On 4/8/20 4:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
The driving force behind junkemailfilter.com passed away almost two
years ago:
Hum.
That doesn't call the technology behind it into question. Though it
does call into question the longevity of it.
Maybe prematurely (?), I removed their lists from
On 4/8/20 6:13 PM, Ashley Dixon wrote:
>
> It seems like the database is still active, along with the web-site.
> For example,
>
> `nslookup wellsfargo.com.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com` returns 127.0.0.5,
> as
> would be expected.
>
The domain was renewed in 2016 (until 2025), so that's
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 06:06:52PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> The driving force behind junkemailfilter.com passed away almost two
> years ago:
>
> http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2018/08/27/remembering-marc-perkel/
>
> Maybe prematurely (?), I removed their lists from our servers shortly
>
On 4/8/20 5:49 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> tnetconsulting.net. 604800 IN MX 99 tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com.
>
The driving force behind junkemailfilter.com passed away almost two
years ago:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2018/08/27/remembering-marc-perkel/
Maybe prematurely (?), I
On 4/8/20 3:36 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
So does that mean you have four MX records?
Yes.
Nolist server
Primary MX
Backup MX
Project Tar server
in order of decreasing priority?
Exactly. (1)
$ dig +short +noshort mx tnetconsulting.net | sort
tnetconsulting.net. 604800 IN MX
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:06:29 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
> I used to be a strong advocate of greylisting. I had some of the
> problems that have been described. Then I switched to Nolisting, a
> close varient of greylisting that I haven't seen any of the same (or
> any) problems with.
>
> If
On 2020-04-08, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 4/8/20 7:39 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> NB: The cheap VPS instances that I work with do have static IP
>> addresses, but they share that static IP with a bunch of other VPS
>> instances. If you want your VPS to have a non-shared static IP
>> address,
On 4/8/20 7:39 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
NB: The cheap VPS instances that I work with do have static IP
addresses, but they share that static IP with a bunch of other VPS
instances. If you want your VPS to have a non-shared static IP
address, then make sure that's what you're signing up for
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:39:15PM -, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2020-04-08, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> > If all you're after is a static IP and aren't worried about sending
> > email from it, you can get a cheap VPS and establish a VPN from your
> > house to it. Use the static IP of said VPS
On 2020-04-08, Grant Taylor wrote:
> If all you're after is a static IP and aren't worried about sending
> email from it, you can get a cheap VPS and establish a VPN from your
> house to it. Use the static IP of said VPS as your home static IP. }:-)
NB: The cheap VPS instances that I work
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:02 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> On 4/6/20 1:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > More often than not, yes. The main exception I've seen are sites
> > that email you verification codes, such as some sorts of "two-factor"
> > implementations (whether these are really two-factor
On 4/6/20 1:16 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Greylisting suffers from one problem that unplugging the server
doesn't: greylisting usually works on a triple like (IP address,
sender, recipient), and can therefore continue to reject people who do
retry, but retry from a different IP address. This
On 4/6/20 1:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
More often than not, yes. The main exception I've seen are sites
that email you verification codes, such as some sorts of "two-factor"
implementations (whether these are really two-factor I'll set aside
for now). Many of these services will retry, but
On 4/6/20 3:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> More often than not, yes. The main exception I've seen are sites that
> email you verification codes, such as some sorts of "two-factor"
> implementations (whether these are really two-factor I'll set aside
> for now). Many of these services will
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:18 PM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-06 14:24, Ashley Dixon wrote:
>
> > Cheers for the help ! To be honest, I don't think I'd want to receive
> > e-mail from someone who cannot resist pressing a button :)
>
> In fact, "MTAs" that don't retry turn out to be spam
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:18:10AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> In fact, "MTAs" that don't retry turn out to be spam robots on close
> inspection, more often than not. That is the basis for the spam
> fighting tactic called "greylisting". So you will not even be original
> in ignoring them.
On 2020-04-06 14:24, Ashley Dixon wrote:
> Cheers for the help ! To be honest, I don't think I'd want to receive
> e-mail from someone who cannot resist pressing a button :)
In fact, "MTAs" that don't retry turn out to be spam robots on close
inspection, more often than not. That is the basis
17 matches
Mail list logo
