Emmet McGovern wrote:
> #2 eliminates most spam filter gateway setups out there.
You're correct, of course. That doesn't change the fact that I could
force their server to send out thousands of my spam messages to external
users using the method I described.
Presumably, spamcop lists servers
#2 eliminates most spam filter gateway setups out there.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: cf-talk blacklisted again by spamcop
Emmet McGovern wrote:
>
> BTW. Spamcop is also the RB
Emmet McGovern wrote:
>
> BTW. Spamcop is also the RBL that blacklists servers that deal out bounce
> backs.
Let's say I've got a mailing list of a million working email addresses,
and I find a server that accepts all email before checking for invalid
users. Let's also say that server bounces
: Monday, February 20, 2006 9:15 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: cf-talk blacklisted again by spamcop
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Michael Dinowitz wrote:
>
>>For personal mail this might be an effective option, but can you see the
>>firestorm if list mail was slowed down? :)
>
> N
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Michael Dinowitz wrote:
>
>>For personal mail this might be an effective option, but can you see the
>>firestorm if list mail was slowed down? :)
>
> Nobody notices a 10 or 15 second slowdown (you can go full speed
> after that).
I don't know many mail servers that t
Dave Watts wrote:
>>
>> I have mentioned the emailaddress i-need-a-gf @ vandieten .
>> net in the body of an email on this list once. Just once. I
>> think it was quoted one more time in an answer. Now, several
>> years later, I get about 20 spam messages to that address
>> every day.
>
> Yes
Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> For personal mail this might be an effective option, but can you see the
> firestorm if list mail was slowed down? :)
Nobody notices a 10 or 15 second slowdown (you can go full speed
after that).
> As for adding it on a personal level (or mail server one), is there an
For personal mail this might be an effective option, but can you see the
firestorm if list mail was slowed down? :)
As for adding it on a personal level (or mail server one), is there any good
instructions?
> Use greylisting, no hacking or banning needed, it is a purely
> technical process.
>
>
Michael Dinowitz wrote:
>>
>> It takes more than "anyone" it takes numerous "someones". One spam
>> report to spamcop doesn't cause you to get blacklisted.
> I can easily 'hack' this process and ban anyone I choose. This is one of the
> reasons I don't use any RBL for my spam checker.
Use grey
>> This is one of the reasons I don't use any RBL for my spam checker. I
>> wrote it myself and let me tell you that while it takes a few moments to
>> review some of the subjects, my success rate is 100% blocked with the
>> only mistakes coming from people who send mail without a subject. (red
> I would move bl.spamcop.net and dsn.rfc-ignorant.org from
> blocking spam to adding points in SpamAssassin and instead add
> greylisting: http://www.greylisting.org/
I second the greylisting recommendation. We recently implemented it, and
it's provided a significant improvement.
> I have menti
Rick Root wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>>> Spamcop listed houseoffusion because of some DNS/hostname configuration
>>> issues.
>> SCBL does not work that way. SCBL lists IP addresses based on
>> spam reports: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html
>
> Actually, Spamcop *DOES* work
Michael Dinowitz wrote:
>
> Yes, a month ago. So why are they having problems now?
Or rather, Friday night, they're not "now".. but a good question
nonetheless.
> This is one of the reasons I don't use any RBL for my spam checker. I wrote
> it myself and let me tell you that while it takes a fe
>Actually, Spamcop *DOES* work that way sometimes, and in this particular
>case, it did. House of Fusion was blacklisted because of DNS and
>hostname issues, as Michael has already pointed out.
Yes, a month ago. So why are they having problems now?
>When I looked up the IP address, it said it w
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
>> Spamcop listed houseoffusion because of some DNS/hostname configuration
>> issues.
>
> SCBL does not work that way. SCBL lists IP addresses based on
> spam reports: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html
Actually, Spamcop *DOES* work that way sometimes, a
Rick Root wrote:
>
> My mail server, which isn't particularly large, has blocked over 32,000
> incoming connections via various RBLs
>
> dsn.rfc-ignorant.org list.dsbl.org relays.ordb.org bl.spamcop.net
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.
I would move bl.spamcop.net and dsn.rfc-ignorant.org from
blocking
Rick Root wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> If the spamcop RBL routinely lists legitimate hosts, why do you
>> use it?
>
> The answer is obvious.
>
> *ALL* RBL lists contain some legitimate hosts from time to time. IMO.
Some: yes. From time to time: yes. Routinely: no.
> Spamcop listed ho
for what it's worth, I hate spam. And spam blocking/filtering is a
necessary evil, unfortunately. The harder you try to block spam, the
more likely you are to not see legitimate email.
My mail server, which isn't particularly large, has blocked over 32,000
incoming connections via various RBL
A little over a month ago I made a DNS config change from 64.118.74.245 to
46.118.74.249 but forgot to set the mail server to say
mail.houseoffusion.com rather than houseoffusion.com. I fixed it really fast
when I saw a spamcop block but to this day I still see people blocked due to
spamcop des
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
> If the spamcop RBL routinely lists legitimate hosts, why do you
> use it?
The answer is obvious.
*ALL* RBL lists contain some legitimate hosts from time to time. IMO.
Spamcop listed houseoffusion because of some DNS/hostname configuration
issues. I guess the mai
Rick Root wrote:
> I'm not getting any cf-talk email again, started sometime last night.
>
> Here's an entry from my smtp server's log file
>
> @400043f75bc5074da2f4 rblsmtpd: 64.118.74.249 pid 19425: 451 Blocked
> - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.118.74.249
>
> Looks like the s
Claude Schneegans wrote:
> >>Here's an entry from my smtp server's log file
> >>- see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.118.74.249
>
> Returns « 64.118.74.249 not listed in bl.spamcop.net »
>
> Might be a problem with your smtp server ?
Or, they fixed it pretty quickly after I reported it
>>Here's an entry from my smtp server's log file
>>- see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.118.74.249
Returns « 64.118.74.249 not listed in bl.spamcop.net »
Might be a problem with your smtp server ?
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.c
I'm not getting any cf-talk email again, started sometime last night.
Here's an entry from my smtp server's log file
@400043f75bc5074da2f4 rblsmtpd: 64.118.74.249 pid 19425: 451 Blocked
- see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?64.118.74.249
Looks like the same problem as before with the DN
24 matches
Mail list logo
