--- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If email doesn't go through because of a well-chosen
blacklist (this includes
RBL's which actually block SPAM servers, which I
left out of my early post),
the problem is theirs to fix, not yours. The reason
you choose RBL's
CAREFULLY, is
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:19:24AM -0700, Gary Wilson wrote:
...
I would add the bl servers at rfc-ignornant.org, which
includes :
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have
postmaster@ addresses
abuse.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have
abuse@ addresses
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org --
--- Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are useful, but...
whois.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have
proper WHOIS information
This one can be totally bogus as it depends on the
maintainers of the whois
databases, not on the ISPs themselves.
I'm not sure what you
I am also not afraid of RBL's since I AM in control of my email servers.
The only thing that scares me about RBL's is people using them without
understanding what's important. It's kinda like choosing an Email server.
Those who are clueless choose Exchange and plug it into the Internet... and
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:36:04 -0500
ronnie gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that I'm not alone in blocking domains and that it is mainly an
act of total frustration and completely unfair to the unculpable user. OTOH,
as I stated before, one domain...big deal...one hundred...BIG
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:07:19 -0400
Wil McGilvery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blocking domains doesn't really work. One of my customer's employees
couldn't send mail to his house because his personal ISP was using RBL's and
the work mail server ip was in an address block that had been listed. The
Good point... but I'd need more specific real-world details in order to
respond since I've not found too many instances where RBL's have blocked an
ISP's email servers. Those that I am aware of, the situation has been
resolved quickly by the ISP and generally a Spammer gets ousted.
On Thu, 31
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
Correction... Users DO care WHY they were blocked, but they aren't
going to let you know that since they are using you as a vent-sink.
Those who are clueless are also
Oops. Bad sentence. I realize blocking domains is different than rbl's and ip
addresses.
I should have split the two ideas up.
I use RBl's, but I don't agree with blocking out IP address blocks or domains for the
reasons already stated.
The customer switched ISP's because the problem with the
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:04:05AM -0600, Collins Richey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
You're assunming that only users in a business environment are
effected. In reality, its mostly home users who are getting punished
by this stuff, and
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0700
Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The broadband providers could mitigate this problem by blocking
incoming traffic to their customer's systems on ports 25, 80, and
commonly used proxy ports. When @HOME was running the ATT cable
network, they were doing
Quoth Collins Richey:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0700
Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The broadband providers could mitigate this problem by blocking
incoming traffic to their customer's systems on ports 25, 80, and
commonly used proxy ports. When @HOME was running the ATT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Campbell shocked and awed us all by speaking:
Road Runner has very effective anti-spam policies in place, and you rarely
see major abuse from their network. COMCAST is the most noticeable source
spews pepsi on screen
You gotta be kidding!
So instead of getting inundated with SPAM, now we are inundated with requests
to SPAM us... Sorry, I'm not buying. Again, it doesn't scale. My inbox does
not need the DDOS that this would cause.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:22:04 -0400
Wil McGilvery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do; however, feel
RR is one of the worst networks I've ever had the habit of sending abuse
reports to... not that they ever noticed.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:56:03 -0400
Douglas J Hunley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Campbell shocked and awed us all by speaking:
Who said you would get any requests? That would defeat the purpose of the whole idea.
:)
Regards,
Wil McGilvery
Manager
Lynch Digital Media Inc
416-744-7949
416-716-3964 (cell)
1-866-314-4678
416-744-0406 FAX
www.LynchDigital.com
-Original Message-
From: Matthew
Quoth collins:
Andrew Mathews wrote:
Use a responsible ISP instead? Why should you suffer because they're
incompetent? As long as they're the only game in town they don't *have*
to bend to meet customer demands. When you start spending your money
with someone else, large chunks of material
On 07/31/03 17:11, Kurt Wall wrote:
Quoth collins:
That presumes you have a choice. As I stated earlier, there is no high
speed access choice here. Even if there were, as soon as I were to
You have a choice, dial-up or broadband access. You just don't get to
choose between broadband ISP A
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill
spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked
them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and
complained
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote:
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill
spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked
them. A while back I had a rash of spam
I would think blocking domains is worse than the RBL lists.
I have started using an email gateway called messagewall.
It has a number of checks included rbl lists, reverse DNS on MX records and a lot more.
Since implementing this setup our spam has become almost no existent and is no longer
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote:
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We
could kill spam in short order. How? I have got fed
: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote:
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill
spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and
blocked them. A while back I had a rash
On 7/30/2003 1:45 PM, someone claiming to be Wil McGilvery wrote:
I would think blocking domains is worse than the RBL lists.
I have started using an email gateway called messagewall.
It has a number of checks included rbl lists, reverse DNS on MX
records and a lot more.
Since implementing this
On 7/30/2003 1:55 PM, someone claiming to be ronnie gauthier wrote:
Not exactly, at least thats not how I see it. If enough users of an ISP or
email suppliers complain they are blocked by one, big deal, blocked by dozens,
then it begins to matter and the ISP's must take notice. We as an admin
congress comes up with,
you wont just edit that away.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT) - Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote the following
Re: Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote:
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I
Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have
yet to hear complaints. The trick is choosing RBL's that are comprehensive,
deterministic, and responsive. This means that some of the RBL's out there
that don't allow your servers off the list when closed just don't
I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all
include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in
order to get removed when their system is fixed.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here is
RBL's are still better than SA or other filters...
Why? Because properly selected RBL's (ie. Deterministic, easy to get off of)
actually allow you to block based on a PROBLEM! RBL's that you want to use
are Open Relay black lists and Dialup server blacklists. These are PROBLEMS
to be FIXED.
That still won't mean anything to the average user out there.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all
include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in
order to get removed when their system
About 2 years ago our state (Arkansas, US) passed Do Not Call
legislation with the usual hoopla and moaning from the telemarketing
scum. So I sent $5.00 to our Attorney General to put my numbers on the
list. And my phone has largely gone dead silent except for the few
exceptions that were
Fine. But end users won't care, or simply don't understand. I got calls
from irate users, people trying to send my company e-mail, demanding to
know why I was blocking their mail.
1. It wasn't *me* blocking it.
2. They couldn't care in the least why they were blocked.
3. Half of those who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ronnie gauthier wrote:
| I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
| I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We
could kill
| spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back
and blocked
| them. A while
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:03:09 -0400
Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From an end user perspective, I've found Mozilla's junk mail
filtering
to be fantastic at determining what's junk and what's not. Much better
than plain SpamAssassin. Although, current SpamAssassin is supposed to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:47:51 -0500
David A. Bandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Next week, I send out a past due
notice with a note that if they don't pay within a week, I'll start
court proceedings against them for non-payment. I plan to sequester
their company as part of the whole thing. Will
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:47:51 -0500 - David A. Bandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
the following
Re: Re: spam issues
Go get 'em.
As an ISP, I'm striking back locally.
I own my netblocks. I have my sights on a local spammer. I've now
billed them 2 months for using my servers and my bandwidth
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:57:47 -0400 - Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
the following
Re: Re: spam issues
I agree with you in theory but all RBL's are not equal. But what I've seen is
that once on one its a bitch to get unlisted. They also get legitimate web sites
in the same block
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:46:40 -0400 - Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
the following
Re: Re: spam issues
Its been a few years since I dealt with being blocked and have hated and not
used RBL's since then. I'll have to take another look at them again now.
thanks!
Using the appropriate
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:00:44 -0600 - Andrew Mathews
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote the following
Re: Re: spam issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ronnie gauthier wrote:
| I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
| I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit
ronnie gauthier wrote:
I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do?
I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill
spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked
them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail
Matthew Carpenter wrote:
Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have
yet to hear complaints.
Probably no complaints because you aren't really affected by the action
of the RBLs. If everyone used them, I would see a 95% reduction of my
personal email (not
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:15:17PM -0600, collins wrote:
...
Unfortunately it's not comcast that will eat the bounces. In order to
get broadband service (DSL is not offered), I have to use comcast.net (I
don't know anything about comcast.com), and since people are so friendly
about bulk
Matthew Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all
include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in
order to get removed when their system is fixed.
Yeah, except that I'm the one having his mail blocked and I have no way
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:41:31PM -0600, collins wrote:
Matthew Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all
include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in
order to get removed when their system is fixed.
Postfix makes it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
collins wrote:
| Matthew Carpenter wrote:
|
| I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all
| include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to
| visit in
| order to get removed when their system is fixed.
|
|
I have followed this thread with interest and as far as I am concerned the only way to
get people to notice is to hurt their pocket book. I am not sure how to best go about
doing this except for refusing to use ISP's that are tolerant of Spammers.
Blocking domains doesn't really work. One of
Andrew Mathews wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
collins wrote:
| Matthew Carpenter wrote:
|
| I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers
all
| include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to
| visit in
| order to get removed when
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:12 -0700 - Bill Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote the following
Re: Re: spam issues
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:15:17PM -0600, collins wrote:
...
Unfortunately it's not comcast that will eat the bounces. In order to
get broadband service (DSL is not offered), I have
48 matches
Mail list logo
