On 13/07/17 18:30, Bill Cole wrote:
On 12 Jul 2017, at 18:57, Dom Latter wrote:
I do still find it baffling that guilt by association [1] is considered
reasonable - and I do not see the need to block ranges when single
IPs will do. Although perhaps there are technical reasons for this
that I
On 13/07/17 02:58, John Levine wrote:
I get the impression that you vastly overestimate how much the rest of
the world cares whether they get your mail. (This is the general you,
not you personally.)
Our recipients care very much! They are literally paying for it.
I'd put it this way - btint
Thanks to all for the replies on this topic - it's been interesting
and informative. I may come back to some of the points raised
but in the meantime will 'cat' my replies here:
On 12/07/17 01:22, John Stephenson wrote:
I hope nobody gets hurt in this massive and sudden effort to dog pile on
to
On 10/07/17 11:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Back during the old nanae and spam-l days in the 90s and 2000s,
> whenever this came up, and it did a lot even with filters a lot less
> hair trigger than what we have today, the usual analogy wasn't people
> partying next door, it was usually com
On 10/07/17 10:51, Noel Butler wrote:
On 10/07/2017 19:02, Dom Latter wrote:
"The IP address is owned by the hosting company Hetzner Online GmbH.
Unfortunately we have seen many spam attacks from servers/IP addresses
hosted by this company and at times various groups of IP addresses
Hello people,
first - thanks to andy @ bitfolk.com for pointing me at this list.
second - I thought I would post for the archives, sort of in response
to a post from February (appended below). We recently moved a site from
one Hetzner server to another. And found ourselves unable to send
emai
