Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Hi Zbigniew, At 09:08 03-07-2007, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: And for the sake of argument, why on earth a POLISH spammer? Why does a spammer have to be Polish. I happen to live in Poland but I am no way a spammer, never have been and never will be. It's easier to blame some country for the spam problem. Your netblock is somewhat similar to the one used by Jonathan which may explain the problem he had. Regards, -sm
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Jonathan: No need to apologize at all; you did me a favor by letting me know we were still having these issues with our ISP's "anti-spam" methods. Will get this sorted out one way or the other. Trying to keep your user's mailboxes free of spam is work enough, but having to to battle with your ISP over services you are suppose to be opted out of is another issue. Thanks again and another apology to any on the list who were offended by my ISP's response. Jonathan Allen wrote: > List and [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > >> First off sorry for the problem and to any from the country of Poland >> that were offended by this. >> > > I need to apologise to the nice chap at cobatco - I really didn't mean > to cause you any embarassment on the public list, but I didn't think > I could reach you any other way since your ISP is blocking my emails. > Someone else suggested that I should have used the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > address since by the RFC that isn't supposed to be filtered, but I had > already posted by then. > > >> Gives me something to address this afternoon since I thought I had this >> solved ... >> > > Hope you get it fixed ... > > Jonathan > >
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
List and [EMAIL PROTECTED], > First off sorry for the problem and to any from the country of Poland > that were offended by this. I need to apologise to the nice chap at cobatco - I really didn't mean to cause you any embarassment on the public list, but I didn't think I could reach you any other way since your ISP is blocking my emails. Someone else suggested that I should have used the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address since by the RFC that isn't supposed to be filtered, but I had already posted by then. > Gives me something to address this afternoon since I thought I had this > solved ... Hope you get it fixed ... Jonathan
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Hi Jonathan, Yes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom I was trying to respond. But I worded my question badly - what I meant was: why on earth should their machine think that I am a Polish spammer ? The IP address is in one of the static blocks administered by my (UK) ISP. They may be using a "blacklist" to block SMTP connections from Poland. That list has the wrong geographic information for your IP address block. Regards, -sm
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Jonathan and all: First off sorry for the problem and to any from the country of Poland that were offended by this. The response came from our ISP which we fetch our mail from; they run a anti-spamming service that we are suppose to be opted out off but apparently are not. One of its many "features are country wide blocks or entire class A subnets. In the past they have blocked out China and HK which includes several of our customers. Gives me something to address this afternoon since I thought I had this solved, and, again, sorry if they/we offended anyone. Jonathan Allen wrote: All, I just tried to reply to a kind soul that had offered some help with the 3.2.1 root errors and got: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mail.cobatco.com.: DATA <<< 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable <<< 554 Error: no valid recipients I am neither a spammer, nor in Poland but a legitimate UK business with the same IP address for some years. Where on earth did this response come from ? It's a bit thick to get branded as a spammer when replying to someone from this list! Jonathan
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
At 09:04 AM 7/3/2007, Jonathan Allen wrote: Yes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom I was trying to respond. But I worded my question badly - what I meant was: why on earth should their machine think that I am a Polish spammer ? The IP address is in one of the static blocks administered by my (UK) ISP. Perhaps they mean "Polish Spammer" not as you're a spammer in Poland, but a spammer spamming in Polish (language)? Think of it like if you spammed Mortgage crap, it might say you're a "Mortgage Spammer". Of couse, we're all guessing here.
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Maybe because statistic talks :) Zbigniew Szalbot schrieb: Hi, Yes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom I was trying to respond. But I worded my question badly - what I meant was: why on earth should their machine think that I am a Polish spammer ? The IP address is in one of the static blocks administered by my (UK) ISP. And for the sake of argument, why on earth a POLISH spammer? Why does a spammer have to be Polish. I happen to live in Poland but I am no way a spammer, never have been and never will be. Warm regards, Zbigniew Szalbot
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Jonathan Allen wrote: I just tried to reply to a kind soul that had offered some help with the 3.2.1 root errors and got: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mail.cobatco.com.: DATA <<< 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable <<< 554 Error: no valid recipients I am neither a spammer, nor in Poland but a legitimate UK business with the same IP address for some years. Where on earth did this response come from ? It's a bit thick to get branded as a spammer when replying to someone from this list! Well, if somebody trusts in RBLs and rejects mail basing only upon RBL queries... This IP is not in Poland, even RIPE whois database would confirm this fact. Biggest Polish ADSL provider uses some of 83.x classes, so that could be the problem, but it's no reason for some some dumb soul to insert whole 83.x subnet into the RBL... Maybe he should put 0.0.0.0/0 and have spam problem 'solved'. :) -- Michał Jęczalik, +48.603.64.62.97 INFONAUTIC, +48.33.487.69.04
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
Hi, > Yes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom I was trying to respond. But I worded > my question badly - what I meant was: why on earth should their machine > think that I am a Polish spammer ? The IP address is in one of the > static blocks administered by my (UK) ISP. And for the sake of argument, why on earth a POLISH spammer? Why does a spammer have to be Polish. I happen to live in Poland but I am no way a spammer, never have been and never will be. Warm regards, Zbigniew Szalbot
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
SM, > > Where on earth did this response come from ? > > The response came from the mail server for cobatco.com. They have a > user subscribed to this mailing list. Yes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom I was trying to respond. But I worded my question badly - what I meant was: why on earth should their machine think that I am a Polish spammer ? The IP address is in one of the static blocks administered by my (UK) ISP. Jonathan
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
At 08:26 03-07-2007, Jonathan Allen wrote: I am neither a spammer, nor in Poland but a legitimate UK business with Are you absolutely sure you are not in Poland? :-) Antispam systems can sometimes be geography-challenged. the same IP address for some years. Where on earth did this response come from ? It's a bit thick to get branded as a spammer when replying to someone from this list! The response came from the mail server for cobatco.com. They have a user subscribed to this mailing list. Regards, -sm
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
All, I just tried to reply to a kind soul that had offered some help with the 3.2.1 root errors and got: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mail.cobatco.com.: >>> DATA <<< 554 : Client host rejected: Polish Spammer 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable <<< 554 Error: no valid recipients I am neither a spammer, nor in Poland but a legitimate UK business with the same IP address for some years. Where on earth did this response come from ? It's a bit thick to get branded as a spammer when replying to someone from this list! Jonathan
Re: Returned mail: see transcript for details
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: >- Transcript of session follows - > ... while talking to godfella.seaan.net.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown > in virtual mailbox table > 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown > <<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients This sort of thing makes it unnecessarily difficult to offer support, and discourages people from helping you in the future... -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Users mistake widespread adoption of Microsoft Office as the development of a standard document format. --- 14 days until Albert Einstein's 128th Birthday