Philip Prindeville wrote:
Then I've not deduced what addresses are used for users and which
block is allocated to servers...
Fair enough. This conversation started when I pointed out you were
blocking comcast's *entire* network. I did so because you failed to
accept mail properly relayed t
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Interestingly enough, Japan also has laws against spam that most
legitimate ISPs attemp to conform to. You probably weren't aware of
that.
You'd never know it from their effectiveness!
This isn't really any differen
From: "Philip Prindeville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alan Premselaar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecut
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, Japan also has laws against spam that most
>> legitimate ISPs attemp to conform to. You probably weren't aware of
>> that.
>>
>>
>
> You'd never know it from their effectiveness!
This isn't really any different than the US with u-ca
Alan Premselaar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
>>> of prosecuting spam senders...
>>>
>> Erm, so you're going to block all of the U
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
No.
Hello,
From: Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:59:34 -0500
(snip...)
> Consider this porn spam:
>
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from bgp01061386bgs.taylor01.mi.comcast.net
&g
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
>>> of prosecuting spam senders...
>>>
>> Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
>>
>>
>
> No. We have laws against
sers@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional
policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going
nal Message-
> From: Philip Prindeville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:16 PM
> To: Matt Kettler
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)
>
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> >Philip Prindeville
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
No. We have laws against spam that hopefully most legitimate ISP's attempt
to
Philip Prindeville wrote:
As for properly configured SA... Well, maybe I'm lacking technical
competence and going for the low-hanging fruit, then.
Refusing help from Matt Kettler sure rules out getting a lot of that
low-hanging fruit.
Daryl
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
> I.e. any provider or country that doesn't have an institutional policy
> of prosecuting spam senders...
Erm, so you're going to block all of the US, correct?
> BTW: A finer point is that I block Comcast USER IP addresses. If
> Comcast has mail servers that have a sep
Richard Ozer wrote:
Philip,
Methinks that's a very silly policy. You're aren't hurting Comcast an
iota; but you sure are penalizing yourself, your users, and their
email contacts. A properly configured SA box will block spam from
Comcast subscribers as well as from anyone else so I don't se
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm not protesting anything.
So blocking Comcast is not a public gesture of disapproval?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protest
noun definition 2:
"An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval."
Matt Kettler wrote:
>> So my experience is that blocking based on rDNS is a waste of time,
>> and a lot of people on the mimedefang mailing list agree with that.
>
> I hate to say it, but blocking based on return-path is an even greater waste
> of
> time. Return-paths are readily forged.
>
> Wh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Couple of newbie questions... (repost)
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Philip will ge
Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
> I'm not protesting anything.
So blocking Comcast is not a public gesture of disapproval?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protest
noun definition 2:
"An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval."
>
> I'm refusing to accept ema
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550 REPLY:
550_5
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
>>
>> Final-Recipient: rfc822; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Action: failed
>> Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550 REPLY:
>> 550_5.0.
Matt Kettler wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550 REPLY:
550_5.0.0_This_provider_is_blacklisted
Sorry, I don't help p
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Philip will get no further help from me until he modifies his ACLs.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 550 REPLY:
550_5.0.0_This_provider_is_blacklisted
Sorry, I don't help people who block off ent
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I just joined the list, and I do a little peripheral work with
> Mimedefang and Thunderbird, sendmail, etc.
>
> In working with MdF, the following issue came up. We're running
> SpamAssassin 3.0.4, Mimedefang 2.55, Perl 5.8.5, and Sendmail
> 8.13.1... all on Red
Hi.
I just joined the list, and I do a little peripheral work with
Mimedefang and Thunderbird, sendmail, etc.
In working with MdF, the following issue came up. We're running
SpamAssassin 3.0.4, Mimedefang 2.55, Perl 5.8.5, and Sendmail
8.13.1... all on Redhat FC3 (on an Athalon 64).
(1) Is th
25 matches
Mail list logo
