Well I can tell you this new Patch works GREAT BILL!!! I now need to get peteMoss Spam news to fix there email headers so they can send me mail :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil Schwartzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:40 AM Subject: spamNEWS WHITELIST Request > Dear spamNEWS subscriber > > > While reviewing the logs for recent deliveries, I spotted the following: > > >sorry, your envelope sender has been denied (#5.7.1) > > While as the publisher of spamNEWS I am a long-time advocate of the > use of filtering to protect one's email account, I feel equally as > strongly that filters should be properly refined so as to avoid false > positives, and denial of delivery. > > Your filters are failing to make the right choices with regard to > your email, and you may end up losing more vital business or > personal communications as a result. > > spamNEWS is always mailed from the i.p. address 206.117.161.128, > which resolves to mail.whitehat.com, and is always from: "peteMOSS > Publications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>". > > The reason for these false positives has occasionally been due to > content within spamNEWS, for example, when I quote a specific > reference to a given spam. > > Of late, there have been instances of erroneous listings by the > Spamcop Black List, which clearly states that it is not ready for use > in production systems. From their web page > <http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml>: "This blocking list is somewhat > experimental and should not be used in a production environment where > legitimate email must be delivered." > > Unfortunately, either users of the list inadvertently or willingly > ignore that fact, and have implemented the black list NOT to flag > email which would be non-destructive, but to block or delete email > outright. This is a potentially dangerous use of the Spamcop product, > and I would urge you to review its implementation on your systems, or > encourage the appropriate people to do so. > > I can only assure you that it in *every instance* wherein Whitehat > has been listed (accused) by Spamcop, proof of the confirmed opt-in > status of the complainant has been provided; there has *never* been > a single verified instance of a piece of spam coming from Whitehat. > > After all, why would I ally spamNEWS with anything but the cleanest > system operating on the net today? It is, of course, nothing less > than you would expect from me, and nothing less than I would imagine > providing to you, the reader. > -- > Neil Schwartzman - Editor & Publisher > peteMOSS Publications, Industry & Trade Journals > <http://spamNEWS.com><http://spamFLAMES.com><http://peteMOSS.com> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Internet access providers, companies that engage in the business of > connecting people to the Internet for profit ... assume the role of > Internet censors, arbitrarily closing accounts of those of whom they > disapprove." - Martha (C&S) Siegel > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >
