On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:28 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> > The correct answer will be precisely why this state of affairs exists.
>
> - because developers think/have thought its a good idea.
>
> - because nobody other than you makes such a noise about it. And YOU who
> are so against, hav
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 06:55 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 3-Dec-2009, at 23:06, R-Elists wrote:
> > certainly we understand your point here, yet what about accountability for
> > Return Path Inc (and other RPI companies) related rules in the default
> > Spamassassin configs?
>
>
> My position on HAB
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:50 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Qualifies what, that I get UBE that is Habeas Accredited? Should I start
> > with the 40 from 'DateTheuk' in the last 8 days?
>
> Okay, let's be
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:08 -0500, Charles Gregory wrote:
> All this debate about 'legitimate' mail services like 'returnpath'
> being abused by 'sneaky' spammers. How is that possible? There should be
> easy ways to prevent it. Here's a few ideas:
>
> As soon as any whitelist service like 'retur
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 12:01 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > That to one side, the default for a spam filter should not be to give
> > any weight to a white list unless the user modifies the config
> > themselves specifically. It can be seen
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 18:11 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > This was raised as the IP appeared in HABEAS and for a few hours it
> > 'vanished' from the list. It's back there now, but DateTheUk is now
> > pumping out via an ip
I've just had another one to a honeypot - care of myspace. My dog does
not have a myspace account. Again, this is a harvested email address.
204.16.33.75WHITELISTED:sa-accredit.habeas.com
Whilst I appreciate that nobody would turn their noses up at taking $$$
from someone like mys
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > That wouldn't ever happen because the whole point of the CAN-SPAM
> > act is to allow the spammers to send out the "first" mail.
The CAN-SPAM spiel is an American phenomena that holds questionable
relevance to the rest of the world (some
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 15:57 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In the UK I'm more interested in the offences sending UBE/UCE commits
> > under the Protection from Harassment Act, Section 42 of the
> > Telecommunications Act and pos
On Sat, 2009-12-05 at 22:12 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> frankly, nothing against them, yet if an organization really needs Return
> Path to get their email through to mailboxes without rejection, then doesn't
> the originator of the email have problems?
Of course they do! That's why ESP's exist -
My figures for date the UK in the last 72 hours: 118 mails
*all* HABEAS accredited.
==
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==
80.75.69.201
NOT WHITELISTED:
sa-other.bondedsender.org, resl.emailreg.org, plus.bondedsender.org,
ips.whitelisted.org
WHITELISTED:
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 18:07 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>
> FYI, abuse@ is specified in RFC2142, and need not be explicitly listed
> in the whois.
Thanks. I knew it was somewhere :-)
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 12:02 -0700, LuKreme wrote:
> On 6-Dec-2009, at 02:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > A truly clean company that always uses opt-in and never spams has
> > nothing to fear from any anti-spam measure.
>
> Oh, that is CERTAINLY not true. It&#x
http://pastebin.com/m7c1c17d
Interesting insofar as it appears to be whitelisted??? Is this some kind
of well known US email or hosting service?
Sane missed it, the dnsbl's have missed it and the content filtering has
missed it. So it's a tasty morsel of spam :-)
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 16:00 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 12/7/2009 3:42 PM, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > http://pastebin.com/m7c1c17d
> >
> > Interesting insofar as it appears to be whitelisted??? Is this some kind
> > of well known US email or hosting se
201 - 215 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
