On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:35:31 -0800, Bob Amen wrote
> And you said "an aggressive greet delay." I tried
> that and found too many false positives with legitimate mail servers
> that are poorly configured. The only recourse for those false
> positives is another means of communication (eg. telepho
On Nov 28, 2004, at 8:35 PM, Bob Amen wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Bob Amen wrote:
It's very depressing and getting worse, according to my mail
servers' statistics.
Hm. My mail servers' stats say it's getting better. For example, at
home, I think I've only actually seen
John Rudd wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Bob Amen wrote:
It's very depressing and getting worse, according to my mail servers'
statistics.
Hm. My mail servers' stats say it's getting better. For example, at
home, I think I've only actually seen 1 spam message in the last
month. I think
On Sunday 28 November 2004 08:18 pm, you wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> > > I would expect to see a cron entry in the syslog. Your snippet did
> > > not show anything from cron. Therefore I have my suspicions that
> > > cron is not running and that the logs you saw transferring mail was
> > > from somethin
On Sunday 28 November 2004 07:23 pm, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> I would expect to see a cron entry in the syslog. Your snippet did
> not show anything from cron. Therefore I have my suspicions that cron
> is not running and that the logs you saw transferring mail was from
> something else. But perhap
Chris wrote:
I didn't think my "listed in sorbs" and "reply from sorbs" threads would net
> so many replies or so much help. What I guess caused all this is that I
> was having results of cronjobs sent to me via my ISP.
Welcome to the 'net. :-}
> Aga
David Brodbeck wrote:
make sure in writing before you sign anything that your ip(s) will
never be listed by the ISP as res/dynamic/dialup ip. If they do they
may be in breach of contract (and you would need a lawyer for
resolution.)
I doubt any ISP would agree to a contract term like that, beca
| DUHL is intended to be used on INCOMMING mail only - on the host where
| ones MX records point to.
I may be missing something, but I think the OP was *not* complaining about
lack of ability to send mail over the Internet from a DUHL / dynamic IP,
but rather, failing foul of a mis-configured SA s
I didn't think my "listed in sorbs" and "reply from sorbs" threads would net
so many replies or so much help. What I guess caused all this is that I
was having results of cronjobs sent to me via my ISP. Again, I'll
reinterate, I don't run a mail server,
Reread it, i said *YOUR* ISP marking *YOUR* leased IP(s) as
*DUL/DYN/RES* read before replying (OH yes, ISP'S *DO* this kind of
thing to enforce their polices.) :-D And yes, an isp who does not agree,
is sheit imo, if they're too lazy to classify their ips, move along, get
sat, cable etc. The
(my choice of comments to reply to make my position sound a lot more at
odds with your overall post than I am, but there were a two parts I
just had to respond to)
On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Bob Amen wrote:
It's very depressing and getting worse, according to my mail servers'
statistics.
Hm.
JamesDR wrote:
make sure in writing before you sign anything that your ip(s) will
never be listed by the ISP as res/dynamic/dialup ip. If they do they
may be in breach of contract (and you would need a lawyer for
resolution.)
I doubt any ISP would agree to a contract term like that, because the
DSL, Cable, T1, Fiber, etc. your high speed connection type shouldn't be
blacklisted, your service level should, ie dynamic residential line. A
business class customer paying for static ip(s) on a (a/s)dsl line
should not have their ip's blacklisted. I've seen as much spam come from
lines where
I realize this is way off topic, but it is important to spam fighting.
jdow wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:11:12AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
if I did not miss anything in this thread, the victim HAS a static IP on
the cable/dsl link and
pays more for the access than d
From: "Nicolas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 2004 November, 28, Sunday 02:12
Subject: Re: reply from sorbs
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:11:12AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > if I did not miss anything in this thread, the victim HAS
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:11:12AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if I did not miss anything in this thread, the victim HAS a static IP on the
> cable/dsl link and
> pays more for the access than dynamic ip would cost with the same provider.
> The provider, however, reports a full ip b
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Bob Amen wrote:
>> >I must disagree. Unfortunately the number of responsible people on
>> > the other end of cable and DSL modems is vanishingly small compared to
>> > the number of zombie machines that are spewing spam and more viruses. On
>>
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Bob Amen wrote:
>I must disagree. Unfortunately the number of responsible people on
> the other end of cable and DSL modems is vanishingly small compared to
> the number of zombie machines that are spewing spam and more viruses. On
> a typical day we
On Saturday 27 November 2004 05:10 pm, jdow wrote:
> And indeed, it should only be used on mail that is incoming from the
> Internet. Local mail should bypass the SpamAssassin checks. That way
> cron job emails to root will not get filtered. That does not, however,
> help you with regards to email
jdow wrote:
It means your address is in a set of DSL addresses listed as Dial Up
addresses. Ye verily thou art stuck in the fork.
[...]
(See why I do not like such broad brush black lists? They false alarm
BADLY at times they should not, far too many times.)
I must disagree. Unfortunately
It means your address is in a set of DSL addresses listed as Dial Up
addresses. Ye verily thou art stuck in the fork.
And indeed, it should only be used on mail that is incoming from the
Internet. Local mail should bypass the SpamAssassin checks. That way
cron job emails to root will not get filte
Here is the reply I got from sorbs.net when I asked about my ip being listed
there, now, would someone be so kind as to explain to me what the reply
means. Note: I'm not running a mail server, as I said, all I was doing
was trying to get fetchmail > procmail to work to take some of the load of
22 matches
Mail list logo
