On Mon, Jun 07, 2004, Bill Campbell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004, Jay Moore wrote:
On Monday 07 June 2004 10:29 am, Bill Moran wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips
identified as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip
based.
The easiest way
Hi Nicole
I wonder if you can help me. I saw your message on the Net regarding ISPs Blocking
SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space. I have a problem now that didn't
exist 6 months where my mail gets returned when emailing a specific address, the error
is 550: SPAMMER and all my
Lenny Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nicole
I wonder if you can help me. I saw your message on the Net regarding ISPs
Blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space. I have a problem now
that didn't exist 6 months where my mail gets returned when emailing a
specific
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:17:12 +0100, Lenny Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nicole
I wonder if you can help me. I saw your message on the Net regarding
ISPs Blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space. I have a
problem now that didn't exist 6 months where my mail gets returned
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips identified
as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip based. My mail
server runs on a business package dsl with 5 static ips. Not everyone can
afford T1/T3 connections. As for getting a real mail server, that
Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips identified
as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip based.
It's wonderful that most ISPs haven't figured out how to play nicely with the
rest of the world. I only block when I
Bill Moran wrote:
Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips identified
as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip based.
It's wonderful that most ISPs haven't figured out how to play nicely with the
rest of the world. I
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips identified
as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip based.
It's wonderful that most ISPs haven't figured
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004, Lucas Holt wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips identified
as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip based
Some of the largest ISPs in the country, including AOL, are blocking what
they consider ``residential dsl'' in
On 06/07/04 12:36 PM, Bill Moran sat at the `puter and typed:
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
SNIP
I think something has changed in this respect lately. I've sent close
to a dozen messages to the FreeBSD list since Saturday, and not one has
gotten through.
Wow. Looks like all my other emails are starting to come through. I
don't know why, but it seems email slowed down to snail-mail pace this
weekend. Bill, if you see anything in the headers to my messages that
might seem wrong, and have some idea, I'd be infinitely grateful for
any pointers.
To
On Monday 07 June 2004 10:29 am, Bill Moran wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips
identified as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip
based.
The easiest way I've found to learn if your IP address is listed, and who is
listing it is:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004, Jay Moore wrote:
On Monday 07 June 2004 10:29 am, Bill Moran wrote:
Just make sure they are truly dynamic ips. Many people block ips
identified as DSL connections. Those are not necessarily dynamic ip
based.
The easiest way I've found to learn if your IP address is
Doug Poland wrote:
Hello,
This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for resources. As a
long
time FreeBSD admin/user I know this is a large, diverse, and eloquent community of
technical users. I hope someone can point me to a resource or group of users that
address this
dick hoogendijk wrote:
On 08 Aug Mykroft Holmes IV wrote:
Just because you have a highspeed connection with a stable or static
IP doesn't mean it's not dynamic. Dynamic simply means assigned by
DHCP or RADIUS (For dialup and some DSL). If you're in this space you
should be relaying through your
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:34:45PM -0400, Lucas Holt wrote:
I do understand the counter argument about blocking ips.. but i think
thats frustration talking. Even if ip blocking is an improvement, it
won't stop spam.
Agreed, does anyone know why requiring reverse DNS isn't good enough?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote:
snip
Within the last two months both AOL and Time Warner Road Runner have implemented
port 25
blocks from hosts with IP addresses in the dynamic address space. Time Warner
claims
other major ISPs are/will be implementing the same
On 06-Aug-03 Unnamed Administration sources reported Doug Poland said :
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:41:56AM -0700, Nicole wrote:
Yes I too have resorted to blocking Ip's with no reverse DNS and
its amazing how many big companies can fall into this.
As to the Dynamic Space, I also block
Mykroft Holmes IV wrote:
These Residential/Dynamic blocks are usually reversed. And they cause
the vast majority of problems that originate in North America.
Frankly, alot of people simply blacklist 24.* for this reason.
If your provider's mail servers suck, and they have blocks tagged as
On 06 Aug Lucas Holt wrote:
You guys need to rethink this thing. Reverse DNS checks are ok, but
ip blocking for legitimate servers is silly.
I quote this again! It is _so_ true!
Armoring our mailboxes/servers by blocking others just because they make
use of dsl or broadband cable is just
Why don't people talk about software developers? Someone is writing
the software for spammers. Lets go after them. Think about it;
spammers have an average education level of high school dropout.
Mainstream media has done stories about this.
Bottom line, spammers are too stupid to write
snip
The problem with running an MTA on a dynamic IP is even a little more
difficult than just dealing with the dnsbls. A while back on the exim users
list:
http://www.exim.org/pipermail/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20030623/055733.html
and
On 08 Aug Mykroft Holmes IV wrote:
Just because you have a highspeed connection with a stable or static
IP doesn't mean it's not dynamic. Dynamic simply means assigned by
DHCP or RADIUS (For dialup and some DSL). If you're in this space you
should be relaying through your ISP's mailserver. 90%
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:27:15PM +0200, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:
Doug Poland wrote:
Within the last two months both AOL and Time Warner Road Runner
have implemented port 25 blocks from hosts with IP addresses in the
dynamic address space. Time Warner claims other major ISPs
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:41:56AM -0700, Nicole wrote:
Yes I too have resorted to blocking Ip's with no reverse DNS and
its amazing how many big companies can fall into this.
As to the Dynamic Space, I also block DSL/dynamicly assigned Ip's
as I fall aware of them. (See Example
We started blocking on no rDNS several months ago, and it's been extremely
effective with low false positive problems. I heard that AOL started
refusing connections with no rDNS about a month ago which makes it easier
to justify our policies to the clueless.
Yah - I waited for a month or so
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:37:21AM -0500, Bruce Pea wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:33 PM -0400 Steve Hovey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, dynamic usually means not a business - which often means
spam - and we are all losing hair over the war on spam.
I now block ip's with
Hello,
This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for resources. As a
long
time FreeBSD admin/user I know this is a large, diverse, and eloquent community of
technical users. I hope someone can point me to a resource or group of users that
address this policy.
Within the
There are valid servers on DSL ips... I occasionally do IT work for a
small business. They are running their web, dns, and email from a
static IP DSL account through SBC. They bought a business package for
this purpose. They do not spam anyone.
You guys need to rethink this thing. Reverse
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:
Its still not a reason for allowing relay from dynamic addresses.
All ISP's, or atleast all serious ISP's, provide their customer with a
relaying mailserver. Its a simple task to configure your mailserver to
use your ISP's smtp as smarthost
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:14:28PM +0100, Jez Hancock wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote: snip
Within the last two months both AOL and Time Warner Road Runner
have implemented port 25 blocks from hosts with IP addresses in
the dynamic address space. Time
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:14:28PM +0100, Jez Hancock wrote:
Actually I think there was one reply that mentioned a lot of
netblocks that were being included. If it's the case that those
netblocks are admin'd by companies that do
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:
Bullshit. My ISP's lack of ability to deliver mail reliably is what made
me start my own mail service in the first place. Nor do I particularly
want to hand them my mail so they can riffle through it at their leisure
rather than having
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:33 PM -0400 Steve Hovey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, dynamic usually means not a business - which often means
spam - and we are all losing hair over the war on spam.
I now block ip's with no reverse dns
We are doing this as well. We get a fair
- Original Message -
From: Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Doug Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ISPs blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space
You guys need to rethink
Since we began blocking servers with no reverse DNS we've been amazed at
how many mail servers are setup with no reverse DNS. We've had several
instances where we've been asked by the party being blocked how to fix
the problem. Since I'm not a DNS expert all I've been able to tell them
is to
Doug Poland wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:34:45PM -0400, Lucas Holt wrote:
I do understand the counter argument about blocking ips.. but i think
thats frustration talking. Even if ip blocking is an improvement, it
won't stop spam.
Agreed, does anyone know why requiring reverse DNS isn't
Yes I too have resorted to blocking Ip's with no reverse DNS and its amazing
how many big companies can fall into this.
As to the Dynamic Space, I also block DSL/dynamicly assigned Ip's as I fall
aware of them. (See Example below) Since some Isp's are smart enough to identify
their dynamicly
I think we need software that blocks spam out of the box.
Server Side:
I've found that most of my time is spent installing addons for sendmail
to do virus scanning and spam prevention. Why don't mail servers have
spam assassin, black lists, etc. enabled and installed with a base set
of rules
Interspersed
Mark wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Doug Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ISPs blocking SMTP connections from dynamic IP address space
You
Kevin Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:
Its still not a reason for allowing relay from dynamic addresses.
All ISP's, or atleast all serious ISP's, provide their customer with a
relaying mailserver. Its a simple task to configure your mailserver to
use your
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:49:44AM -0500, Bruce Pea wrote:
Since we began blocking servers with no reverse DNS we've been amazed at
how many mail servers are setup with no reverse DNS. We've had several
instances where we've been asked by the party being blocked how to fix
the problem.
Lucas Holt wrote:
Why don't people talk about software developers? Someone is writing
the software for spammers. Lets go after them. Think about it;
spammers have an average education level of high school dropout.
Mainstream media has done stories about this.
Bottom line, spammers are
On 8/6/03 9:19 AM, Doug Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for resources.
As a long
time FreeBSD admin/user I know this is a large, diverse, and eloquent
community of
technical users. I hope someone can point me to a
Unfortunately, dynamic usually means not a business - which often means
spam - and we are all losing hair over the war on spam.
I now block ip's with no reverse dns
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Doug Poland wrote:
Hello,
This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for resources.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:37:21AM -0500, Bruce Pea wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:33 PM -0400 Steve Hovey
I now block ip's with no reverse dns
We are doing this as well. We get a fair number of complaints from people
who's mail doesn't get delivered but we tell them to fix
(quoted text below reformatted to cure severe long/short-itis).
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:19:57AM -0500, Doug Poland wrote:
Hello,
This isn't so much a FreeBSD topic but a comment and a request for
resources. As a long time FreeBSD admin/user I know this is a large,
diverse, and eloquent
47 matches
Mail list logo
