> You should have used the oppurtunity to educate your customer. Email is a
> best-effort, no receipt service. It is simply not appropriate to use for
> business-critical communication without some kind of confirmation of
> receipt.
That sounds like a statement from the dawn of the ARPAnet. Email
On 10/24/07, William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You must have been irked by the airport wireless in ABQ then. I
> couldn't figure out why my ssh connection was failing until I checked
> the DNS and relized that even after clicking "free access" button in a
> web browser they returned 192
Dave Pooser wrote:
> We had a client whose RFP vanished into thin air because of that-- he sent
> it from a hotel that practiced port 25 hijacking and had had their IP
> blacklisted for spewing much spam and viruses. So our server rejected the
> message, and when it tried to send the NDN to him
On 10/23/07, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to make it clear... I don't mind people filtering either 25 or
> 587,
> but, blocking both is highly unacceptable. Even more unacceptable
> in my opinion is hijacking connections to either off to your own
> man-in-the-middle attack serv
> 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, 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"?
John Levine's got something really good on this at
http://www.circleid.
On 10/21/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If something comes that is not whitelisted then email is sent
> back asking you to confirm that it is not spam. I received one of these
> confirmation requests for a piece of spam that I did not send out. I
> complained to them that this
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
It's not just mail. These days the mantra seems to be "only allow port
80 and 443 through, the users don't need anything else." specially in
situations you cite (public wifi, hotel nets etc.). In these cases, i
believe even ssh won't go through. D
> If something comes that is not whitelisted then email is sent
> back asking you to confirm that it is not spam. I received one of these
> confirmation requests for a piece of spam that I did not send out.
Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
gets through
On 21/10/2007, at 7:22 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
Blocking 25/TCP is acceptable, blocking 587/TCP is not - it is
designed for mail submission to an MSA, so serves little use for
spam, save when a spammer has detected an open mail relay listening
on 587/TCP,
On 21/10/2007, at 9:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm seeing an increasing variety of misguided SPAM blocking
techniques such
that they are starting to become more and more annoying, and, I'm
curious as
to what solutions/work-arounds others have deployed, and, if anyone
has any
ideas on ho
I'm seeing an increasing variety of misguided SPAM blocking
techniques such
that they are starting to become more and more annoying, and, I'm
curious as
to what solutions/work-arounds others have deployed, and, if anyone
has any
ideas on how to get these tactics reduced/stopped?
Here's th
20 matches
Mail list logo
