to wait a year. And if
you do pay, you don't pay THEM exactly. But, it still remains that
they expect some form of financial offset in order
Gary Smith a écrit :
> If you follow the unlisting proceedure and meet all of the requirements, then
> you get unlisted. As with all things, it just takes a little patients.
> After converting my IP's over from my ISP to my DNS servers, I was listed
> (because the ISP no longer listed us a sta
Charles Gregory a écrit :
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>> Really? Personally I find the PBL just kicks its ass.
>
> When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
> between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
> spamcop lists had
On 22 Jun, 2009, at 16:17 , John Rudd wrote:
You can wait 1 year ... or pay $50 to some approved charity. So, yes,
you can not pay anything, if you're willing to wait a year. And if
you do pay, you don't pay THEM exactly. But, it still remains that
they expect some form of financial offset in
On 22 Jun, 2009, at 12:04 , Charles Gregory wrote:
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase postives.
This was certainly true with Spamcop's list
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 15:06, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> Jeremy Morton wrote:
>>
>> You then have to pay their tithe money to get people to start receiving
>> your e-mail again.
>
> sorbs doesn't charge for delisting.
> Actually no trustworthy bl does.
Technically correct, but not literally.
You ca
Jeremy Morton wrote:
You then have to pay their tithe money to get people to start
receiving your e-mail again.
sorbs doesn't charge for delisting.
Actually no trustworthy bl does.
le to resolve it in a fairly
resonable amount of time. I don't recall even paying a dime.
From: Jeremy Morton [ad...@game-point.net]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 3:01 PM
To: rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SORBS bite
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure
of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
agreement with myself and SORBS a
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Really? Personally I find the PBL just kicks its ass.
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase p
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 19:40 +0200, Arvid Picciani wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
> > closure
> > of SORBS. The University of Queensland have decided not to honor their
> > agreement with myself and SORBS and terminate t
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure of SORBS.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
In the past, I did some tests to determine which lists caug
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
