> On Nov 6, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
>
> Am 04.11.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Holger Schramm:
>
>> If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that easy.
>
> That's the one part, the other part is what Dianne wrote about. If this
> happens to you better be sure to ha
Am 04.11.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Holger Schramm:
If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that easy.
That's the one part, the other part is what Dianne wrote about. If this
happens to you better be sure to have a 2nd MX ready with a totally
different IP address.
Every
y are trying to correspond with uses UCEPROTECT,
you are basically at the mercy of UCEPROTECT. There's no accountability,
and your customers are not going to be interested in any sort of
discussion; they'll just want their damned emails to go through NOW.
Shady blocklists can cause all sorts of
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:23:16 +0100
Holger Schramm wrote:
> If you don't like them, don't use their services. It is really that
> easy.
It's not that easy. If you provide email services to a large number
of people and someone they are trying to correspond with uses UCEPROTE
Am 04.11.2016 um 11:33 schrieb Marc Stürmer:
> Am 2016-11-03 15:34, schrieb MHielder:
>
>> A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
>> Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
>> No, it didn't. The guys telling lies
Am 2016-11-03 15:34, schrieb MHielder:
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
No, it didn't. The guys telling lies in the public just made fools out
of themselves.
The fact that every p
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:32:00 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
> >MHielder wrote:
> >
> >> > Zitat von Marco :
> >> >
> >> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason
> >> > is that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >> >
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> Zitat von Marco :
>
> UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> that they do charge money for delisting entries.
>
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
On 03.11.16 15:27, RW wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:34:04 +0100
MHielder wrote:
> > Zitat von Marco :
> >
> > UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, foremost reason is
> > that they do charge money for delisting entries.
> >
> A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
No, not really. What
hits their honeypot, you can be forced to
either pay or get complaints from your own users as well as people they
usually mail for the next week.
Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
Hope so. Somehow I have never seen any respectable mail solution using
UCEPROTECT
t's why there is
> no easy way to concat them on their home page.
>
> So you should really ask yourself: why do you trust them?
> .
A that old lie, that one has to pay to be removed again? Really?
Did it prevent people using UCEPROTECT within the last 15 years?
No, it didn'
Even the CSA guys told us not to use UCEProtect.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
- Boris Behrens
> Am 03.11.2016 um 00:12 schrieb Kevin Miller :
>
> Isn’t it obvious? It’s the NSA. J
>
> ...Kevin
> --
> Kevin Miller
> Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.
> 155 S
, 2016 2:56 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: uceprotect issue
On 11/2/2016 2:46 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Zitat von Marco <mailto:fa...@ruparpiemonte.it>:
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to contact
uceprotect, their contact form is unava
On 11/2/2016 2:46 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Zitat von Marco :
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to
contact uceprotect, their contact form is unavailable.
It seems the problem starts on 30 october. Did you have noticed too
something about?
UCE Protect
Zitat von Marco :
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don't know how to
contact uceprotect, their contact form is unavailable.
It seems the problem starts on 30 october. Did you have noticed too
something about?
UCE Protect has a very questionable reputation, for
prevent this kind of issues.
Greetings M.Hielder
UCEPROTECT Network
IN A 193.138.29.11
dns-cluster-3.uceprotect.NET. 1797 IN A 199.187.241.194
dns-cluster-3.uceprotect.NET. 1797 IN A 66.240.236.50
Many records resolve to 176.107.178.7, like
84.105.105.38.dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net.
Sorry, I know this is not uceprotect list, but I don
hat - what else do you need? If
>> you can't be bothered with the police, tell the press.
>
> I was already thinking to write an article for "Spiegel Online" in
> the section "Netzwelt"...
You probably wouldn't even need to do that - it sounds like a
Hello Per,
Am 2010-04-23 19:48:14, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> It sounds like all you need to do is report them to the German
> authorities. You know who they are, and you know that they are spamming
> you, and you care about that - what else do you need? If you can't be
> bothered with the
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> My legitim server is also blocked and I can not reach more then
> 20 customers and manufacturers du to this problem.
>
> Some of them have already stoped using UCEPROTECT and I assume, you
> know WHO owns ths enterprise...
>
> I am spamed (
e have any information about this and in particular any law
> enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
My legitim server is also blocked and I can not reach more then 20
customers and manufacturers du to this problem.
Some of them have already stoped using UCEPROTECT
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
> > abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
>
> Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
> such proof??
Honestly - I have no idea since I had not be
our mailserver has a URL embedded in the header from which abuse
> can be reported.
Whois record shows contact info. And usually abuse mailbox. But
UCEPROTECT is not interested in reporting. They are interested in
listing so maybe someone pays them.
Reporting could lead to actu
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Not to mention that they never provide any proof of any
> abuse which is supposed to have caused the listing.
Surely that is not unusual - do any of the many list providers provide
such proof??
/Per Jessen, Zürich
his now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
>> reasons.
>
>Of course. But that's kinda ortogonal to the whole UCEPROTECT issue.
>
>> But I wouldn't count on that, and I think that if you have spammed, they'd
>> have proof against you
>> They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
>> per year to remove individual IP's
>
> UCEPROTECT has three levels of listing, from single IP (L1) to whole
> autonomous system (L3). L2 lists /24 and above (allocated) range.
> L2 and L3 are es
On Friday, 23 of April 2010, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> This is now what ISPs should do - enforce no-spam policies, apparently
> including blocking outgoing SMTP for non-MTAs. We (at my employer) are
> doing this now, even because of UCEPROTECT but also because of different
>
ing 20Euro's
> per year to remove individual IP's
UCEPROTECT has three levels of listing, from single IP (L1) to whole
autonomous system (L3). L2 lists /24 and above (allocated) range.
L2 and L3 are escalations based on % of spamming (L1-listed) IPs.
While L2 and L3 should not be used
corpus.defero wrote:
> Uceprotect has some strange listing policies that have been questioned
> numerous times. But the crux of it is this, the people who use
> UCEProtect are well aware of it - and it's not widely used. Personally
> it's one of those lists I don't trus
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> First of all - anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP
> servers as long as he does it conforming to relevant RFC's.
Anyone is free to use anything for policing their SMTP servers, period.
> Been there, done that, got blacklisted for one mail. That's just p
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:44:53 -0400, Jared Hall wrote:
>Nigel,
>
>It takes two to tango.
>
>1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
>be having this issue.
>2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the
On Thursday, 22 of April 2010, Jared Hall wrote:
> It takes two to tango.
But takes just one to spoil the fun. Trust me, I do ballroom dancing :-)
> 1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
> In terms of extortion, I don't see any liabi
Nigel,
It takes two to tango.
1) If your recipient's Email server didn't use UCEPROTECT, you would not
be having this issue.
2) If your recipient's ISP ran their own local cached copy of the UCEPROTECT
zone file(s), they could simply remove your IP address.
3) If your recipient&#x
ken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
> per year to remove individual IP's
>
> Does anyone have any information about this and in particular any law
> enforcement involvement since this smacks of extortion to me.
>
> TIA
>
> Nigel
Uceprotect has some s
UCProtect and backscatterrer.org are BOTH doing this. In my opinion they even
could well be controlled by spammers and taking money on both ends of the this.
I personally feel abused by them since they appear to be stroking their lists
simply to make money.
Ron Smith
postmas...@pmbx.net
"Havin
Hi All,
For reference the SORBS issue is still ongoing, my ISP (BT) is working
hard to resolve it.
I mentioned in one of my posts how UC (UCPROTECT) were also an issue.
They seem to have taken entire netblocks and are demanding 20Euro's
per year to remove individual IP's
Does anyone have any in
> >> Alex wrote:
> >> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
> >
>
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> > it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> > and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> Alex wrote:
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> > works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> > wondered if I was doing something wrong.
On 26.11.09 23:09, Per Jessen wrote:
> Don't u
why I don't block with UCEPROTECT.
>
> Yep, me neither, but I had some cases of dimwitted admins setting up
> UCEPROTECT RBL so I couldn't even contact the postmaster!
Yeah, there is no shortage of poorly configured mailservers - missing
rDNS, no postmaster/abuse address, poo
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 10:31 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> > 1. Listing
> Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
> rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
First of all, y
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Every respectable RBL has _clear_ rules of
> 1. Listing
Hmm, I'm not so sure - how about spamcop, surbl, uribl, spamhaus? Their
rules are exactly as clear or unclear as those of uceprotect.
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3
I too _would_ l
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 09:12 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
> >> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
> >> >> and I wondered if I was do
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
>> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how
>> >> it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham,
>> >> and I w
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 23:20 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> >> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> >> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> >> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
Mariusz Kruk wrote:
> Alex pisze:
>> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
>> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
>> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to b
Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Don't use UCEPROTECT for catching, only for scoring.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
Alex pisze:
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
Yes, UCEPROTECT seems to be just a big scam. Only thing it seems to care
about i
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
> works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
> wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 10:53 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> > of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> > lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wro
>
> I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware
> of how it works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful
> lot of ham, and I wondered if I was doing something wrong.
>
> I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and s
Hi,
I'm interested in people's opinion of UCEPROTECT. I'm aware of how it
works, but even UCEPROTECT1 seems to catch an awful lot of ham, and I
wondered if I was doing something wrong.
I've set the score to 0.01 for now, while I watch and see how it works
here. What's a
sebast...@debianfan.de wrote:
Hello,
does anybody use spamassassin with uceprotect?
Can you post your config-file, please?
Tnx
Here you go:
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
# dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
header RCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT1 eval:check_rbl('uceprotect1-lastexternal'
Hello,
does anybody use spamassassin with uceprotect?
Can you post your config-file, please?
Tnx
Trying to figure out how UCE Protect manages to add specific IP
addresses to it's blacklist. Below is a list of my IP addresses that UCE
Protect claims to actually have detected spam our some abuse from.
However except for #6 all the other IP addresses are fake MX records I
use and #1 is just a
On Thursday 19 October 2006 06:39, Jo Rhett took the opportunity to say:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > OK, the attacker might have 100 zombies on different ISPs, with each
> > ISP's smarthost helping amplify the attack a bit. But does that really
> > count? The servers making the callouts aren't the
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
OK, the attacker might have 100 zombies on different ISPs, with each ISP's
smarthost helping amplify the attack a bit. But does that really count? The
servers making the callouts aren't the ones which are amplifying.
You really don't have to deal with spam at your day jo
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 19:41, Jo Rhett took the opportunity to say:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > The thing with e.g. the DNS-based DDoS attacks that became common a while
> > ago is that there is a considerable bandwidth amplification; you send a
> > small query packet with a forged sender ad
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:33, Jo Rhett took the opportunity to say:
Send a bunch of spam with a single forged sender address to a lot of
sites that do sender verification. Watch their mail server fall down.
I can assure you that even with modern hardware, no e-mail MTA available
today can ha
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 19:33, Jo Rhett took the opportunity to say:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Not really. If somene had the bandwidth to cause a denial of service
> > through sender verification they could do it more easlly by just
> > attacking the target directly. No one is going to use sender
> >> You mean, a 5xx (permanent) error?
> >>
> >> Most sites don't use permanent errors for unknown mailboxes: the
> >> rfc-suggests error code for this case is a temporary one (but
> maybe I didn't
> >> recall it good enough).
> >>
> >> giampaolo
> >> '
>
> Hi,
>
> I have recently played with
>
> My incoming servers know literally nothing about which users have valid
> addresses and which do not. All these servers do is accept or reject
> inbound mail based on a (long) list of SMTP-level rules and forward the
> messages that are accepted to another machine for SA and virus scanning.
>
>>
>>
>> Just to know, how exim's sender verification function copes with
>> greylisting? I mean, at the first time exim attempts to check some user
>> mailbox on a given mx with greylisting functions, it gets a 450 reply code.
>> Does exim assumes the sender address is forged in that case?
>>
Kelson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Generally a dictionary attach uses randon to addresses, not from
addresses. Sender verification works on the from address.
And when your sender verification setup tries to verify a forged From:
address against my server, it uses it as the To: address. Add a
Just to know, how exim's sender verification function copes with greylisting? I mean, at the first time exim attempts to check some user mailbox on a given mx with greylisting functions, it gets a 450 reply code. Does exim assumes the sender address is forged in that case?
Exim sender ver
Marc Perkel wrote:
Generally a dictionary attach uses randon to addresses, not from
addresses. Sender verification works on the from address.
And when your sender verification setup tries to verify a forged From:
address against my server, it uses it as the To: address. Add a bunch
of them t
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Sender Verification is an Exim trick. What it does is start a sequence
where my server starts to send an email back to the sender address to
see if it's a real email account. But I do a quit after the rctp to:
command. I
Jim Maul wrote:
If you do *recipient* verification as opposed to sender, why would
there be any bounce message at all? reject unknown recipients at smtp
time. Wheres the problem? All sender verification seems to do at this
point is create load on your and other peoples servers, and provid
> Marc Perkel wrote:
> > Sender Verification is an Exim trick. What it does is start a sequence
> > where my server starts to send an email back to the sender address to
> > see if it's a real email account. But I do a quit after the rctp to:
> > command. If the receiving end says the user doesn
Marc Perkel wrote:
Sender Verification is an Exim trick. What it does is start a sequence
where my server starts to send an email back to the sender address to
see if it's a real email account. But I do a quit after the rctp to:
command. If the receiving end says the user doesn't exist then I b
At 08:32 17-10-2006, Dave Pooser wrote:
You think so? By my count, my server is transmitting roughly 80 bytes of
data (HELO, MAIL FROM:, RCPT TO: and QUIT); even with overhead from RBL
checks on your side that shouldn't contribute to any load. It's not like an
evil spammer could carefully synchro
>
> Um, yes. Well, I've seen it DoSed by just attempts to deliver to an
> address that doesn't exist. "User not found" after RCPT TO is the exact
> same traffic load. That was very modern hardware, and it happened just
> a few weeks ago.
>
> Think about it. It doesn't require you to stretch yo
>
> Right. And rate limiting limits the real service. Thus, you have ...
> oh yeah, DENIAL OF SERVICE.
>
> THINK! It's not hard.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> Network/Software Engineer
> Net Consonance
Don't assume Jo.
You do not know specifically what I was talking about rate limiting and why
or how.
Marc Perkel wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, some folks still hate it because you're using some (very
little) of their CPU and network to handle your spam.
Also, a large number of verifications (say, because someone has been
sending lots of spam with for
Marc Perkel wrote:
Generally a dictionary attach uses randon to addresses, not from
addresses. Sender verification works on the from address. And if I
didn't use sender verification it scould result in a bounce message to
the address that I would have verified and the bounce message is a far
w
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm using Exim which caches sender verification results so if the
attacker uses a single forged address it would only result in a callout
ever 2 hours or so.
You really didn't read that page, did you?
Yes, it works well for you. But if everyone is doing it, it will fail.
You mean the same inefficiency that spam has? God, you're
right - nobody is doing that any more!
Um, you know at first I was agreeing with your comments about
UCEPROTECT but now that you've shown yourself to be fairly clueless,
I'm having to revise my opinion of them. Thei
R Lists06 wrote:
Maybe... under extremely special circumstances, yet more realistically not.
Well programmed software can rate limit itself when things look hokey...
Right. And rate limiting limits the real service. Thus, you have ...
oh yeah, DENIAL OF SERVICE.
THINK! It's not hard.
--
J
Marc Perkel wrote:
So if you have a company who is knowingly and deliberately listing
people who they know are in the spam fighting business as spammers, what
No. Just like RFC_POST and RFC_ABUSE they are listing people who
violate a policy. And by using those BLs, I am choosing not to acce
Jim Maul wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, some folks still hate it because you're using some (very
little) of their CPU and network to handle your spam.
Also, a large number of verifications (say, because someone has been
sending lots of spam with forged headers) looks s
Dave Pooser wrote:
Have you actually seen a server DOSed by sender callouts, ever? I never have
and I've ever heard of one
Um, yes. Well, I've seen it DoSed by just attempts to deliver to an
address that doesn't exist. "User not found" after RCPT TO is the exact
same traffic load. That
same inefficiency that spam has? God, you're right
- nobody is doing that any more!
Um, you know at first I was agreeing with your comments about UCEPROTECT
but now that you've shown yourself to be fairly clueless, I'm having to
revise my opinion of them. Their grammar aside, the
Kelson wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, some folks still hate it because you're using some (very
little) of their CPU and network to handle your spam.
Also, a large number of verifications (say, because someone has been
sending lots of spam with forged headers) looks suspiciously like a
Matt Kettler wrote:
That said, some folks still hate it because you're using some (very
little) of their CPU and network to handle your spam.
Also, a large number of verifications (say, because someone has been
sending lots of spam with forged headers) looks suspiciously like a
dictionary att
> ...maybe you could be the one to correct their "grammar" as they
> put it and
> they would bless/pay you by pulling your entry...
Ahahah. :)
giampaolo
>
> Yes, I am joking... sort of...
>
> :-)
>
> - rh
>
> --
> Robert - Abba Communications
>Computer & Internet Services
> (509) 624
>
> hat it looks like to me is a way of blacklisting competition to try to
> stear business their way. The only way to get off their lists is to pay
> them money. It looks more like extortion to me.
>
Marc
After reading their EN website, http://www.uceprotect.net/en/
...maybe you could be the
The way I see it is this. I run a spam filtering company. I'm one of the
good guys who are blocking spam. uceprotect.net claims to be a list to
block spammers. I have written them several times and even though they
know that I am not a spammer they refuse to take me off their spammers list.
So
> It's also a good trick to cause a denial of service.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
Maybe... under extremely special circumstances, yet more realistically not.
Well programmed software can rate limit itself when things look hokey...
- rh
--
Robert - Abba Communications
Computer & Internet Service
>> I don't know if other MTAs support sender verification but if they
>> don't they should. It's a very good trick for blocking spam at connect time.
>
> It's also a good trick to cause a denial of service.
You think so? By my count, my server is transmitting roughly 80 bytes of
data (HELO, MAIL
SM wrote:
At 20:52 16-10-2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I don't know if other MTAs support sender verification but if they
don't they should. It's a very good trick for blocking spam at
connect time.
It's also a good trick to cause a denial of service.
Regards,
-sm
Not really. If somene had th
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Well - if they get it wrong and won't fix it and they are causing my
good emails to bounce for 2500 domains, what am I supposed to do?
Well, Do they in fact "have it wrong"? If their listing criteria
considers sender verification to be
At 20:52 16-10-2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I don't know if other MTAs support sender verification but if they
don't they should. It's a very good trick for blocking spam at connect time.
It's also a good trick to cause a denial of service.
Regards,
-sm
> > Well - if they get it wrong and won't fix it and they are causing my
> > good emails to bounce for 2500 domains, what am I supposed to do?
> Well, Do they in fact "have it wrong"? If their listing criteria
> considers sender verification to be "mail abuse", well, you fit their
> listing criteri
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Well - if they get it wrong and won't fix it and they are causing my
> good emails to bounce for 2500 domains, what am I supposed to do?
Well, Do they in fact "have it wrong"? If their listing criteria
considers sender verification to be "mail abuse", well, you fit their
Matt Kettler wrote:
I know who Marc is.. I first "met" him when I was subscribed to sa-dev
a long time ago and tried to defend him in a flame war back in July 2002.
(strangely, the dev-list member arguing strongest against Marc's idea
was actually a contributor in the process of implementing
I don't exactly agree with the folks that hate it, but I do at
least understand their thinking on the matter..
>
> The bottom line is what uceprotect is doing sucks because they are
> blacklisting as spammers peoiple who are in the business of blocking
> spam. And when they are makin
Rob McEwen wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> but in this case you gotta admit you're asking for
>> the exact same kind of information as a spammer needs
>>
>
> Marc 's purposes are "innocent", Marc is a trustworthy person,
I know who Marc is.. I first "met" him when I was subscribed to sa-
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm having problems with my spam filtering servers getting listed on
UCEPROTECT and can't figure out why. Is anyone familiar with how this
blacklist
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>
>>> I'm having problems with my spam filtering servers getting listed on
>>> UCEPROTECT and can't figure out why. Is anyone familiar with how this
>>> blacklist works
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
