jdow wrote: > > The direct in that case is probably the fault of the underlying cable > provider more than Earthlink. Did the spam come through the Earthlink > servers or merely from an address that claimed to be Earthlink? By the > way, there is no such address as "cable.earthlink.net". The address > may have been spoofed. > Of course cable.earthlink.net does not exist, you must be joking ;-) and no it is not spoofed. I mentioned 'cable' so that you could see it is not sent through the server but directly, meaning port 25 to the Internet seems still wide open for that host. Here's the complete address: user-0c2i63l.cable.earthlink.net [24.41.24.117] Spamassassin got that one fine with URIBL_JP_SURBL and GAPPY_SUBJECT! But I rather didn't get it at all.. I know I want too much (or too little in this case).
Regards Menno -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-changes-would-you-make-to-stop-spam----United-Nations-Paper-tf2035870.html#a5629948 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users forum at Nabble.com.
