> I use an authenticated TLS-protected mailhost at home for submitting my
> email for delivery. Unfortunately, networks have taken to:
>
> outright blocking 25 and 587 except to their own servers.
Back in the day AT&T dial-up blocked port 25 outgoing (except to their own
servers) for the first
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I'm being asked to verify my address because some malware found my address
on a hard drive and stuck it in the From: field. I'm sorry, but if you're
asking me to verify that, it *is* a burden - you are admittedly *starting off*
assuming that it's bad and *needs* some
Dave Pooser wrote:
I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it was mildly abusive, and stopped) and
typically blocked 2-3 spams per day. In fact, I had more FPs than legit spam
blocked by that method.
2-3 spams a day? That
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Where did you get that 99% #?
Statistics from my own mail server. Yours may vary. In the course of 6 months,
on one honey-pot email address, I received about 10,000 spam messages that were
classified as from forged addresses by spam assassin. I'm sure you are fa
> And that is probably just fine, as 99% of the true spam comes from email
> addresses (and often doamins) that either do not exist, or often are not
> configured to receive email.
I call BS. I ran sender-callout verification on my primary email server for
a while (before I became convinced it wa
On 10/22/07, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dave Pooser wrote:
>
> > Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
> > gets through to the end user. I figure if they think I'm gonna filter their
> > mail for free, well, they get what they pay for. :^)
>
Dave Pooser wrote:
Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
gets through to the end user. I figure if they think I'm gonna filter their
mail for free, well, they get what they pay for. :^)
And that is probably just fine, as 99% of the true spam comes from e
[ "Subject:" line corrected, noting that "SPAM" is a trademark
of Hormel and "spam" is the slang term for unsolicited bulk email. ]
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:27:24AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Of course, I fixed the issue for myself by simply blocking
> spamarrest.com. I have no need to c
On 10/22/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/22/07, William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you publish SPF records so that remote sites can detect forgeries
> > claiming to be from your domain?
>
> In other words "Do you play russian roulette with your email
On 10/22/07, Alexander Harrowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >MSO's typically understand this as eyeball heavy content
> >retrieval, not content generation
>
> I was under the impression Comcast advertised Internet access, which
> is read/write. Clearly I was mistaken...
This is correct,
On 10/22/07, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In the UK at least, option 1) is financially more favourable for
> ISPs, since the data flow is
> vendor -> transit -> last mile -> end user,
> rather than
> end user -> last mile -> last mile -> end user.
>
> The last mil
>MSO's typically understand this as eyeball heavy content
>retrieval, not content generation
I was under the impression Comcast advertised Internet access, which
is read/write. Clearly I was mistaken...
Really, the heart of the matter is that in doing this they are not
being honest with their cu
In the absence of the P2P applications, the limits were fine, so hurting
the P2P
application may be a preferable solution to the ISP charging everyone more
to support the excessive bandwidth usage of the 2-3% of subscribers who
use
P2P applications,
I'd like to know where you get the 2-3%
13 matches
Mail list logo
