Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
the spamcop site and just looking to see if this is experienced by
others. Got two calls this morning, both not receiving mail from gmail
users and both being blocked by my usage of 'reject_rbl_client
bl.spamcop.net'. Anyone ot
On 1/16/2012 1:12 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
> the spamcop site and just looking to see if this is experienced by
> others. Got two calls this morning, both not receiving mail from gmail
> users and both being blocked by m
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:12:48 -0500, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Jan 16 13:52:25 mx1 postfix/smtpd[72538]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail-tul01m020-f175.google.com[209.85.214.175]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [209.85.214.175] blocked using
bl.spamcop.net;
Blocked - see http://www.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:28:34 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
the mail delivering to you once the dnslbl stops listing "the world".
See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_rbl_client
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#permit_dnswl_client
http://www.dnswl.org/tech#postfix
On 1/16/2012 2:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:28:34 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> the mail delivering to you once the dnslbl stops listing "the world".
>> See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_rbl_client
>
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#permit_dnswl_c
Am 16.01.2012 22:22, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 1/16/2012 2:34 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:28:34 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> the mail delivering to you once the dnslbl stops listing "the world".
>>> See: http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_rbl_client
>>
>> h
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:22:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
No, permit_dnswl_client isn't the right solution for the OP in this
case.
its a free world :-)
yep sure one could skip dnsbl from freemail domains if wanted that way
On 01/17/2012 07:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
naturally big players like google, yahoo... have a big
amount of mails each day and 1% of a big amount is
a hughe number - that does not classify them as spammer
if you send only 1000 messages each day and 900 of them are
spam you have a lower total
Am 16.01.2012 20:12, schrieb Robert Fitzpatrick:
> Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
> the spamcop site and just looking to see if this is experienced by
> others. Got two calls this morning, both not receiving mail from gmail
> users and both being blocked by
On 1/16/2012 2:28 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> "We recommend that when using any spam filtering method, users be given
> access to the filtered mail - don't block the mail as documented here,
> but store it in a separate mailbox. Or tag it and provide users
> documentation so that they can filter bas
On 1/17/2012 2:08 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
> why do you use spamcop ?
Why wouldn't I?
--
Robert
On 17 Jan 2012, at 8:20, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
On 1/17/2012 2:08 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
why do you use spamcop ?
Why wouldn't I?
Because it has a long-running tendency to intermittently list various
major "legitimate" freemail outlet points. This is not a new behavior or
a rare
From: Robert Fitzpatrick
>To: Postfix
>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
>Subject: Spamcop listed gmail?
>
>Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a mailing list on
>the spamcop site and just looking to see if this is experienced by
>others. Got tw
On Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM, "Steve Fatula" wrote:
>>
>> From: Robert Fitzpatrick
>> To: Postfix
>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
>> Subject: Spamcop listed gmail?
>>
>> Perhaps this is not the place for this, I didn't find a maili
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:24:33 -0500
Simon Brereton articulated:
> On Jan 19, 2012 7:13 PM, "Steve Fatula"
> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Robert Fitzpatrick
> >> To: Postfix
> >> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:12 PM
> >> Subject: Spamcop l
15 matches
Mail list logo