Nigel Frankcom wrote:
We're on a BT only exchange here so it's them or nothing,
Really? Over ten years ago when I lived in the UK, my first provider
was Nildram, I'm sure they didn't run the local exchange. Same here in
Switzerland - most of the fibre and copper belongs to Swisscom, then
corpus.defero wrote:
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
Same thing.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
Same thing.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Key point is the admin has made a choice and is aware
corpus.defero wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 21:09 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
corpus.defero wrote:
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level.
Same thing.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Key point is the admin has made a choice
Hi All,
Am I the only one incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
this list hence mailing from my gmail account).
When I log on to sorbs, give my details I get a nice email back saying:
$Id: Act.pm,v 1.16 2006/11/27 03
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:04 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Am I the only one incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
this list hence mailing from my gmail account).
When I log on to sorbs, give my details I
On 20 April 2010 14:13, corpus.defero corpus.def...@idnet.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 14:04 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
Hi All,
Am I the only one incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
this list hence mailing
On tir 20 apr 2010 15:04:53 CEST, Nigel Frankcom wrote
If anyone has any ideas - please let me know?
if your isp give you dul ip, then you must use isp smtp servers as relay
not a fault of sorbs some isp is badly informing users on howto
if you really want to use you ip as server make sure
Are you the ISP for the IP address, or the client/user?
According to SORBS, requests for removal from the DUHL should come
from the ISP that owns the IP space, not the end user that rents it.
See: http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml
End users (non ISP staff): SORBS support staff may ask you
if your isp give you dul ip, then you must use isp smtp servers as relay
This ins't necessarily true. I've had to deal with this ever time I've changed
hosts (to include Level 3 static IP assignments). Some ISP's just don't
publish their ranges as all static.
not a fault of sorbs some isp
On 4/20/2010 8:10 AM, John Rudd wrote:
Are you the ISP for the IP address, or the client/user?
According to SORBS, requests for removal from the DUHL should come
from the ISP that owns the IP space, not the end user that rents it.
See: http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml
End users (non ISP
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:00:23 CEST, Bret Miller wrote
them as an organization. You need your email to be delivered
reliably to everyone on the internet and that's the only way it's
going to happen.
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp dependice, why care ?
--
xpoint
dependice, why care ?
It doesn't effect all destinations, but it affects thousands of
companies who use SpamAssassin to filter their email. And it affects
some who use SORBS DUL to reject email outright. To me that's outright
crazy, but I support a small non-profit company and my opinion
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 20 apr 2010 18:00:23 CEST, Bret Miller wrote
them as an organization. You need your email to be delivered reliably to
everyone on the internet and that's the only way it's going to happen.
not correct, hotmail gmail yahoo works without isp
ranges changes to static ?
Are you saying that freemail services or ISP-provided mail accounts
are all anyone needs?
in a perfekt world yes
this thread here flames sorbs for listning dul ranges and users dont
understand what it means :(
flames should really go to isps selling over prissed
?
if your isp give you dul ip, then you must use isp smtp servers as relay
not a fault of sorbs some isp is badly informing users on howto
if you really want to use you ip as server make sure it relly is allowed
from your isp, the report from sorbs says me its not a static ip
ps: if you need
be bothered to
properly manage it?
manage what ?, dynamic ip ranges changes to static ?
Are you saying that freemail services or ISP-provided mail accounts are
all anyone needs?
in a perfekt world yes
this thread here flames sorbs for listning dul ranges and users dont
understand what
static to me :)
its still your isp that should talk to sorbs
but okay reverse dns is not things that make it worse
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
Nigel Frankcom n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
$ dig +short -x 217.36.54.20
host217-36-54-20.in-addr.btopenworld.com.
This is the kind
On tir 20 apr 2010 19:29:47 CEST, RW wrote
To get out of DUL lists you ideally want something like
mail.example.com or at very least the word static in the rdns.
blame isp assigning dul users in static pools
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/20/10 12:29 PM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
Nigel Frankcom n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
$ dig
=simplefull_query_string=searchtext=217.36.54.209do_search=Search
seems static to me :)
its still your isp that should talk to sorbs
but okay reverse dns is not things that make it worse
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Thanks for that info. It apparently disagrees with mine
Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
What probably happened was something like this:
1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or SORBS
inferred them via various means.
2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
3) Your ISP ran low on static addresses, and allocated to you one
Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
What probably happened was something like this:
1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or
SORBS inferred them via various means.
2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
3) Your ISP ran low on static addresses, and allocated
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:34 -0700, R-Elists wrote:
Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
What probably happened was something like this:
1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or
SORBS inferred them via various means.
2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:26:27 -0700, John Rudd jr...@ucsc.edu wrote:
Having full rDNS isn't the issue.
What probably happened was something like this:
1) your ISP reported their dynamic addresses to SORBS, or SORBS
inferred them via various means.
2) SORBS listed those addresses in DUL
3) Your
From: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2010/April/20 10:29
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:10 +0100
Nigel Frankcom n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
My IP has full rDNS supplied by my ISP - please feel free to ping -a
217.36.54.209 and tell me what exactly is wrong wit that?
$ dig +short
incabale of figuring out the SORBS interface?
I'm told by various mailserver that sorbs is blocking me (including
this list hence mailing from my gmail account).
When I log on to sorbs, give my details I get a nice email back saying:
$Id: Act.pm,v 1.16 2006/11/27 03:36:09 lem Exp $
I'm
server or get rDNS set to indicate static assignment.
^
Since my ISP mixup static and dynamic too, I was listet too, but they
immediately deliste on requst since I have a static IP with rDNS.
Even if SORBS is a braindamaged service
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25708610-15306,00.html
--
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, UCL Medical School
WWW:http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
Study Health Informatics - Modular Postgraduate Degree
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/study-health-informatics/
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:40 +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25708610-15306,00.html
Is that to a Spam Cartel? It's overpriced :-)
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:40 +0100, Anthony Peacock wrote:
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25708610-15306,00.html
Is that to a Spam Cartel? It's overpriced :-)
Well the article states Ms Sullivan said the highest legitimate offer
was about
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam related mailing list?
There
Any examples of such active lists? I suspect a few of us would be
interested.
-Original Message-
From: J.D. Falk [mailto:jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org]
Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 4:54 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: SORBS bites the dust
Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 21:06 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
That's not my definition at all
The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat yourself.
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
I have to say I have issues with your definition of legit mail. Many
people do send mail to other people out of the blue for legit reasons
other
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam related mailing list?
On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows there is much to discuss on this matter. Isn't there a generic
spam
On Sat, 2009-06-27 at 10:59 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 6/27/2009 10:55 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote:
Michael Grant wrote:
Unless I've missed a message... this is the 100th reply to this
thread. This has to be one of the longest threads I've seen on this
list in years.
Shows
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lot of spam, but
the fact
On 6/26/2009 4:07 PM, Jack Pepper wrote:
Quoting LuKreme krem...@kreme.com:
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It
On 6/26/2009 4:18 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
These people are not without 'other solutions'. But they are making the
best of a bad one. Is this enough to warrant down-scoring the PBL? I no
longer think so. But just so we're clear, just because an ISP says that
they have a 'policy' does not
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
On 26.06.09 10:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon the
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
what you do is your choice.
(nod) I've already made my choice clear, and would advocate the same
for anyone else. My argument was only that we should not create a false
sense of confidence that we will 'never' see legitimate mail come from a
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Imho, the important question is, why such home user wants to send large
amounts of mail
Keep in mind, the definition of 'large' may be arbitrarily SMALL for some
ISP's Maybe just 100 recipients.
if (s)he can't find any (free)
Charles Gregory wrote:
There are always exceptions.
Those can send me (postmaster@) a mail (without beeing blocked)
asking for whitelisting.
The reject message contains a link explaining how to do that.
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:18, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
If only more people understood this. Thanks for the post John, you
summarized it very well. If anyone ever whines about the PBL again,
please repost.
Firstly, my thanks to all who commented. Based upon
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will 'never' see
legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail from a PBL-listed IP.
See, it all comes down to what
On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 08:55, Charles Gregory wrote:
we should not create a false sense of confidence that we will
'never' see legitimate mail come from a PBL-listed IP
Yes, we will *never* see legitimate mail
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:23:22 -0600
LuKreme krem...@kreme.com wrote:
That's not my definition at all; it's not even the definition of any
mailadmin I've ever met. We reject mail users *want* all the time.
It's our job.
...
Just because the
recipient WANTS it does not make it
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 15:23, LuKremekrem...@kreme.com wrote:
On 26-Jun-2009, at 14:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
I don't care. It's the *meaning* that matters. Not the *word*.
Fine, then, the meaning. Your meaning is *wanted* and my meaning is mail
from a verifiable source with a verifiable
Am 2009-06-25 08:56:00, schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't like receiving spam from
companies that don't accept complaints...
Hihi...
[ '/etc/courier/bofh' ]-
badfrom @hotmail.com
badfrom @hotmail.de
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
See, it all comes down to what you think 'legitimate' is.
The recipient wants the e-mail. DUH.
That's not my definition at all
The very reason for my posting. You need not repeat yourself.
. it's not even the definition of any mailadmin I've ever
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
It sounds like Charles' user base and cost/benefit analysis is
different, and that's fine.
Actually no, it's not. I arrive at the same cost/benefit analysis and have
instituted the same general policy - I block all hosts on PBL. Thought I
made that part
on how to do it...
I have to agree with Mouss here. I've not tried with Sorbs but I used to
get a ton of calls at Barracuda because people had ended up on their
'reputation' list. Charming calls in fact, often describe sexual acts my
mother was alleged to perform in the vicinity of the devil
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
and very bad for business.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=hotmail.com
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Personally I have mixed views on charging for delisting. In some
instances it would be appropriate and I would not dismiss it out of
hand. Certainly for repeat offenders I think it would be highly
desirable.
Agreed, its one wya to make the
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of course you become an
authority on the subject in your your case, and your opinion matters as
factual, but you by your
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of course you become an
authority on the subject in your your case, and
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:24 +1000, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
if you jump on a bandwagon without first hand experience, thats *exactly*
what you are, if you had experienced it first hand of course you
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of large and
serious hosting providers - I was thinking more of organisations
such as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
My
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
3) I wouldn't refer to rfc-ignorant as a blacklist - nobody with half
a brain would block email just because of RFC ignorance on the part
of the sender.
Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't like
Arvid Picciani wrote:
serious hosting providers - I was thinking more of organisations
such as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
whats the issue with hetzner? I'm a customer so i'd be very
interested in any spam issue not beeing processed by them.
There is no issue with Hetzner. Read
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of large and
serious hosting providers - I was thinking more of
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of large and
serious hosting providers - I
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
3) I wouldn't refer to rfc-ignorant as a blacklist - nobody with half
a brain would block email just because of RFC ignorance on the part
of the sender.
Why not? I do that and intentionally - I don't
On 25-Jun-2009, at 03:55, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:39 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of large and
serious
Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
Seems it has little to do with SA
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones grammer
2. You could always try setting up your Mickey Mouse 'blocked using
dnsbl.lan' restriction so it works properly LOL.
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Quoting Res r...@ausics.net:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick
On Thu, June 25, 2009 15:08, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Actually, you were first blocked by a milter because your SPF record
contains junk get someone with a clue to set it up for you
http://old.openspf.org/wizard.html?mydomain=buzzhost.co.uksubmit=Go!
On 25.06.09 12:38, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
Seems it has little to do with SA
spam-l was closed iirc ;-)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie:
Jack Pepper wrote:
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Yea, this is why when my bosses ask where I get my information I tell
them from a closed forum. If they read the adolescent ramblings that got
posted on email/spam
On 6/25/2009 4:12 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 25.06.09 12:38, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
Could this thread be moved to spam-l ?
Seems it has little to do with SA
spam-l was closed iirc ;-)
yes and no
it was taken over and its nice busy
http://spam-l.com/mailman/listinfo
Jack Pepper wrote:
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in?
It already did.
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Now I'm just watching for the fun of it
Try IRC :-P
DAve wrote:
Jack Pepper wrote:
How long will this go before Godwin's law finally kicks in? Now I'm
just watching for the fun of it .
Yea, this is why when my bosses ask where I get my information I tell
them from a closed forum. If they read the adolescent ramblings that got
posted on
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 14:41, moussmo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
James Wilkinson a écrit :
If you mean “IP address that should not have been in the PBL but was”,
that’s one thing. It’s a consistent definition, but not very useful for
stopping spam.
yes, the PBL may list blocks that contain
James Wilkinson a écrit :
mouss wrote (about the PBL):
stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so that we
see what you exactly mean.
a lot of people, including $self, use the PBL at smtp time.
As usual, it depends on your definition of “false positive”.
fully agreed.
From: Res r...@ausics.net
Sent: Thursday, 2009/June/25 06:08
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
3. The day I give a shit about what an Australian spammer thinks of me,
will be the day hell freezes over.
oh im a spammer now am I, awww poor widdle wicky, go cry to mummy, or
On 25-Jun-2009, at 07:08, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones
grammer
NB: it's spelt grammar
--
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution,
On 25-Jun-2009, at 15:41, mouss wrote:
if you say, I will only block those who I am certain are criminals,
then some criminals will get
in.
s/some/almost all/
--
Battlemage? That's not a profession. It barely qualifies as a
hobby. 'Battlemage' is about impressive a title as 'Lord of
On 25-Jun-2009, at 16:01, John Rudd wrote:
People who complain that the PBL is blocking things that aren't spam
kind of don't get the point of the PBL. The PBL's definition means
that it will block non-spam. It should also block a lot of spam, but
the fact that it will block ham is not an
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
On 25-Jun-2009, at 07:08, Res wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
1. It's 'You're' a joke - not 'your' a joke
Ah the classic sign of someone in defeat, has to nit pick someones grammer
NB: it's spelt grammar
yyyaan
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:05PM -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, mouss wrote:
When I did my research for setting up RBL's, I found old comparisons
between RBL's that seemed to indicate that the spamhaus PBL and the
spamcop lists had slightly higher levels of flase
evidence, show it. if not, stop spreading
rumours. I have delisted an IP in the past, and I have been watching
people trying to delist a block but without clues on how to do it...
I have to agree with Mouss here. I've not tried with Sorbs but I used to
get a ton of calls at Barracuda because
# n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS 0 0.182 0 0.801 # n=0 n=2
50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0 1.117 0 0.619 # n=0 n=2
50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_SORBS_ZOMBIE 0 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
On 23.06.09 14:50, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Notice that the SORBS spam sources list
IPs are dynamic etc.
The same applies for sorbs dul ...
I found *some* stats at http://stats.dnsbl.com which would seem to
suggest that the spamcop database is now very accurate. Though I am
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Some U.K. providers (such as Fasthosts Rackspace(UK)) never seem to
get a listing for any of their ranges - which is interesting when you
consider they are probably the largest providers of hosting in the UK
and that Spamhaus hosts with one of them.
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
and very bad for business.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=hotmail.com
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
Got more info?
Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
While I cannot remember precisely, categorically it was a
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, June 24, 2009 13:59, Per Jessen wrote:
Blacklisting a large and serious hosting provider is just not serious
and very bad for business.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=yahoo.com
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=hotmail.com
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 19:00 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
2) I didn't include free email providers in my list of large and
serious hosting providers - I was thinking more of organisations such
as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
My special award goes to 1and1. I get *so
serious hosting providers - I was thinking more of organisations such
as 1and1, hetzner, rackspace etc. etc.
whats the issue with hetzner? I'm a customer so i'd be very interested
in any spam issue not beeing processed by them.
mouss wrote (about the PBL):
stop spreading FUD. if you know of false positives, show us so that we
see what you exactly mean.
a lot of people, including $self, use the PBL at smtp time.
As usual, it depends on your definition of “false positive”.
If you mean “IP address that should not
Charles Gregory a écrit :
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
somewhat hesitant to use spamcop as our own servers once had a brief
listing with them (and it wasn't due to spam).
Got more info?
Sadly, we're dealing with my aging memory. :)
While I cannot remember precisely,
. I've not tried with Sorbs but I used to
get a ton of calls at Barracuda because people had ended up on their
'reputation' list. Charming calls in fact, often describe sexual acts my
mother was alleged to perform in the vicinity of the devil.
You agree with him but have never had to do it? Thats
, SORBS does 30billion queries per day).
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Res wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
You can wait 1 year ... or pay $50 to some approved charity. So, yes,
you can not pay anything, if you're willing to wait a year. And if
you do pay, you don't pay THEM exactly. But, it still remains that
they expect some form of financial offset
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
It comes with great sadness that I have to announce the imminent
closure of SORBS.
crap ... sorbs is the only list I trust enough to have them at SMTP level.
On 22.06.09 13:54, Charles Gregory wrote:
In the past, I
101 - 200 of 355 matches
Mail list logo
