On Monday 30 January 2006 11:30, Ben Scott wrote: > On 1/28/06, Python <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Anyone here have figures on what percentages of their ham violates > standards or best practices? I don't, but based on anecdotal evidence > from operators much larger then me, the answer is: "A lot." > > The key is to distinguish spam from ham, not merely to assign > characteristics to spam. > > > A good chunk of the remaining spam comes from roadrunner > > addresses, presumably rooted zombies. > > Blocking the mass-market consumer Internet feed ranges is reportedly > a rather more effective spam/ham separator then looking for standards > compliance. The vast majority of mail from such ranges is, in fact, > spam. Of course, there are a few people running their own MX on such > feeds which get rather annoyed by such actions, including people on > this list. Sadly, those are so few that they are often considered > "justifiable collateral damage".
I've run into that problem in the past. Forget emailing to anyone on AOL from your own "private" MX. -Fred _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss