I've just sent another, long, message about mail acceptance,
blacklisting, and this whole flamewar. Please read that message
first; it explains the context of this mail, and without it you might
misinterpret this one.
This message is about my opinion of the DUL, which I support and use.
In fact
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
support, etc, the DUL. Many ISPs
Hi,
I don't like getting spam. I dislike the fact that I am
inconvenienced. I have not yet decided to give in, though. And, in
my opinion, bouncing mail from people innocent of sending spam is
giving in to spammers.
I ifnd this phenomena remniscent of may people in the trhoes
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
machines, whether they
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
discourages the
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
type of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
All of which should not be too difficult to set up for
a Debian
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
|
|Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
|X-Filtered-By: DUL
|or similar header be added to all list mail?
The problem is, that qmail can't do this easilly.
I think this would be a perfect
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:44:24PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
Is there any kind of database to filter out time-wasting, vitriolic
arguments full of personal attacks, about things that have nothing to
do with Debian?
Sure:
:0:
* ^X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED].*
/dev/null
--
G. Branden
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Bob Nielsen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
b) use uucp-over-tcp (requires uucp account somewhere)
c) use smtp-over-ssh (requires shell account somewhere)
Can someone point me to any references on setting up either of these.
I had to
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:19:34PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
Craig I meant you need those things to have a smtp HOST. You know; to
send and recive email, I was not commenting about DUL in any form. So
to say I was spreadding FUD is foolish, maybe you could of asked for
more
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:41:15PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
debian developers should have the option of a uucp account from one
of the debian servers (trivially easy for us to set up).
I think we have been over this in various forms, I don't
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:36:37AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
Well then I have to agree, DUL is bad, because it's near impossible
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
DUL is very effective in doing that. it prevents spammers from hiding
their activities from their ISP...which ensures that they will be caught
and their account nuked very promptly.
Okay, I see this point, however, I do have a problem with the
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:17:55AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
DUL is very effective in doing that. it prevents spammers from
hiding their activities from their ISP...which ensures that they
will be caught and their account nuked very promptly.
On 29-Mar-00, 15:21 (CST), Lawrence Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nils: you still need a DNS named, static, route-able IP to be your own host.
I have DNS named, *dynamic*, routable IP -- thanks to the good folks at
dyndns.org. The only bad thing is that the reverse DNS isn't consistent.
I'm
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:41:15PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[Providing reliable SMTP services to people on dialup IP, eg
UUCP-over-TCP]
It would be better for someone else to provide a service like this.
I have to say I'm extremely surprised that if ISPs in the US are as
incompetant as
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
[snip]
Why did you CC me? I read the list. Please control yourself.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The basic test of freedom is perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | less in what we are free to do than in
[EMAIL
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Branden: You might consider getting a static.
The only way to live, imho. ;-)
You guys can stop CC'ing me any day now; I read the lists.
And BTW, I've stated several times that I *do* have a static IP. I suppose
you guys are too
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:17:55AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
NILS JEPPE, CRAIG SANDERS:
PLEASE STOP CC'ING ME ON LIST MAILS.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is human
Debian GNU/Linux
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:15:56 -0600, you wrote:
Couldn't the original Received: headers be renamed to X-Received: (or
something like that; although I could figure out how to make that
happen with formail I don't know my mail headers well enough to know
if X-Received is already used by something
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
most of the recent spam would have been blocked by using MAPS RSS
(relays.mail-abuse.org), though...and not by MAPS DUL.
IMO, we should use both. individually they are quite effective in
blocking spam, but they are even better when used together.
This spam issue is so political.
If you're stuck with a service provider who has a crappy mail
service, and/or who has your IP listed on the DUL, I'll offer a
solution.
I run an ISP in Canada. We offer shell accounts, on a machine
running Debian Potato, for a reasonable price ($10/month, or
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
X-Filtered-By: DUL
or similar header be added to all list mail?
Apparently qmail can't do that out of the box.
Yes, we are still being hypocritical
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
b) use uucp-over-tcp (requires uucp account somewhere)
c) use smtp-over-ssh (requires shell account somewhere)
Can someone point me to any references on setting up either of these.
I had to give up my static IP and often have
Is there any kind of database to filter out time-wasting, vitriolic
arguments full of personal attacks, about things that have nothing to
do with Debian?
I guess there is, but come on people, enough is enough. Just hit the
delete key and get over it. There are tons of things to do to make
On Wed, 29 March 2000 14:31:50 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
This is deliberately removed, we had some problems a year or so ago with
the received lines getting too long for some mailers. We are looking at
putting them back.
There are some sites out there that have a limit of 15 and
you are
On Thu, 30 March 2000 05:53:20 -0500, Eric Weigel wrote:
If you're stuck with a service provider who has a crappy mail
service, and/or who has your IP listed on the DUL, I'll offer a
solution.
Also uucp over tcp/ip is offered for quite a small monthly
charge at cid.net, have whatever hostname
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
X-Filtered-By: DUL
or similar header be added to all list mail?
Apparently qmail can't do that out of
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 02:02:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Alexander Koch wrote:
DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say
we use it since the amount of spam is certainly increasing
the last weeks and DUL is understandable.
Yes there is more
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 09:17:46AM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
Yes there is more spam, but I've been looking and I haven't seen that much
(if any at all) would be blocked by DUL.
I personally think the DUL is most harmless RBL and the most
legitimate (bad wording probably) for use. And if
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
you just distrust it because it's running on NT? Seriously?
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Hell, Joseph, have you ever stopped to read one of your own posts to
see what you really sound like?
I agree, knghtbrd, you sound too fanatical(sp?). Calm down, and perhaps
people will pay more attention to what you're saying.
--
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:06:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Hell, Joseph, have you ever stopped to read one of your own posts to
see what you really sound like?
I agree, knghtbrd, you sound too fanatical(sp?). Calm down, and perhaps
people will pay more attention to what you're saying.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
you just distrust it because it's running on NT?
On Wed, 29 March 2000 01:57:45 -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
I'm not the only person here who thinks so. Make Debian use all the
blacklists you want. You'll find users and developers dropping like
flies.
If everything else fails, this is the best argument to bring
up, really. Tell me why I
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:57:45AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
I have read them. (I did write them after all.)
One does not necessarily follow based on the other.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:07:59AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
First: YOUR SPAM IS NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.
Second: Broadband providers are not a commodity. And they're usually not
cheap.
Third: The difference in cost between my DSL service and any other
broadband service (even with lest
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:16:11PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
btw - if you really need to find a smarthost that is working
well I doubt you have to search for a long time. Mail is not
just mail and I can imagine many specials for those like you
that need a decent smarthost. It is just the
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
you just distrust it because
On 29-Mar-00, 07:16 (CST), Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 March 2000 01:57:45 -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
I'm not the only person here who thinks so. Make Debian use all the
blacklists you want. You'll find users and developers dropping like
flies.
If everything
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:42:14PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
A. swbell has frequent problems with their mail-servers, both inbound
(POP) and outbound (SMTP). I don't know (or care) what OS they run.
B. When I got my DSL line, swbell was the *only* ISP possibile in
houston.
That's part
Branden,
Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
But the points about ORBS are still valid, no matter what DUL is. Being
listed in orbs IS something you can change: Fix your server! And if you're
Rather than contribute to the flame war, I would like to ask a question.
Apologies if this is a total rookie question.
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a Received: header to show where
messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
track down actual spammers. Is this
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:06:19PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Branden,
Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
But the points about ORBS are still valid, no matter what DUL is. Being
listed in
On Wed, 29 March 2000 12:42:14 -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Joseph's arguments, while occasionally strident, are not foolish. I
find it interesting that his opponents devolve into name calling and
obscenity.
You can read? Sure, you can.
I tried to explain some point to him on irc but I
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:06:19PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
Leave you out of what? I mailed the list, not you personally.
But the points about ORBS are
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:15:27PM -0800, Larry Gilbert wrote:
Rather than contribute to the flame war, I would like to ask a question.
Apologies if this is a total rookie question.
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a Received: header to show where
messages are originating? This
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Larry Gilbert wrote:
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a Received: header to show where
messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
track down actual spammers. Is this being deliberately omitted or does
qmail just normally not include this
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
Some MTA's -- and I don't know which ones -- apparently choke if there is
more than n bytes' worth of Received: headers.
So, as I understand it, these are stripped out by murphy to help make sure
the list mails get to all the recipients.
Maybe
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:21:52PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
Nils: you still need a DNS named,
nope, DUL doesn't care whether you have a DNS entry and a matching
reverse lookup.
static,
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:28:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:15:27PM -0800, Larry Gilbert wrote:
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a Received: header to show where
messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
track down actual
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
Unfortunately that is not correct. Both NTL's cablemodems and some of BT's ADSL
modems are listed in the
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:01:12AM -0500, jpb wrote:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
Have you ever had mail actually disappear
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:16:32PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
Unfortunately that is not correct. Both
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:21:52PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
Nils: you still need a DNS named,
nope, DUL doesn't care whether you have a DNS entry and a matching
reverse lookup.
static,
yep. the DUL lists dynamic
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:14:58PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say we use it
since the amount of spam is certainly increasing the last weeks and
DUL is understandable.
Craig?
obviously, i agree - i've been arguing for us to use the
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:31:50PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Larry Gilbert wrote:
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a Received: header to show where
messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
track down actual spammers. Is this being
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Lawrence Walton wrote:
Nils: you still need a DNS named, static, route-able IP to be your own host.
Only for incoming, and with incoming, you decide if you want to use ORBS
or not. I'd say most public providers don't use it, for obvious reasons.
ORBS only affects you when
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 08:56:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
The domain's technical contact.
Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
than [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a lot less likely. sending to [EMAIL
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
Well then I have to agree, DUL is bad, because it's near impossible to
kill dial-in spammers, except to have their accounts revoked
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
you were lucky enough to be able to set up something at work. many
others will be able to setup something similar. debian developers
should have the option of a uucp account from one of the debian servers
(trivially easy for us to set up).
I think
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
ORBS deserves special mention because of their insane hit count, I don't
know what that is about but ORBS would block 10% of the mails we get. I
think it is without question that the majority of those blocks
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Yes, it does. I configured all of my exim systems to put warnings
in the
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Daniel Martin wrote:
ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Which is basically the same.
This means that since my campus's smarthost trusts any machine
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Yeah... Blacklist this person we've blacklisted or we'll blacklist you.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:16:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I have received one legitimate email (from a customer) which failed
the ORBS check, so I won't be rejecting based on that. But I see no
reason not to reject on RBL (which Debian already does), and
probably RSS and DUL too.
That
On Tue, 28 March 2000 17:03:56 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
That roughly matches my experience - ORBS blocks far too much to use in
Did anyone say above.net? ORBS swamped Germany half a year
ago with mails, some big ISPs are still in the ORBS database
for 1000+ business customers are not really easy
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Alexander Koch wrote:
DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say
we use it since the amount of spam is certainly increasing
the last weeks and DUL is understandable.
Yes there is more spam, but I've been looking and I haven't seen that much
(if any at
* Joseph Carter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 16:45]:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe
that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce
false positives.
I don't
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
* Note, once a site is listed in one of these RBLs it becomes impossible
for a user to unsubscribe from our lists - no matter what they do they
will never be able to communicate a bounce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Nils Jeppe wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
firewall out sites
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
The domain's technical contact.
Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
than [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've seen NIC
Nils Jeppe wrote:
ORBS blocks all open relays. A lot of people have open relays. Since open
relays still do not have any reason for existence other than admin
ignorance, the correct way here would be to block all open relays and
then fix the mail servers. ORBS really cuts down on spam, the
Okay, since everyone really desperately wants to know, I ran the numbers
on the effectiveness of RBL, RSS, DUL and ORBS against the mail intake for
lists.debian.org. All of this is theoretical and done offline against the
log file, we are blocking only via RBL (and now RSS)
The period of
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:28:24PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
A perusal of the DUL ips all suggest they are *all* modems which is a
really selective filter swath. No DSL or Cable IPs appear to be listed!
Well, I don't know about the US, but I suspect that's because you can
have a dialup
* Jason Gunthorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 08:45]:
[...]
ORBS - 314
Comparing connections it is found that 3970 out of 40236 connection
attempts would have been blocked. This can be roughly considered to be
3970 emails blocked.
[...]
ORBS deserves special mention because of their
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
ORBS deserves special mention because of their insane hit count, I don't
know what that is about but ORBS would block 10% of the mails we get. I
think it is without question that the majority of those blocks are
legitimate mails. ORBS is also almost
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 10:49:09AM +0200, Michael Neuffer wrote:
ORBS deserves special mention because of their insane hit count, I don't
know what that is about but ORBS would block 10% of the mails we get. I
think it is without question that the majority of those blocks are
legitimate
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
ORBS has a tendancy to not take the time to make sure their messages go to
the right places and then they are very slow to take sites off the list
after problems are fixed.
afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there
be?
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And taking people off the list is automatic. Fix it, enter the IP in their
form, it gets re-cehcekd and taken off the list. Works like a charm.
My recent experience with ORBS backs this up.
If people configured their servers correctly, they'd never get on
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:15:42AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
ORBS has a tendancy to not take the time to make sure their messages go to
the right places and then they are very slow to take sites off the list
after problems are fixed.
afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
The domain's technical contact.
Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
than [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've seen NIC entries with technical contacts
called NOC Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]; do you think hotmail
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, I can find at least one site real quickly whose admin will tell you
that he got a message from ORBS, fixed the problem, was blacklisted
anyway, and it took him a month to get off that list even though the
problem was fixed
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
ORBS blocks all open relays. A lot of people have open relays. Since open
relays still do not have any reason for existence other than admin
ignorance, the correct way here would be to block all open relays and
ORBS also blacklist
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site notices
the first check, blocks the rest and
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there
be?
The domain's technical contact.
Might be a good idea to do this in addition to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I
fail to see where this is better - Most domains have quite
On 26 Mar 2000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
postmaster at a host I co-admin got mail from ORBS a few days before
Christmas of 1999. We were given four weeks to fix our open relay,
plenty of logs and a reasonable amount of help from the ORBS website
on how to fix it. The only difficult part
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
Or it appears to have been accepted and goes nowhere. I've seen a setup
or two like this specifically for the purposes of tracking who was trying
to use the relay...
Just check your reject log for ip adresses ;-)
If someone has some weird setup like
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe
that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce
false positives.
This used to be true.
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:34:37PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
Unfortunately, it demonstrates that ORBS is a little more indiscriminant
than perhaps is good.
Yes; because innocent people do get caught in the middle of it. But it's
the only method to fight open relays. I've said it before and
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
The point exactly.. If RBL or RSS blacklists someone, it's a known
spammer or a site which has refused to act against spammers abusing their
systems. In these instances, the blacklisting happens as a last resort.
But you can't keep up with the
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site
On 26 Mar 2000, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
It's just an illustration of the problems of attempting to enforce
your preferred policies upon others.
I'd call it self-defense, really.
--
Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's
wise' attitude.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Michael Neuffer wrote:
* Jason Gunthorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 08:45]:
[...]
ORBS - 314
Comparing connections it is found that 3970 out of 40236 connection
attempts would have been blocked. This can be roughly considered to be
3970 emails blocked.
Nils Jeppe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Four weeks? Did they change this? When we got blacklisted coz a customer
(open relay) used us as a smart host, they gave us four days ;-).
All I can report is my experience. I got four weeks.
Yeah, me too. They're competent, cool people, and their system
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
