Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-05 Thread Derrick 'dman' Hudson
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 10:07:13AM -0700, Walter Reed wrote: | On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:00:39AM -0500, dman wrote: | snip snip | No. Only if they choose to. They _could_ be checking an inputs RBL | and denying them the ability to abuse the swbell system like that. | | | I have a whole

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-05 Thread Derrick 'dman' Hudson
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:53:58PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: | On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:34AM -0500, dman wrote: | sa-exim :-). | | http://marc.merlins.org/linux/exim/sa.html | | Whoa! That should be a Debian package (maybe the default MTA). I just thought I'd announce some

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-05 Thread Walter Reed
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 10:25:09AM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: | Spam is not new. Everyone knows it's a problem. There is no excuse | anymore to be ignorant. I recently learned something about open relays. Installing anti-virus software (eg Norton) on your MS server (that isn't an

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread Alvin Oga
hi ya paul yes i hit one too many deletes too . at least wasn't too bad of a delete that i could get the email resent... etc - am not as worried about fat pipe .. as opposed to accidental deletes... - reporting the spam is where it gets expensive real fast... -- few apps

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread dman
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:54:25PM -0500, Gary Turner wrote: [much snippage] | I went to dsbl.org and found that they tested | positive for multi-hop and unconfirmed for single-hop. Actually, that's not what unconfirmed means. Unconfirmed simply means that someone who isn't 'trusted' caused the

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread dman
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:31:28PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: | On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:54:25PM -0500, Gary Turner wrote: | What gets me is RBL bounces provide information on what happened, | give you a URL for more information *and* an email address to bitch | at. Actually, only the decent

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 09:36:30PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: - am not as worried about fat pipe .. as opposed to accidental deletes... Rare. 0% in the last two days (though the ATT and Charter ones might be legit, but doubtful, they're fairly regular spam sources when I decide to comment out

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:34AM -0500, dman wrote: sa-exim :-). http://marc.merlins.org/linux/exim/sa.html Whoa! That should be a Debian package (maybe the default MTA). -- Baloo pgpm6EOjd1tOS.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-06-01 Thread Walter Reed
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:00:39AM -0500, dman wrote: snip snip No. Only if they choose to. They _could_ be checking an inputs RBL and denying them the ability to abuse the swbell system like that. | I have a whole sh*t pot full of filter defs. Spamassassin is much more effective than

Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira
Hi all, I have a Debian GNU/Linux potato server with exim configured. I received a strange message. What can be wrong? TIA,Paulo Henrique. This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). A message that you sent could not be

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Walter Reed
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:19:54PM +, Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira wrote: Hi all, I have a Debian GNU/Linux potato server with exim configured. I received a strange message. What can be wrong? TIA,Paulo Henrique. This message was created

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Gary Turner
On Fri, 31 May 2002 14:00:44 -0700, Walter Reed wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:19:54PM +, Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira wrote: Hi all, I have a Debian GNU/Linux potato server with exim configured. I received a strange message. What can be wrong? TIA,

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Alvin Oga
hi ya gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host mail.otherdomain.net [otherip.otherip.otherip.otherip]: 550 5.7.1 Mail from myip.myip.myip.myip refused by blackhole site dnsbl.njabl.org see

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:54:25PM -0500, Gary Turner wrote: these BLs. I was going to say that any ISP the size of swbell.net would have a lot of innocents, but a search of the last 4200 posts just finds me 8-P So bitch at SW Bell to respond faster to spam complaints. Not responding fast

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

2002-05-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 07:26:18PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: - its still cheaper/faster in the long run to hit the delete key Faster? Yes. Cheaper? There's long shots measured in light-years shorter than that. You think disk space and bandwidth are free? If you've found a place that'll