On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Scott Garman wrote:
> Heath Morrison wrote:
> > Verizon isn't restricting users unreasonably. Verizon is requiring
> > authentication for to relay outgoing mail, which most people would
> > consider a fairly reasonable thing to do.
>
> FWIW I never did state it e
Heath Morrison wrote:
> Verizon isn't restricting users unreasonably. Verizon is requiring
> authentication for to relay outgoing mail, which most people would
> consider a fairly reasonable thing to do.
FWIW I never did state it explicitly, but yes, that's what happened in
my friend's case - he c
Verizon isn't restricting users unreasonably. Verizon is requiring
authentication for to relay outgoing mail, which most people would
consider a fairly reasonable thing to do.
I do think IM2000 is interesting, but that replacing the current email
system with it or something else is actually a much
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Tim wrote:
> One approach to turning the tables on this game is to make senders store
> mail until receivers choose to accept it:
> http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html
>
> This of course would make many of the current methods used by spammers
> more difficult (infected PCs) and would
> Isn't Verizon doing just what you're advocating? Like most modern ISPs
> they replaced the use of SMTP with authenticated submissions on port
> 587.
You mean you must still route your mail through their servers? Then
no, that's not what I'm advocating. Restricting senders at the ISP
level is n
A quick correction - I mean they removed the use of the standard SMTP
port, port 25. Port 587 still uses the SMTP protocol.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Heath Morrison wrote:
> Isn't Verizon doing just what you're advocating? Like most modern ISPs
> they replaced the use of SMTP with authenti
Isn't Verizon doing just what you're advocating? Like most modern ISPs
they replaced the use of SMTP with authenticated submissions on port
587.
-Heath
> Sorry for the snide remarks, they're not really directed at you, just
> at the general mentality that we have to give up something as
> consume
> Ah, I see. Most likely then I've been hit by one particular source of
> spam that has subsided. I know a friend of mine who uses Verizon as his
> ISP can no longer use third party SMTP servers via port 25 anymore. It's
> possibly related to something along those lines.
>
> In any case, I'll t
Rob Saul wrote:
> Scott Garman wrote:
>> For about a week now I've noticed a massive drop in the amount of spam
>> myself and my users have been getting. I remember around this time last
>> year an ISP was de-peered which was responsible for a large portion of
>> spam email, but searching through G
Scott Garman wrote:
> For about a week now I've noticed a massive drop in the amount of spam
> myself and my users have been getting. I remember around this time last
> year an ISP was de-peered which was responsible for a large portion of
> spam email, but searching through Google News I'm not see
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Scott Garman wrote:
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:29:06 -0800
> From: Scott Garman
> Reply-To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;civil and on-topic"
>
> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help; civil and on-topic"
>
For about a week now I've noticed a massive drop in the amount of spam
myself and my users have been getting. I remember around this time last
year an ISP was de-peered which was responsible for a large portion of
spam email, but searching through Google News I'm not seeing any similar
reports this
12 matches
Mail list logo
