Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On 5/7/2013 1:44 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: Chris Santerre skrev den 2013-05-06 17:27: 10 days and still being abused badly. Recommending for everyone to just refuse any .pw time for spamhaus ? :=) for those wanting an SA rule, here: header PW_IS_BAD_TLD From =~ /.pwb/ describe PW_IS_BAD_TLD

Re: SURBL malware list vs. sa-update

On 5/5/2013 12:29 PM, Richard Doyle wrote: SURBL has reorganized its lists and provided a new spamassassin configuration to support those changes: http://lists.surbl.org/pipermail/announce/2013-May/000209.html I'm using sa-update (version 3.003001) and noticed that 25_uribl.cf already contains t

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 22:49 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > John Hardin skrev den 2013-05-05 22:44: > > > > We request you to report the domain names at abuse.alert @registry.pw > > > > and > > > > also cc the same mail to abuse.alert @directi.com. > > > > > > why does abuse @any-sender-domain.pw

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

> For this particular case it would be better to write a DNS plugin that > would do a DNS lookup for the domain nameservers and return that in a > matchable form. Going via the registrar to get the nameservers incurs > far too much overhead. Two examples with postfwd: # hard version id=REJECT_BA

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

I use NameCheap for my own domain registrations and recommend it to others, so I can guarantee that at least my family's email isn't spam... Bret Miller Manager, Information Technology Grace Communion International Email: bret.mil...@gci.org Phone: (626) 650-2343 On

RE: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

I don't doubt what you posted below at all. We've all seen this before. Its the signal/noise we have to understand. IMHO: when your noise levels are this high, and you just ask for reports by those abused, and up to 48 hour windows for takedowns. you aren't solving the problem at all. (Horse/

Re: plonk (PLEASE END THIS THREAD)

On 5/7/2013 10:53 AM, David F. Skoll wrote: Hi, Could we please end the "plonk" thread? Regards, David. Hey, it's one of the better examples of how juvenile some people can get. I think we all get a little kick out of typing the word "plonk" don't we? Kind of like when you sneak off to pe

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

On 05/07/2013 08:15 PM, lcon...@go2france.com wrote: Nearly all of the .pw domains have their authoritative NS at dns*.registrar-servers.com. that registrar and few others are always at the top of my reports for NSs of sender domains of spam we reject. Does anybody score a msg if its sender do

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

I'll top-post, too, just for the sake of consistency. :) I've had pretty good experiences with Namecheap, actually. I'm in no way affiliated; I've just used them for cheap domain registrations (apparently, I'm not the only one) and for cheap SSL certificates in bulk. But, that's neither here nor

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

On Tue, 7 May 2013, Robert Schetterer wrote: Am 07.05.2013 20:15, schrieb lcon...@go2france.com: Nearly all of the .pw domains have their authoritative NS at dns*.registrar-servers.com. that registrar and few others are always at the top of my reports for NSs of sender domains of spam we reje

RE: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

The owner is NameCheap, Inc. A quick google will bring up historical problems with NameCheap and its owner and its DBAs. I dare not say anything bad about them and let you judge for yourself on their history. Richard Kirkendall has a tendency to yell "Slander!" when someone even mentions their

Re: dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

Am 07.05.2013 20:15, schrieb lcon...@go2france.com: > > Nearly all of the .pw domains have their authoritative NS at > dns*.registrar-servers.com. > > that registrar and few others are always at the top of my reports for > NSs of sender domains of spam we reject. > > Does anybody score a msg if

dns*.registrar-servers.com as a rogue registrar?

Nearly all of the .pw domains have their authoritative NS at dns*.registrar-servers.com. that registrar and few others are always at the top of my reports for NSs of sender domains of spam we reject. Does anybody score a msg if its sender domain is DNS hosted by registrar-servers.com or ot

Re: plonk (PLEASE END THIS THREAD)

Hi, Could we please end the "plonk" thread? Regards, David.

Re: Fwd: plonk

On Tuesday 07 May 2013 at 19:28:47, Lee Dilkie wrote: > On 5/7/2013 12:11 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > >> What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense > >> was taken were met by reject messages. > > > > Quite simply

Re: Fwd: plonk

On 5/7/2013 12:11 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: >> What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense >> was taken were met by reject messages. > Quite simply put, Benny Pedersen wants you to respect his > signature, which read

Re: Fwd: plonk

On May 7, 2013 1:01 PM, "Joe Acquisto-j4" wrote: > > Jim Popovitch 05/07/13 12:13 PM >>> > >On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > >> > >> What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense > >> was taken were met by reject messages. > > > >Quite simply pu

Re: Fwd: plonk

Jim Popovitch 05/07/13 12:13 PM >>> >On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: >> >> What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense >> was taken were met by reject messages. > >Quite simply put, Benny Pedersen wants you to respect his >signature, which read

Re: Fwd: plonk

On 5/7/2013 12:10 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: some folks are preachy and sensitive... like those bottom posters who seem to like telling top posters how wrong they are. Generally the same people who complain about HTML in list emails... :) -- Bowie A: Because it messes up the order in which people

Re: Fwd: plonk

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > > What I did not get was why my attempts to clarify whatever offense > was taken were met by reject messages. Quite simply put, Benny Pedersen wants you to respect his signature, which reads: senders that put my email into body conten

Re: Fwd: plonk

some folks are preachy and sensitive... like those bottom posters who seem to like telling top posters how wrong they are. I wouldn't worry about it. But it was interesting to hear the history of the word "plonk".. that was cool. -lee On 5/7/2013 12:06 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > John Hard

Re: Fwd: plonk

John Hardin 05/07/13 10:43 AM >>> >On Tue, 7 May 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > >> Whatever that means. > >"plonk" is the notional sound that the offensive user's email address >makes when it hits the bottom of the Usenet killfile of the person who >said that. In other words, "I'm ignoring

Re: Fwd: plonk

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 07:41 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > "plonk" is the notional sound > > If I date myself by that, oh well. > I don't think so . It still resounds as loudly as ever in the hallowed halls of USENET. Martin

Re: Fwd: plonk

On Tue, 7 May 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: Whatever that means. "plonk" is the notional sound that the offensive user's email address makes when it hits the bottom of the Usenet killfile of the person who said that. In other words, "I'm ignoring you now," usually with a strong implied "you

Re: Fwd: plonk

no idea, I read emails from both you and him and didn't see anything amiss. Benny's signature does not parse as English so it's hard to say what it means. I wouldn't worry about it. -lee On 5/7/2013 8:56 AM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > Whatever that means. > > I think that if someone has cause off

Fwd: plonk

Whatever that means. I think that if someone has cause offense they should be allowed to know what it was, in unambiguous terms. joe a. >>> Benny Pedersen 05/07/13 6:08 AM >>> respect my signature atleast -- senders that put my email into body content will deliver it to my own trashcan, so

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

>>> On 5/7/2013 at 2:01 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > Joe Acquisto-j4 skrev den 2013-05-06 22:16: >> And how, exactly, is a sender to determine someone read an email one >> has sent? > > there was something last year that was called rfc-ignorant.org :) > > if one of there listed domains wanted to