On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 08:43 -0400, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
> On 4/30/2010 7:43 AM, corpus.defero wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 11:46 +0100, n.frank...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the chuckle....
> > >
> > > Mail transport error, MTSPro SMTP Relay Agent could not deliver the
> > > following message for <users@spamassassin.apache.org>.
> > >
> > > Reason: 550 Dynamic IP Addresses See:
> > > http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?217.36.54.209
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The old bucket still holds water. It is your ISP that needs to resolve
> > this - as a customer you can do nothing. Really they should have dealt
> > with this a long time ago. I've lost track of it, is this two weeks
> > later now? Really - you should sack your ISP and go to someone
> > competent.
> >
> >
>
> First, I'd like to point out that not everyone has the option of
> changing ISP's. Believe it or not, there are many folks who have only
> one choice for high-speed internet access (myself included).
>
> Second. The fact that a mail server rejects, outright, based on
> something so false-positivity as a db for "dynamic" ip's is
> irresponsible on the part of the admin. Sure, add some spammy points
> and do a scan but an outright rejection?
>
> -lee
>
Without wishing to come accross rude. I accept your points as they are,
in part, valid. But;
1. In this case the OP has a choice and has elected to trust a
notoriously awful former state owned ISP to deal with it.
2. No mail server rejects based on SORBS. It rejected where admins
choose to implement SORBS at an SMTP level. Doing so they are usually
well aware of the caveats of using SORBS.
3. This is all irrelevant to the Spamassassin list. Like I say there may
be some opinion here, there may be mixed advice here, but there is no
resolution or listening ear here.
Michelle 'listens' to NANAE and SPAM-L last time I checked, but again
it's an issue for BT to deal with. The fact the OP has to go around
chasing this is a clear indication of failure of his ISP. It's blunt,
but it's really that simple.
