> There is no real reason why you should be able to email out with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] using Verizon's own servers.
Not even if you use an SMTP AUTH session and clearly
establish your identity as a customer of Verizon?
Seems to me that an authenticated SMTP session tends
to narrow down the poten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Anything from anywhere, even if it's from a hijacked box in Korea, can forward
through our server as long as it has a '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' From: on it,
but if one of our own customers tries to send through the server with a From:
that says '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' they can't
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
> >>
> >> (63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
> >> 'verizon.net'
> >> and VZ still relayed it)
> >
> > keep in mind
> 1) monopoly isps
> 2) standard config
> 3) lack of ability to make 1/2/3 changes here/there/everywhere (config
> drift) for customers not paying more than the 'standard'.
>
> There are other reasons of course. Also, customers with their own
> SMTP/IMAP services COULD just do tcp/587 'submission
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> There is no real reason why you should be able to email out with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] using Verizon's own servers.
perhaps not that, but surely [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if they do/have auth
info they can even see who it was when there are problems.
>
> If yo
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:51:17 +0400, Gadi Evron said:
> > If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
> > that's fine. But to say "only allow ISP.net from addresses - but allow
> > them from anywhere on the 'Net" is kinda ... silly.
>
> No, it makes perfect sense but t
> See above - would you consider forwarding mail from outside ISP.net space
> without an SMTP AUTH check just because it claims to be 'From @ISP.net'?
Yep, I was arguing the wrong point. We're on the same side. Sorry for
the misunderstanding.
Read my statements under that light and you will see
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Received: from verizon.net ([63.24.130.230])
(63.24.130.230 is 1Cust742.an1.nyc41.da.uu.net, HELO'd as
'verizon.net'
and VZ still relayed it)
keep in mind I'm just thinking out loud here, but is it possible that
verizon is using som
> I fear you will have to agree to disagree with just about anyone who
> runs a large mail server.
Read my other email on that one.
> 1) It is not a solution because it does not stop spam. In fact, it is
> easier to send spam through VZ's mail servers than just about anyone
> else's.
I was
> If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
> that's fine. But to say "only allow ISP.net from addresses - but allow
> them from anywhere on the 'Net" is kinda ... silly.
I think we are arguing the same side of the problem. I think I mis-read
this one sentence.
SMT
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> > relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> > in place for very specific reasons,
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
If the ISP wants to use SMTP AUTH or other mechanisms to lower abuse,
that's fine. But to say "only allow ISP.net from addresses - but
allow
them from anywhere on the 'Net" is kinda ... silly.
No, it makes perfect sense but that is the one
> Yes, $50/month.
Then there is the problem. If she pays for the service of sending email
using the vanity domain through the ISP's servers, then it should be,
naturally, allowed.
> No, 100s of 1000s of not-so-clued users have vanity domains. Have you
> checked how many domains are registered
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
The example given in this thread proves you wrong. My friend had a
vanity domain, did not have her own mail server.
Okay, and why does she need to use Verizon's servers to send email
from
her own vanity domain?
Unless I am missing something a
> The example given in this thread proves you wrong. My friend had a
> vanity domain, did not have her own mail server.
Okay, and why does she need to use Verizon's servers to send email from
her own vanity domain?
Unless I am missing something and Verizon gets paid for this?
> But that's OK,
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:17 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Zombies do both, but my comment wasn't about zombies, it was about
users. If you are a user with a vanity domain trying to send e-mail
"From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", you cannot through VZ's system. Despite
the fact we have spent years telling people
> Zombies do both, but my comment wasn't about zombies, it was about
> users. If you are a user with a vanity domain trying to send e-mail
> "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", you cannot through VZ's system. Despite
> the fact we have spent years telling people they have to use their
> local ISP's m
> Assuming it does via their systems - most zombies have their own smtp
> engine from what I understand
Yes. Why would they need anything more than a broken SMTP engine that
has been ripped from one sample to another for over 8 years?
I'm exaggerating of course, but you get the picture.
Let's n
On Jun 1, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as th
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the
On Jun 1, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
IOW, VZ isn't even checking to see if a zombie'd host is forging its
own domain into HELO, regardless of whether it comes from Comcast or
UUNet, and as long as the forged sender has a verizon.net address, and
the recipient hasn't blocked VZ's
on Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:07:33PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> (As to Verizon itself, since three different people pointed out the
> relative lack of SBL listings: keep in mind that SBL listings are put
> in place for very specific reasons, and aren't the only indicator of
> spam. Other DNSBLs
22 matches
Mail list logo
