On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:53:40AM +0200, Matej Kovac wrote:
> > :) Well, my approach is not that fancy. I just check if the callback
> > passes the RCPT, and if not, issue a 550 with a short message telling
> > that my host will not accept mail that cannot be answered.
>
> you are receiving a mes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:53:40AM +0200, Matej Kovac wrote:
> > :) Well, my approach is not that fancy. I just check if the callback
> > passes the RCPT, and if not, issue a 550 with a short message telling
> > that my host will not accept mail that cannot be answered.
>
> you are receiving a mes
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:04:01 +0200, Adrian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OTOH, it can be argued that anybody stupid enough to fall for a 419
> deserves what he gets. Still, it's actual people being actually killed
> because of spam.
..it can also be argued the Nigerian 419 rule is raci
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:04:01 +0200, Adrian wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OTOH, it can be argued that anybody stupid enough to fall for a 419
> deserves what he gets. Still, it's actual people being actually killed
> because of spam.
..it can also be argued the Nigerian 419 rule is raci
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 23.15, David Thurman wrote:
> On 6/30/04 10:43 AM, "Robert Cates" wrote:
> > Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning
> > news paper that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam
> > attack!
> Maybe no one has been killed, but given the human
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 23.15, David Thurman wrote:
> On 6/30/04 10:43 AM, "Robert Cates" wrote:
> > Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning
> > news paper that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam
> > attack!
> Maybe no one has been killed, but given the human
On 6/30/04 10:43 AM, "Robert Cates" wrote:
> Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news paper
> that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack!
Wrong, you must not read the Industry trade magazines. Many people are
(harmed) ripped off from spam, possible jai
On 6/30/04 10:43 AM, "Robert Cates" wrote:
> Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news paper
> that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack!
Wrong, you must not read the Industry trade magazines. Many people are
(harmed) ripped off from spam, possible jai
[no cc:s on list mail, please]
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 18.17, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you reject a message with a 55x and a suitable message then the
> author of the message can find another method of contact and there is
> no loss merely inconvenience.
While I personally agree, some people r
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:34, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that false positives are extremely annoying, so an ISP/corporate
> anti-spam policy will have to be more conservative than what some here
> use for their own email.
The correct solution to false po
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:43, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news
> paper that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack! Have you
I know many people who have a stated intention of killing a spammer if given a
[no cc:s on list mail, please]
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 18.17, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you reject a message with a 55x and a suitable message then the
> author of the message can find another method of contact and there is
> no loss merely inconvenience.
While I personally agree, some people r
who's making what
decision, the largest ISP will take-over the competition, and before we know
it, there will be an Internet monopoly much the same as the PC software
industry of the past 20 or more years.
- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 15.54, Robert Cates wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why don't you make life easier for yourself and forget trying to
> block Spam! Let your customers and/or users be responsible for
> blocking Spam! [...]
Apart from what Russel says: are you prepared to pay for it?
According to some (
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:54, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam Black ("Block") Lists? Not a good thing in my opinion!! I mean,
> e-mail servers can be configured NOT to relay for unauthorized domains
> anyway. I'm not an advocate of e-mail Spamming. I just feel that the
> control o
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:34, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that false positives are extremely annoying, so an ISP/corporate
> anti-spam policy will have to be more conservative than what some here
> use for their own email.
The correct solution to false po
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:43, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news
> paper that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack! Have you
I know many people who have a stated intention of killing a spammer if given a
not an advocate of e-mail Spamming. I just feel that the
control or blocking should be left up to the individual user. Just like
it's my choice which "Office" package I want to (buy and) use. ;-)
-Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Matej Kovac" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
who's making what
decision, the largest ISP will take-over the competition, and before we know
it, there will be an Internet monopoly much the same as the PC software
industry of the past 20 or more years.
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 15.54, Robert Cates wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why don't you make life easier for yourself and forget trying to
> block Spam! Let your customers and/or users be responsible for
> blocking Spam! [...]
Apart from what Russel says: are you prepared to pay for it?
According to some (
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:54, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam Black ("Block") Lists? Not a good thing in my opinion!! I mean,
> e-mail servers can be configured NOT to relay for unauthorized domains
> anyway. I'm not an advocate of e-mail Spamming. I just feel that the
> control o
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:33:52PM -0400, Blu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:01:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2
On June 26, 2004 05:27 pm, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test could just to
> try to "call back" the other server, to see if it replyes to port 25.
Being unable to connect to port 25 doesn't mean anything. AFAIK there is no
RFC or other standa
On June 26, 2004 05:27 pm, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test could just to
> try to "call back" the other server, to see if it replyes to port 25.
Being unable to connect to port 25 doesn't mean anything. AFAIK there is no
RFC or other standa
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:34:53PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:58, "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> > > instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> > > checking on t
Il 22 Jun 2004 alle 8:40 Adam Funk immise in rete
> This is a smarter way to do it. Wouldn't you admit that the problem
> is not from MTAs on dynamic IP addresses, but rather from infected
> Windows machines on dynamic IP addresses?
Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test cou
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:34:53PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:58, "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> > > instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> > > checking on t
Il 22 Jun 2004 alle 8:40 Adam Funk immise in rete
> This is a smarter way to do it. Wouldn't you admit that the problem
> is not from MTAs on dynamic IP addresses, but rather from infected
> Windows machines on dynamic IP addresses?
Just a note. Since these are infected machines, a first test cou
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:58, "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> > instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> > checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their
> > DNS.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:58, "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> > instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> > checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their
> > DNS.
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 10.26, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
>> Finally, I keep postmaster always open, a thing that a lot of this
>> happy blocking servers does not.
> Goes without saying. Additionally, as I said, the rejection message
> does contain a unblocked email address, too
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 10.26, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
>> Finally, I keep postmaster always open, a thing that a lot of this
>> happy blocking servers does not.
> Goes without saying. Additionally, as I said, the rejection message
> does contain a unblocked email address, too
Hi Craig,
> > [BTW, debian.org does not have an SPF entry.]
>
> nor should it. there are over a thousand @debian.org addresses, belonging to
> over a thousand people, all of whom use their own internet connections to send
> mail. it would be impossible to specify all the hosts allowed to send m
Hi Craig,
> > [BTW, debian.org does not have an SPF entry.]
>
> nor should it. there are over a thousand @debian.org addresses, belonging to
> over a thousand people, all of whom use their own internet connections to send
> mail. it would be impossible to specify all the hosts allowed to send m
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > > not From:, so I th
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:19:41 -0400, Mark Bucciarelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q: Do all hotmail accounts have Caller-ID records?
>
(Sorry about the broken replying in my last message)
It's not about hotmail *accounts*, it's either hotmail.com has
published SPF/Caller-ID records or not. I
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:46:20AM -0400, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > > not From:, so I th
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:19:41 -0400, Mark Bucciarelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q: Do all hotmail accounts have Caller-ID records?
>
(Sorry about the broken replying in my last message)
It's not about hotmail *accounts*, it's either hotmail.com has
published SPF/Caller-ID records or not. I
On Thursday 24 June 2004 10:09, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if
> > you do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> into exim4 in sp
Hi again,
Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Kilian Krause um 16:09:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if you
> > do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> i
Hi Mark,
> For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if you
> do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
into exim4 in spf.pobox.com. So how do i make my MTA verify SPF?
(setting up the
test
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mark Bucciarelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2004 15:20
An: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and m
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > are you sure ? i never see such header !
> Yes. See http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html
that is mail from: not mail-fro
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in
> their DNS.
Looks like you can
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
>
> so you mean this will also cut down the
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:48, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM:
> > > > header, not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > >
> > > are you sure ? i never see such header !
> >
Hi Mark,
> It's the other server's responsibility, not yours. I guess you have the
> option not to whitelist them, since they send you spam.
That's technically correct. However it lacks the important bit. It's my
*problem* not theirs. (for i still get the spam, even if they *SHOULD*
be blocking
On Thursday 24 June 2004 10:09, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if
> > you do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> into exim4 in sp
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:23, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced
Hi again,
Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Kilian Krause um 16:09:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if you
> > do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> i
Hi Mark,
> For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if you
> do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
into exim4 in spf.pobox.com. So how do i make my MTA verify SPF?
(setting up the
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> > your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is n
Hi Mark,
Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header, not
> From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
so you mean this will also cut down the secondary spam through
mailinglists (which have a proper SPF m
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is not going to match
> that of your hosting account or
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> > SPF is a proposed standard.
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> > Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> > Che
test
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Mark Bucciarelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2004 15:20
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and mail serv
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in
> their DNS.
Looks like you can
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:48, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM:
> > > > header, not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > >
> > > are you sure ? i never see such header !
> >
Hi Mark,
> It's the other server's responsibility, not yours. I guess you have the
> option not to whitelist them, since they send you spam.
That's technically correct. However it lacks the important bit. It's my
*problem* not theirs. (for i still get the spam, even if they *SHOULD*
be blocking
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > are you sure ? i never see such header !
> Yes. See http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html
that is mail from: not mail-fro
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
>
> so you mean this will also cut down the
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:23, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> > your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is n
Hi Mark,
Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header, not
> From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
so you mean this will also cut down the secondary spam through
mailinglists (which have a proper SPF m
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is not going to match
> that of your hosting account or
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> > SPF is a proposed standard.
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> > Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> > Che
>
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
instance,
> will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF checking on
their
> own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their DNS. their
users have
> legitimate needs to send mail using their address fro
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> Check spf.pobox.com
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccol
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > > wrong way.
> >
> > no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> > a
>
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
instance,
> will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF checking on
their
> own MX servers, but they won't have the records in their DNS. their
users have
> legitimate needs to send mail using their address fro
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:01:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> > the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> > mail is rejected with a
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
> This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
> its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a consensus,
> like us
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> Check spf.pobox.com
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccol
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > > wrong way.
> >
> > no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> > a
This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a consensus,
like using 4xx error codes instead of 5xx for denying spam. Anyway, it
instigates more profund analysis from the mail admin.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2505
CTED]>
To: ; "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even Microsoft seemed to drops its Cal
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:01:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> > the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> > mail is rejected with a
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
> This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
> its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a
This could be also of interest. Although it is old (feb 99), most of
its recomendations are valid. Others have not yet come to a consensus,
like using 4xx error codes instead of 5xx for denying spam. Anyway, it
instigates more profund analysis from the mail admin.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2505
ED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network?
> SPF is a proposed standard.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> Even
SPF is a proposed standard.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
Check spf.pobox.com
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccolo Rigacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm
SPF is a proposed standard.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
Check spf.pobox.com
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccolo Rigacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> mail is rejected with an explicative 550.
You aren't the only one who does that. I have foun
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > wrong way.
>
> no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> almost all viruses come direct from dynamic IP addresses.
I repeat for the la
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:23, Blu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well yes. Maybe I oversimplified. What I do is a callback to the MX of
> the envelope sender to see if it accepts mail to him/her. If not, the
> mail is rejected with an explicative 550.
You aren't the only one who does that. I have foun
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:26:49AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
>
> > I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> > perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> > mails were being
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
> I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> mails were being blackholed at my host. They never got an answer or
> even a bounce.
Huh? Either your servers ar
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
> >von Bidder wrote:
> >
> >Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
> >unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder wrote:
Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't be answered.
I think the important part here is not the host, but the domain. If th
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > > blocking me.
>
> > [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> > answered blocks a lot of fo
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > wrong way.
>
> no, it's absolutely the right way. a large percentage of spam and
> almost all viruses come direct from dynamic IP addresses.
I repeat for the la
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:26:49AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
>
> > I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> > perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> > mails were being
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > blocking me.
> [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> answered blocks a lot of forged sender spam too, something like 80%
> here, being conservative.
You did say two different thi
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 09.51, Blu wrote:
> I run a number of public service servers and in the past, from the
> perspective of an user of a server which blocks mail from mine, the
> mails were being blackholed at my host. They never got an answer or
> even a bounce.
Huh? Either your servers ar
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:05:50AM +0200, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
> >von Bidder wrote:
> >
> >Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
> >unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't b
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
von Bidder wrote:
Well, if a host blocks mail from me, mail from that host is in fact
unanswerable mail. It is just a subset of mail which can't be answered.
I think the important part here is not the host, but the domain. If th
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:32:17AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > > blocking me.
>
> > [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> > answered blocks a lot of for
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03.27, Blu wrote:
> > > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are
> > > blocking me.
> [...] blocking mail which cannot be
> answered blocks a lot of forged sender spam too, something like 80%
> here, being conservative.
You did say two different thi
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:19:19AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > In my server, my policy is to reject mail from hosts which are blocking
> > me.
>
> good for you. your server, your rules. sounds like a stupid thing to do, but
> you are entirely within your rights to do so.
Thanks for the com
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:04:03PM -0400, Blu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:56:02AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:37:41AM +0200, Niccolo Rigacci wrote:
> > > You want to block spam or viruses, this is OK but you are on the
> > > wrong way.
> >
> > no, it's absolu
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
