http://spamblock.outblaze.com/, which is apparently in use by whatever
mail server Ben S. is behind, is referring to http://www.us.sorbs.net/
in order to list IP addresses to block e-mail from.
Sorbs (http://www.us.sorbs.net/) states:
Dynamic IP users, please note, SORBS is not identifying
On Apr 7, 2005, at 14:04, Paul Lussier wrote:
preventing the majority of well-intentioned folks from legitimately
sending mail from one MX to another will drastically cut down on the
amount of spam being sent, since this reduces the number of IP
addresses a malicious spammer could use.
Boy, am I gl
Paul Lussier writes:
> Boy, am I glad there are smart people out there looking out for me!
Out of curiosity, what was the exact reason why spamblock.outblaze.com
blocked your mail? Was it solely because you are using a dynamic IP?
(I'm wondering if they use some sort of "intelligent" scoring
Most spam these days *are* sent from dynamic IP ranges - poor saps
whose windows machines have been taken over by Russian mafia though
trojans installed through IE and churn out spam without their knowledge.
So blocking dynamic IP blocks *is* a good way to cut back on spam.
It's cutting off t
Our company was on an address marked as dynamic, despite it being
statically assigned... it took several weeks to get things
straightened out, during which we had to (the ignominy) send a few
customers emails via gmail. That was, in fact, the ONLY reason we
were on SORBS.
--DTVZ
On Apr 7, 2005 2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin D. Clark)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:44:27 -0400
Out of curiosity, what was the exact reason why spamblock.outblaze.com
blocked your mail? Was it solely because you are using a dynamic IP?
(I'm wondering if they use some sort of "intelligent" scoring
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:04:46PM -0400, Paul Lussier wrote:
> Why is SORBS a good thing? Oh, right, because though I've had the
> same IP address for over a year, I *might* not have it tomorrow, and
> preventing the majority of well-intentioned folks from legitimately
> sending mail from one MX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin D. Clark) writes:
> Out of curiosity, what was the exact reason why spamblock.outblaze.com
> blocked your mail? Was it solely because you are using a dynamic IP?
Yep, sure was, they referenced this url (actually one real close to
it, since I randomly changed the IP addr
You're not going to ge a lot of love around here for complaining about
being blacklisted by SORBS. You'll probably get a few responses
saying that if you want to run your own mail service, you should be
forced to pony up an arbitrary amount of extra cash for business-class
service with a permanen
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:24:18PM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> Where did he say that he did not have business class? I had business
> class DSL and my IP range was still considered within a "dynamic" pool.
Well, I happen to know that he doesn't, but your point is well taken.
Some RBLs are careful
On Thursday, Apr 7th 2005 at 14:04 -0400, quoth Paul Lussier:
=>
=>
=>http://spamblock.outblaze.com/, which is apparently in use by whatever
=>mail server Ben S. is behind, is referring to http://www.us.sorbs.net/
=>in order to list IP addresses to block e-mail from.
=>
=>Sorbs (http://www.us.sorb
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:04:43PM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> I just read your message and all the other replys that sprang forth.
>
> I am running a sendmail server off my cablemodem as well. Anytime I get a
> message delivery failure because of reason of coming from a dynamic
> address pool
On Apr 7, 2005, at 15:22, Paul Lussier wrote:
Out of curiosity, what was the exact reason why spamblock.outblaze.com
blocked your mail? Was it solely because you are using a dynamic IP?
Yep, sure was, they referenced this url (actually one real close to
it, since I randomly changed the IP address
From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:14:45 -0400
and block that domain. Do it by having outgoing mail servers
cryptographically sign messages with keys registered in DNS, and
reject mail if the signatures don't match, or if the domain is known
to mass
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:31:39PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:14:45 -0400
>
>and block that domain. Do it by having outgoing mail servers
>cryptographically sign messages with keys registered in DNS, and
>r
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:53:46PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Reject if:
>
> 1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
> 2) the signature matches, but the domain is a known spammer
> 3) there is no published key
>
> Otherwise accept.
The problem, of course, is this req
From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:53:46 -0400
>
> I'm afraid signing SMTP won't help the spam problem.
Sure it will, if implemented well.
Reject if:
1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
2) the signature match
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:34:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How do you propose a message would get "signed with the domain's
> published key"? By going through the domain's outgoing mail server?
> Relaying through your ISP already works...
You're completely missing the point. My ISP's
From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:53:46 -0400
>
> I'm afraid signing SMTP won't help the spam problem.
Sure it will, if implemented well.
If you want a crypto solution to the spam problem, how about this:
(1) Whenever you give out your email addr
"Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just read your message and all the other replys that sprang forth.
>
> I am running a sendmail server off my cablemodem as well. Anytime I get a
> message delivery failure because of reason of coming from a dynamic
> address pool, I just add them t
But they have no need to know:
- to whom I send e-mail
- when I send e-mail
- from where I send e-mail
Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail server
prevent them from seeing the info you listed ther
Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>But they have no need to know:
>>
>> - to whom I send e-mail
>> - when I send e-mail
>> - from where I send e-mail
>
> Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
> find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail se
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:25:58AM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> Since you are sending your email through their network, couldn't they
> find out this information anyway? How does not using their mail server
> prevent them from seeing the info you listed there?
Not necessarily. Paul and I both run
Travis Roy wrote:
Where did he say that he did not have business class? I had business
class DSL and my IP range was still considered within a "dynamic" pool.
One of my clients has a T1, with a bunch of static IPs. They
sublet their connection to building tenants. They've had it for
some years.
On Apr 7, 2005, at 22:53, Derek Martin wrote:
Reject if:
1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
2) the signature matches, but the domain is a known spammer
3) there is no published key
Otherwise accept.
How does this work in a world with $5 domains? If I were a spammer
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:53:46PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
The point is that you can block known spammers based on their domain,
without needlessly penalizing the innocent.
Reject if:
1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
2) the signature matches, but the domain is a k
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:18:23PM -0400, Bob Bell wrote:
> Isn't this scheme somewhat similar to SPF or DomainKeys? At least to
> the degree that it attempts to validate the domain of the sender?
Yes. It's been a while since I looked at either, so I'm not sure
about specific similarities and di
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:22:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> only way to put a stop to the spam problem is to make it unprofitable
> for the so-called "advertiser", by fining offenders a substantial amt.
> per individual spam message, and jail time for people who facilitate
> spam.
Note that
Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:22:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
>> only way to put a stop to the spam problem is to make it unprofitable
>> for the so-called "advertiser", by fining offenders a substantial amt.
>> per individual spam message, and jail time
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:10:17PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> > Note that what I meant to say here was that the OFFENDER should be
> > considered the COMPANY whose PRODUCTS are being advertised.
>
> No, the offender is the group or individual who causes the spam to be
> sent, not necessarily t
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:18:07PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:10:17PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> > > Note that what I meant to say here was that the OFFENDER should be
> > > considered the COMPANY whose PRODUCTS are being advertised.
> >
> > No, the offender is the
Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, right. THAT's what I meant. ;-) The person who is selling
> whatever's being sold in the spam... including figurative uses of the
> word "sell" in the case that nothing is directly being sold for
> money.
If I decide to send out bulk email urging
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 05:47:47PM -0400, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> If I decide to send out bulk email urging people to buy Coca-Cola, who
> is at fault, me or the executives at Coke? Let's say that I have
> nothing whatsoever to do with Coke.
OK I get it... I was being dense bot I got it now. ;-)
From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:22:49 -0400
Ultimately, as I've said many times before, there is no method of
fighting spam which will be truly effective. The best you can do is
let the client deal with it by runni
Cc: "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
From: Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:49:19 -0400
Sure, because I'm on their wire, they can obviously find out some
level of information about me. But by me relaying through their
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:22:49PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
There are, of course, those viruses which send themselves to everyone
in your address book, and use your ISP's servers to send the mail.
None of these schemes (including blocking the IP addresses of dynamic
customers) do anything to solv
On Apr 8, 2005, at 22:07, Bob Bell wrote:
Unless, I suppose, they try to hide themselves behind a EULA on some
time of Adware/Spyware type program.
Hey, then we can get those ruled non-binding too! Count me in.
-Bill
-
Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Paul Lussier wrote:
http://spamblock.outblaze.com/, which is apparently in use by whatever
mail server Ben S. is behind, is referring to http://www.us.sorbs.net/
in order to list IP addresses to block e-mail from.
Ahhh, that's just great.
FWIW, I ha(ve|d) configured my vario
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Derek Martin wrote:
do it by checking that the machine in question isn't registered in DNS as a
bonifide e-mail server for the sender domain.
The problem with that stance is that for many MX operators, it blocks too
much wanted mail. Most domains don't have SPF or anything
39 matches
Mail list logo
