From: "mouss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow a écrit :
If Verizon.net is blocking email to me that should never go near the
verizon.net servers I would be VERY interested to learn about it. You
have no idea how ballistic I would go. I use earthlink.net via my
partner's DSL connection. It traverses Verizon wires 'cause that's
all she wrote in this area. But email should never pass through any
Verizon servers at all. It should pass through routers and firewalls
between the earthlink.net servers and my machine as a simple fetchmail
operation between me and earthlink. So if you can document VERIZON
blocking any email set to me at my address listed in this email
I *REALLY* would like to know so that someone at some verizon office
can die a well earned death.
I get this:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mxe.earthlink.net[209.86.93.239] said: 550 Dynamic IPs/open
relays blocked. Contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
At least that is earthlink.net not verizon.net. They ARE two different
entities. I was ready to go ballistic if verizon had gotten its sticky
fingers on my email transport. Nonetheless I have spam blocking turned
off, which Earthlink enigmatically calls "low" in its summaries. On
the setting page there is this information for the ticked item:
===8<---
OFF
spamBlocker will not filter incoming email messages at all
===8<---
Perhaps they lie? It appears like it. I am not sure I like that state
of affairs. I'd rather filter my own way.
whether I use my own server (static IP in a dyn range) or free.fr relay.
and of course, contacting the email address above results in another error, which makes
me wonder why they provide it in the first place. and trying abuse@ doesn't help either.
I could use other addresses and other relays, but heh, I'm not the father of email.
Just for grins methinks I might send them an email asking. I shall
endeavor to be polite rather than knock heads together. {^_-}
if you want more infos, contact me offline (but I'll need to use another relay, and I'm
not certain it'll be accepted by earthlink:).
same for sorbs. sorbs have listed the postfix server twice this year, and it seems
their duhl is arbitrary (see dnsstuff url that I posted before, but I have other
"evidences"). so while I appreciate the efforts that sorbs do to fight spam, and I
understand that it's not an easy battle, I won't accept a solution that destroys the
benefits of email. getting "somewhere" is silly. getting one step beyond is good.
Which postfix server?
I meant the server that manages the postfix ML (something.cloud9.net). It was listed at
sorbs, while some sorbs guys do use postfix and are subscribed to that ML!
Oh. Seems like SORBS needs to rethink something there. {^_-}
Earthlink uses a highly modified EXIM. It does
seem a communications breakdown happened with Earthlink needing to make
changes and the black lists refusing to verify their listings. In a
large IT department it is easy for internal communications to break down
and the DUL listing for the mail server block was forgotten about. It
would behoove the ISPs to make some observations of their own about
which ports really remain DUL and which are official secure mailing
machines that are reassigned addresses based on mail volume being
processed. It almost appears that indeed the block is dynamically
addressed with names potentially changing at need. But the machines
that can get on those addresses are a very highly controlled set of
machines entirely under Earthlink's net operations direct control.
Nonetheless they may well be technically "dynamically assigned hosts."
blocking dyn IPs was originally meant to block spam from zombies. now, it seems to block
legitimate mail, cos' spam is going its way anyway.
time to write software for spammers to get around such silly rules, so that these rules
get abandoned...
And a precise definition of "dyn ips" might be interesting. A dyn IP
on a small subnet that has its own wires internally is a handy way
to handle a server that dies and needs to be replaced. Pop out the old
and pop in the new. The free address is assigned to it and you're up
and running. Now, that IS a dynamic IP, technically. But it is not a
dynamic IP in the sense that you'd want to use it for blocking because
only boxes in the center with the Earthlink servers can get the IP.
There needs to be a finer distiction - publicly available to paying
customers dynamically assigned IP address. THOSE are the ones to block
in conjunction with other blocking criteria.
To this ISP dynamic addressing means they are agile in the face of
increased demands on resources. They can reassign machines quickly
and efficiently. To a black lister they may see this as a tool for
similar agility for a spammer. Is there a suitable middle ground?
I suspect good sense should enter the picture somewhere. But then,
perhaps the legal climate in wich the black lists live is close
enough to the edge that they cannot tailor rules to situations when
faced with hungry lawyers out to make a buck. I am sure that the
black listers and the legitimate ISPs need a communications channel
that does not require a tedious run up the technical support levels
at an AOL or an Earthlink.
I don't think so. at worst, the bl could list an IP as dyn. but if they are asked to
unlist t, and if rdns matches domain, then they should unlist it (I don't see that much
spammers trying to configure rdns for all of the zombies. it's easier to use the local
smart host).
This is true unless the local smarthost detects spamming attempts and
rate limits them. (But, I believe Earthlink patented the idea. I have
NO idea about their licensing terms.)
{^_^}
