>
> Maybe they don't have the $25 or something
>
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Neil Schwartzman
...would hope they have some money...
i found out about a nice family on the cabletv list and i was checking out
this guy and his wife that (if i recall correctly) were cable company people
making good money
Neil Schwartzman a écrit :
>
>
> On 06/04/09 10:53 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
>
>> On 04.04.09 16:30, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>>> On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
>>>
0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
address
On 06/04/09 10:53 AM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" wrote:
> On 04.04.09 16:30, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>> On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
>>
>>> 0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
>>> address
>>> [209.92.22.130 listed in dnsb
On 04.04.09 16:30, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
>
> > 0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
> > address
> > [209.92.22.130 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>
> That would be incorrect. The IP is static, no
John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
as i noted in the last post, it was about the difference between
JMF_Whitelist and RCVD in Barracuda
barracusa says spam, jmf whitelist is obvious.
I agree. In fact I removed that host from my white list. I am very
interested in
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
as i noted in the last post, it was about the difference between
JMF_Whitelist and RCVD in Barracuda
barracusa says spam, jmf whitelist is obvious.
I agree. In fact I removed that host from my white list. I am very
interested in the idea of someone c
RobertH wrote:
0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from
dynamic IP
address
[209.92.22.130 listed in
dnsbl.sorbs.net]
That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
whois://209.92.22@whois.arin.net
PaeTec
Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 04/04/09 11:31 AM, "RobertH" wrote:
greetings...
i am working at re-learning and applying SA fine tuning.
in doing so, i have some across some real life SA scoring anomalies.
it is interesting because one public reputaion service rule offering says to
score
Neil Schwartzman a écrit :
> On 05/04/09 7:28 AM, "mouss" wrote:
>
>>> personally, i say spam
>
>> metoo. take a look at their web sites:
>> http://www.rodale.com
>> http://www.prevention.com
>> http://www.menshealth.com
>> http://www.biggestloserclub.com
>> lose what?
>>
>> (on the other hand,
On 05/04/09 7:28 AM, "mouss" wrote:
>> personally, i say spam
> metoo. take a look at their web sites:
> http://www.rodale.com
> http://www.prevention.com
> http://www.menshealth.com
> http://www.biggestloserclub.com
> lose what?
>
> (on the other hand, runningtimes.com and runnersworld.com may
RobertH a écrit :
>
>
>>> 0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from
>> dynamic IP
>>> address
>>> [209.92.22.130 listed in
>> dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>>
>> That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
>>
>> whois://209.92.22@whois.arin.net
>
> > 0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from
> dynamic IP
> > address
> > [209.92.22.130 listed in
> dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>
> That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
>
> whois://209.92.22@whois.arin.net
> PaeTec Communication
Actually, disregard. I see what you are stating.
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Duane Hill wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
address
[209.92.22.13
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
address
[209.92.22.130 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
wh
On 04/04/09 4:22 PM, "RobertH" wrote:
> 0.2 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
> address
> [209.92.22.130 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
That would be incorrect. The IP is static, not dynamic.
whois://209.92.22@whois.arin.net
PaeTec C
michael,
i had to reply to this one as i was having a hard time replying to your
email and bottom posting.
here was the scoring on that particular email.
although it isnt really strict "reputation" issue, i found it interesting
that JMF had it whitelisted and Barracuda tells it more like it is..
On 04/04/09 12:00 PM, "Michael Scheidell" wrote:
> one company has a list of 'COI' (supposed to be confirmed opt in). they have
> begun a process (see the wiki) of canceling client who claimed COI but
> obviously didn't.
> that 'reputation' score has more to do with contract ($$) than actual real
On 04/04/09 11:31 AM, "RobertH" wrote:
>
> greetings...
>
> i am working at re-learning and applying SA fine tuning.
>
> in doing so, i have some across some real life SA scoring anomalies.
>
> it is interesting because one public reputaion service rule offering says to
> score "positive",
which ones? remember, DCC is 'bulk', not spam.
someone could have a BAD DCC reputation (using the commercial reputation
filter) as 99% 'bulk', even if it was 100%, double confirmed, bonded opt in.
some others judge reputation based on customer contracts (they get paid
for it). sometimes legi
greetings...
i am working at re-learning and applying SA fine tuning.
in doing so, i have some across some real life SA scoring anomalies.
it is interesting because one public reputaion service rule offering says to
score "positive", i.e. spammy, spam, or blacklist, and another public
reputatio
20 matches
Mail list logo
