On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> On 2/24/99 3:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>
> >On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 09:48:24PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Is anyone else having problems with AOL subscribers?
> >
> >It's AOL's clueless (is this any surprise?) and inappropriate anti-spam
> >tactics, which mostly seem to consist of blocking legitimate traffic
>
> I'll back you up if you call their methods overzealous, but clueless and
> inappropriate?
Yes. On a recent Friday morning, legitimate mailing list traffic
directed to a number of AOL subscribers was rejected (and, I might
add, with an incorrect and leading diagnostic message). AOL later
quietly acknowledged (informally) that this was an "oops' on the part
of their anti-spam effort.
> Plenty of sites have no trouble. The ones that do, are the
> ones playing fast and loose with DNS, have a bad history for allowing
> relays, or are otherwise abusing SMTP delivery.
None of which applies to the site(s) in question. Let me repeat that
so that you clearly understand: the site(s) in question are not playing
fast and loose with DNS, they have NEVER had relaying enabled, much
less abused, and they have NEVER abused SMTP delivery. (I know this
because I have been personally responsible for the operation of these
site(s) from their first day of existence.)
No, the problem was AOL's clueless and inappropriate methods. I don't
see why anyone would find this surprising, given their long history
of incompetence.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
