Hi,
I'm not sure what the policy of this list is and I bet everyone has a spam
filter, so nobody might have noticed, but we got spammed.
Can anyone send mail to the list or do you have to subscribe first ?
-- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm b
Unfortunately I must report that legitimate emails are also blocked by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.
After exchanging a number of private emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], my next answer was blocked without reason at all.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.s
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:42:19 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers dag-at-wieers.com
|Rsync List| <...> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the policy of this list is and I bet everyone has a spam
> filter, so nobody might have noticed, but we got spammed.
>
> Can anyone send mail to the list or do you have to subscrib
John Van Essen wrote:
Off list to rsync list owner (feel free to reply on-list if you like):
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure what the policy of this list is and I bet everyone has a spam
filter, so nobody might have noticed, but we got spammed.
The policy
Martin Pool wrote:
John Van Essen wrote:
The policy is to block as much spam as possible without blocking
legitimate posts. A 100% solution is impossible, even if we had human
moderation (humans make mistakes).
I am seeing reports on news.admin.net-abuse.email from Steve Linford
that he is gett
Christian Nekvedavicius wrote:
Unfortunately I must report that legitimate emails are also blocked by
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.
If you e-mails are being blocked by a sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org listing then
you should be complaining loudly to your network provider.
It my help if you find out what list(s) th
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The I.P. address is listed in bl.spamcop.net as hitting spamtraps.
Just so you know, spamcop view bounces as spam. According to them, you
should never send bounces. I believe the right approach is to convince
admins to drop spamcop from their RBL list, rather than remove t
Continuing this off-topic issue:
On Mon 18 Apr 2005, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> John E. Malmberg wrote:
>
> >The I.P. address is listed in bl.spamcop.net as hitting spamtraps.
>
> Just so you know, spamcop view bounces as spam. According to them, you
> should never send bounces. I believe the rig
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The I.P. address is listed in bl.spamcop.net as hitting spamtraps.
Just so you know, spamcop view bounces as spam. According to them, you
should never send bounces.
I think you will find a large amount of mail server administrators agree
with that, e
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The essential SMTP NACK is not what is the problem as long as it is
done during the SMTP connection using reject codes. Issuing a SMTP
reject code for undeliverable messages will never cause a spamcop.net
listing.
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recomm
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
> against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
> being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who recommended this
Alun wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who reco
Paul Slootman wrote:
> There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
> first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
> envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
> first. I agree with them. 20% of the junk I get are bogus bou
On Tue 19 Apr 2005, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> > There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
> > first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
> > envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
> > first. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
