On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:23:53AM -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 2009-01-20 9:25 AM, Michael ODonnell wrote:
> > Dang. This means it's going to be a PITA to keep my Postfix
> > config files up to date such that they stay in sync with that
> > externally visible hostname since it changes every
Bayard Coolidge writes:
> Michael, you're not being singled out - I got the same nastygram a month
> or two ago
I got the same nastygram several months ago claiming I was sending
spam, when I'm fairly certain I wasn't. They claimed my computer
might be infected with a virus and that I should do
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Bayard Coolidge wrote:
> Apparently they view ANY attempts to transmit e-mail on Port 25 as spam
> - the fact that they never bothered to document to its paying users
> (like you and me) that they wanted us to use Port 587 instead is ...
They actually do documen
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Michael ODonnell
wrote:
> That error message about the Certificate on the line
> just before it was apparently just intended to confuse me.
My guess: Many (most?) MTAs which are doing TLS are using
self-signed certificates. So you'll get SMTP TLS trust errors b
On 2009-01-20 9:25 AM, Michael ODonnell wrote:
> Dang. This means it's going to be a PITA to keep my Postfix
> config files up to date such that they stay in sync with that
> externally visible hostname since it changes every time I get
> renumbered. I'll guess I'll have to do something scripty t
> BTW, I forward what very little spam I get to
> "missed-s...@comcast.net", as well as "s...@uce.gov".
H, it may have just been coincidence but my nastygram
came immediately after I sent some SPAM to that missed-spam
address, so I wondered if there wasn't some connection.
I understand the
> postfix/smtp[11991]: 3C4A1918124: to=,
> relay=smtp.comcast.net[76.96.62.117]:587, delay=0.39,
> delays=0.01/0.02/0.33/0.04, dsn=5.1.0, status=bounced (host
> smtp.comcast.net[76.96.62.117] said: 550 5.1.0 sender rejected :
> invalid sender domain (in reply to MAIL FROM command))
>
> ('e5
Michael, you're not being singled out - I got the same nastygram a month
or two ago down here in South Florida. Apparently they view ANY attempts
to transmit e-mail on Port 25 as spam - the fact that they never bothered
to document to its paying users (like you and me) that they wanted us to
use Po
This is the reason its being rejected...
postfix/smtp[11991]:3C4A1918124: to=,
relay=smtp.comcast.net[76.96.62.117]:587, delay=0.39,
delays=0.01/0.02/0.33/0.04, dsn=5.1.0, status=bounced (host
smtp.comcast.net[76.96.62.117] said: 550 5.1.0 sender rejected :
invalid sender domain (in reply
[ this msg transmitted via ComCast's godawful WWW email tool ]
Once upon a time, ComCast invited customers to send copies of SPAM
messages (those few which managed to get past ComCast's filters)
to a particular email address, so I rigged my system to do so
because I presumed they'd use them to be
10 matches
Mail list logo
