Am So, den 21.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 16:02:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
> > > try checking host and dig -x
> > > check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If you set
> > >
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
> > try checking host and dig -x
> > check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If you set
> > it using /etc/hostname then it won't match the one
Hi,
Am Fr, den 19.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 20:30:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>
> > The solution is
> > - lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
> > - using the proviers smarthost (good)
>
> My parents' ISP is now blocking my ISP's SMTP servers but not their who
Hmmm...
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
> try checking host and dig -x
> check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If you set
> it using /etc/hostname then it won't match the one given by the isp and
> thus the two checks would differ and that could be why th
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> The solution is
> - lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
> - using the proviers smarthost (good)
My parents' ISP is now blocking my ISP's SMTP servers but not their whole
IP range. So if I had followed your "advice" about mailrout
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:09:26PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
> > In practice, most "dynamic" IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
> > will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Most germ
On Thursday 18 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> You share a network neighbourhood with _others_. Your machine start
> connections to my machine, and when my machine want's to answer your
> machine half an hour later, _your_ machine is gone, or another machine
> is answering, or...
on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:09:26PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
> > In practice, most "dynamic" IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
> > will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
>
> Inco
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
> > And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
> > are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
> >
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 03:11:
> on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
> > > - There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively
> > > discriminate betwe
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
> In practice, most "dynamic" IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
> will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
Incorrect.
Most german providers cancel the connection every 24 hours to force a
new DynIP on the machine.
On Thursday 18 December 2003 12:00, Richard Kimber wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:04:58 GMT
> Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> important!) e-mails to the admins of those domains explaining why you
>> need to route your own mail and stating that they are contravening the
>> end-to-end princip
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:04:58 GMT
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> important!) e-mails to the admins of those domains explaining why you
> need to route your own mail and stating that they are contravening the
> end-to-end principles of the internet and punishing the innocent with
> the guilty.
On Friday 12 December 2003 01:50, Antonio Rodr wrote:
>
>> From that description I suspect you may be trying to e-mail to domains
>> that use dynablock.easynet.nl -- a blacklist of dynamically allocated
>> IP addresses. Fortunately (according to
>> http://abuse.easynet.nl/dynablocker.html) that
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:30, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 09:06:
>> On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>
>> > everyone should be forced to use a providers machine as smarthost.
>>
>> But it is not right to punish the
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> The solution is
> - lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
medium
> - using the proviers smarthost (good)
bad -- That's just given in to the arrogant people.
Good: add exceptions to exim.conf when you have to, then send polite (very
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your useful mail. This thread started to fill my killfile...
> :-)
>
> Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
> > - There are highly specific filters and methods which
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
> > And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
> > are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it m
Incoming from Magnus von Koeller:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
> > And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
> > are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
> > move backwards from something tha
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
> And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
> are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
> move backwards from something that's more accurate, in favour of
> something that's much, MUCH less accurate
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:13:35PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb ScruLoose um 21:36:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>
> > > A mailserver can harm _others_.
> > >
> > > I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailin
Hi,
Thanks for your useful mail. This thread started to fill my killfile...
:-)
Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
> - There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively
> discriminate between spam and non-spam content. Activity-based
> lists, Baye
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:09:18 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail coming
> from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much more likely
> to be spam or viruses? Who are you to tell me that I have to accept such
Incoming from Magnus von Koeller:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Wednesday 17 December 2003 01:21, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > This isn't acceptable for general-purpose communications, however.
> > And I'd suggest you look into common carrier laws as well (I'm
>
> And if you don't like your
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 01:21, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> This isn't acceptable for general-purpose communications, however.
> And I'd suggest you look into common carrier laws as well (I'm
> somewhat familiar with US statutes) as to showing preferences by
> customer. I see little distinction
> > > Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Yes
> cause, flooding mail servers, writing DDoS attacks, etc! Which is why
> my proposal specifically called for not allowing users to own or use
> their own machines. In fact, attempting to subvert this should be
> punishable by deat
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Debian User ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com> wrote:
>
> >on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:27:09PM -0800, Raquel Rice ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >net) wrote:
> >
> >> I have a block of static IPs.
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:09:18PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > > A mailserver can harm _others_.
> >
> > I totally agree. Which is why I'm
that point is/was not lost on me ... i just did not articulate.
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, ScruLoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ca> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:42:07PM -0500, charlie derr wrote:
>> Debian User wrote:
>
>> >maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
>>
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:15:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
>
> * No one should be allowed to eat more than one meal a day.
>
And no asking for seconds, Oliver.
Wesley, I've thoroughly enjoyed the wit which you've brought to this
thread.
Thank you very much.
--
paul
P
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:42:07PM -0500, charlie derr wrote:
> Debian User wrote:
> >maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
> >to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
> >setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
>
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:32:10 -0500, Antonio Rodr wrote:
> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems
> that some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are
> blocking all dinamic ips. Some isps ar
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Debian User wrote:
> i have to use a friend's open relay as smarthost to get aol-bound
> email off my server.
That probably won't work long... Just wait till that server gets on
the Open Relay block lists and then nobody'll get your email anymore.
Apart from th
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:56, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> A DDoS attack is something you _want_ to do. You will not do that
> accidently.
Are you sure?
Look at this:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-27.11.03-000/default.shtml
[Site's in German, though.]
--
--- Magnus von Koeller -
Incoming from Debian User:
>
> or, just tell your friends who are using aol, earthlink, snet, etc.
> , that you cannot send email to them because their isp is uptight
... And their ISP is "uptight" because in the past, they've been
blacklisted left and right for having _sent_ spam.
AOHell has b
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:33:59PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail
> > coming from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much
> > more likely to be spam or vir
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:34 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 22:15:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > > Don't do somethink risky if you not /really/ need that. And you
> > > absolutely don't need a mailser
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > > A mailserver can harm _others_.
> >
> > I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arb
wow ... so, if you don't have exposure to the joys and sorrows of
running your own server on the net, how can you really learn?
then, the net and everyone who uses it should be licensed like ham
radio operators? afterall, the net is just a transmission medium
like rf is a transmission medium.
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 21:34:
> > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > > Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
> >
> > Exactly my point--a mail server is local softw
Hi,
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb ScruLoose um 21:36:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
> > A mailserver can harm _others_.
> >
> > I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full of
interesting articles.
realisically, as i have some business domains on my server, i cannot
prevent users from receiving email from aol et. al. accounts. furthermore,
i have to use a friend's open relay as smarthost to get aol-bound
email off my server.
is there no other way to stop aol et. al
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > A mailserver can harm _others_.
>
> I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary
> entities to determine who can and can not run a mail ser
on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:27:09PM -0800, Raquel Rice ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have a block of static IPs. I have the blessings of my provider.
> I was even asked to stop using their servers as a "smart host".
> Yet, my IP numbers are listed as being a range used as "Cable, DSL &
> Dial U
Hi,
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 21:34:
> On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
> > > Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
> >
> > Local software can destroy (your) local st
but using a smarthost is a way around this.
or, just tell your friends who are using aol, earthlink, snet, etc.
, that you cannot send email to them because their isp is uptight
;)
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, charlie derr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Debian User wrote:
>> maybe i missed some
Debian User wrote:
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
eventhough you have a dynamic IP address.
I think what you missed is that
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
> > Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
>
> Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
>
> A mailserver can harm _others_.
>
> I said that yesterd
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
> > Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
>
> Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
Exactly my point--a mail server is local software.
Just another go
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
eventhough you have a dynamic IP address.
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, Joerg Rossdeutscher <
Hi,
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 09:06:
> On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > everyone should be forced to use a providers machine as smarthost.
>
> But it is not right to punish the innocent as well as the guilty.
It's not a question of morale. :-)
With dy
Hi,
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Magnus von Koeller um 23:02:
> On Sunday 14 December 2003 22:46, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > There's no alternative. You can't block open relays on dynamic IPs,
> > since they are _dynamic_ IPs. Yes, what's happening to you is
> > unfair. Any better ideas? I do
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
> Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full of
nonsense since one guy is not able to co
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:41, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>
> This is even easier. Your local mailserver should not immediately
> deliver to the recipient, but to your providers smarthost. The mail will
But how could I do this?
Sorry if I'm capturing a thread here... I've posted my quetsions to th
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Running and maintaining a mailserver is a difficult job.
Configuring a mailserver to route mail outward from a firewalled LAN is
not difficult.
> Incorrect
> configured mailservers can cause a lot of problems to others.
That's tr
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 12:57:
>> On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
>> > There's nothing wrong with fetching mail
>> > - immediately after every dial in
>> > - every 10 minutes when being onli
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:41:59PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
> > It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free, uncensored,
> > fast email system.
>
> Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better
On Sunday 14 December 2003 2:37 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Al Davis um 17:21:
> > On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
> > > We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail
Incoming from Joerg Rossdeutscher:
>
> Censorship? Nonsense.
Blah, blah, blah. *plonk*
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Sunday 14 December 2003 22:46, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> There's no alternative. You can't block open relays on dynamic IPs,
> since they are _dynamic_ IPs. Yes, what's happening to you is
> unfair. Any better ideas? I don't see one. And I don't want to
> receive spam from millions of open "d
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Raquel Rice um 03:27:
> Blocking an IP range just without
> knowing they are open relays or sending out spam is no better than
> arresting a black man because the police officer has some idiot
> belief that black men commit all crimes.
There's no alternative. You can'
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 12:57:
> On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with fetching mail
> > - immediately after every dial in
> > - every 10 minutes when being online
> > - every 3 hours no matter if already online
> >
> > Works fi
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Al Davis um 17:21:
> On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
> wrote:
> > Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
> > We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail from
> > everywhere. There is absolutely nothing you can do except to
> > u
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:26:07 -0500,
Al Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually ... I have several email addresses, and my mail comes
> in from several paths. MY spam filtering seems to be nearly
> 100% effective on the freeelectron address, which I control.
On Sunday 14 December 2003 12:41 pm, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
> > It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free,
> > uncensored, fast email system.
>
> Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better description
> for my email account if i
On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
> It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free, uncensored,
> fast email system.
Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better description for my
email account if it wasn't for my Spam filtering - considering that
>95% of my email is Sp
On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
wrote:
> Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
> We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail from
> everywhere. There is absolutely nothing you can do except to
> use your providers mailserver.
On Saturday 13 December 2003 0
On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> I agree to that. Not everyone should use a private mailserver. Hobbyists
> and Freaks should not run such service, it's a job for professionals,
> and those have a static ip. I'm really tired of writing a lot in
> mailinglists an get
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 at 09:46 GMT, Joerg Rossdeutscher penned:
>
>
> I agree to that. Not everyone should use a private mailserver.
> Hobbyists and Freaks should not run such service, it's a job for
> professionals, and those have a static ip. I'm really tired of writing
> a lot in mailinglists an
On Saturday 13 December 2003 10:00, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Thanasis Kinias um 21:51:
>> AOL was the first that I encountered to do this; over the
>> summer, they started blocking all e-mail originating from Cox IP
>> addresses. Not long thereafter, Cox
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:29:05 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * TR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031212 04:02]:
> > Somebody whose attribution has been removed wrote:
> > > Well, really you'll just need one such router, with the bad
> > > domains listed on that "domains = " line. Me, I'd us
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Thanasis Kinias um 21:51:
> AOL was the first that I encountered to do this; over the
> summer, they started blocking all e-mail originating from Cox IP
> addresses. Not long thereafter, Cox blocked all outbound SMTP except to
> their own mailserver, so I had to
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 23:26:
> On Thursday 11 December 2003 21:10, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> > Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
> >> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> >> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:48:25PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Rodr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> > rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
> > some have blocked the ips in my bloc
* TR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031212 04:02]:
> Somebody whose attribution has been removed wrote:
> > Well, really you'll just need one such router, with the bad domains
> > listed on that "domains = " line. Me, I'd use a filename there and
> > that way be able to just edit the file whenever I felt li
scripsit TR:
> > * Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
> > > # For AOL...
> > >
> > > aol:
> > > driver = domainlist
> > > domains = aol.com
> > > transport = remote_smtp
> > > route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
>
> Is there a space between
My isp killed me again, when I tried to email to my self a test after
changing exim.conf as indicated So, let me ask a couple of questions:
> * Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
> > # For AOL...
> >
> > aol:
> > driver = domainlist
> > domains = aol.com
>
On Friday 12 December 2003 01:50, Antonio Rodr wrote:
> Please do post an example. I think I need one. Thanks.
This example is from an Exim 4 config file, but I think it will work in
Exim 3 too. (Could someone please correct this if it's wrong?) The
following stanza goes in the ROUTERS sectio
scripsit Vineet Kumar:
> * Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
> > # For AOL...
> >
> > aol:
> > driver = domainlist
> > domains = aol.com
> > transport = remote_smtp
> > route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
> >
> > You will need to set this up
* Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
> # For AOL...
>
> aol:
> driver = domainlist
> domains = aol.com
> transport = remote_smtp
> route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
>
> You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain.[...]
Well,
> From that description I suspect you may be trying to e-mail to domains
> that use dynablock.easynet.nl -- a blacklist of dynamically allocated
> IP addresses. Fortunately (according to
> http://abuse.easynet.nl/dynablocker.html) that blacklist will go out
> of commission soon. I hope responsi
scripsit Adam:
> Which may or may not be reliable. My ISP's mailservers are reliable
> _most_ of the time -- but when they are not, they do not return
> warning messages until they bounce the mail after 48 hours on the
> queue.
Try Cox. In their latest episode of incompetence, there was no war
On Thursday 11 December 2003 21:10, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
>> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
>> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
>> some have blocked the
On Thursday 11 December 2003 20:40, Antonio Rodr wrote:
> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
> some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
> dinamic ips. Some isps ar
scripsit Antonio Rodr:
>
> > You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain. Or, you
> > can give up entirely and relay everything, like I was forced to do.
> > Then add something like this as the very first entry in the section:
> >
> > coxsucks:
> > driver = domai
> You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain. Or, you
> can give up entirely and relay everything, like I was forced to do.
> Then add something like this as the very first entry in the section:
>
> coxsucks:
> driver = domainlist
> transport = remot
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
> some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
> dinamic ips.
Yes, many
scripsit Antonio Rodr:
> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems
> that some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking
> all dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my emails without prob
Quoting Antonio Rodr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
> rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
> some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
> dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my emails without problems. At some
point I thought i
90 matches
Mail list logo
