Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT zip from command prompt
winzip is only $29...and the command line add-on is free to registered users. Darin. - Original Message - From: ISPhuset Nordic AS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:13 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT zip from command prompt Hi a little off topic Anyone knowing off a free or nearly free zip utility which can pack some files to a zip archive. unpacking isn't a problem It is a must that it can run for a command prompt Benny --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT zip from command prompt
Well..for 150 it's only $7.00/PC, which is pretty low. One thing I like about winzip is that you buy it once and get every upgrade in the future. I purchased it about 7 years ago and have upgraded two major versions so far, and a third is about to come out. For free, you might check around sourceforge to see if there are any projects that meets your needs. Darin. - Original Message - From: ISPhuset Nordic AS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:47 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT zip from command prompt Yes i know but i hvae to distribute this on 150 boxes and that is a lot of licenses :-) so free or nearly free are the keyword here -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DLAnalyzer Support Sent: 15. januar 2004 14:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT zip from command prompt Winzip has a command line utility add in. Darrell ISPhuset Nordic AS writes: Hi a little off topic Anyone knowing off a free or nearly free zip utility which can pack some files to a zip archive. unpacking isn't a problem It is a must that it can run for a command prompt Benny --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. Check Out DLAnalyzer a comprehensive reporting tool for Declude Junkmail Logs - http://www.dlanalyzer.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] *OT* Web dns management console
Hi Nick, I put together a simple one in .NET for MS DNS that uses SQL2K and the dnscmd utility to manage the most common functions in DNS (adding, deleting Host and MX records). Note that it does currently require IIS, the .NET framework, and SQL2K on the MS DNS server. If you're interested, we can talk offline to see if it is a fit for your needs. Darin. - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] *OT* Web dns management console Can anyone recommend a web interfaced dns management console for end users? Want end users to be able to manage their own domains eg: adding, deleting, edits. Thanks much! -Nick Hayer --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] *OT* Web dns management console
Totally agree, John. That's why the simple interface I put together has multiple security levels: one for users that could get into trouble by accidentally deleting their MX records and www, etc. hostsand another for more educated users who can be trusted to manage those. Generally shared hosting users can get access to the simple things like adding and deleting , and collocated customers can perform somewhat more advanced tasks like MX and common host (www, ftp, mail, etc.) record management. Overall, it saves us a small amount of support time and makes some of our customers happy when they have the power to make changes themselves without having to contact someone else to do it. Darin. - Original Message - From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:30 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] *OT* Web dns management console GENERAL WARNING. More control available to the end user means more problems can be created by the end user. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] *OT* Web dns management console Can anyone recommend a web interfaced dns management console for end users? Want end users to be able to manage their own domains eg: adding, deleting, edits. Thanks much! -Nick Hayer --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Probably, but if so, they're not doing their job. We need an organization that is less ivory tower and more proactive in enforcing standards and best practices. Darin. - Original Message - From: Pete McNeil To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:38 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS Isn't the IETF supposed to be this body?_MAt 09:14 PM 12/16/2003, you wrote: I would agree with this type of governing body. One that sets standards like RDNS entries and what they mean. pessimistic rantBut it is still up to each mail admin(s) to implement an anti-spam policy. And the history of governing bodies is such that only the biggest players have a voice. This would probably mean that AOL, Earthlink, RR, Hotmail, etc would be on the governing council and it would be interpreted to their greatest competitive advantage and nothing would have changed!/pessimistic rantTodd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hosting SupportSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:47 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSThis is exactly why I think we should have a some sort of global internet council for setting standards, rather than all of us little guys having to react, after the fact, whenever a large player makes a change. The global council could maintain a distribution list to help mail admins to keep up with proposed changes and implementation schedules. This is very similar to any other industry that must keep up with compliance standards.In some ways this also seems like an unfair competition tactic as it makes the little guys look bad when our customers can't send mail to AOL...it encourages customers to move to the large players to avoid not having mail delivered to their users.Darin.- Original Message - From: Todd Holt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:32 PMSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSI know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but If so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using their EULA to prevent software from operating, then why dont those same people get upset at AOL for the internet-nazi-police tactics used to prevent mail from being delivered?MS just says that you cant use certain apps on their OS. AOL says that you cant deliver mail through mail servers (that control more email than any other on the planet) because they deemed it bad through inaccurate, generalized and dare I say monopolistic policies.The lack of complaints about AOL just shows that the MS bashers are not upset about the MS policies (or monopoly), they just want to complain about the big company on the block. I think if the majority owner of AOL was the richest person on the planet, they would bash AOL. How short sided!!!Further, all of the justice dept. proceedings are based on complaints by the competition, not the users. On the other hand, AOL has thousands of consumer complaints, but very few (if any) complaints by competitors. Its obvious that the justice dept. just wants to appease whiny losers like Jim Barksdale and Scott McNealy. And the MS bashers just fall in line. Lemmings.Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy SchmidtSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSHi,I just noticed that AOL has stepped up their policies another notch.They used to say that "AOL **MAY**" not accept email from servers without Reverse DNS. In the last two weeks, that changed:http://postmaster.aol.com/guidelines/standards.html AOL's servers will not accept connections from unsecured systems. These include open relays, open proxies, open routers, or any other system that has been determined to be available for unauthorized use. AOL's mail servers will not accept connections from systems that use dynamically assigned or residential IP addresses. AOL will not deliver e-mail that contains a hex-encoded Universal Resource Locator (URL). (Ex: http://%6d%6e%3f/) AOL's mail servers will reject connections from any IP address that does not have reverse DNS (a PTR record). Best RegardsAndy SchmidtHM Systems Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Title: Message Hi Pete, I do agree with you on all of the problems you present in regards to a governing body that can enforce it's will. However, I think we're already there to some degree with the fact that companies like AOL can enforce policies locally that impact others and force them to adapt to their wishesexcept that it's N companies instead of a singlestandards board This is not a much differentfrom the "be careful what you wish for" scenario you mentioned, just more chaotic. You're certainly right on target on the "If everyone would just do it like I do it" point. However, I think we all realize compromises will be necessary when working together, and I strongly believe that these problems will not be solved without cooperation. I think my main point is still key: I'd much rather be forced into compliance by a standards body that has agreed on a course of action and notifies me of necessary changes ahead of time than by N companies that all make changes without notifying me, forcing me to scramble to address the howling concerns of my customers. Yes, it is possible that the standards might be expensive enough to implement to drive some small companies out of business, but that's not much different from the attrition we can see from customers moving to large companies in order to ensure their email gets delivered to other customers of said company. So, yes, you're right. There will be problems, and it's not a perfect solution, but I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power to enforce standardsthat are the consensus of the majority (probably best based on customer base) it's the best chance we have. Darin. - Original Message - From: Pete McNeil To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS This is a common perception... and one that I share to some extent. None the less, it's not an easy problem. The network runs on consensus - and that is nearly impossible to build and enforce. Ultimately, we hope, what works will win out and become recognized as a standard. That is more likely than any body creating a "standard" and then "enforcing" it into place. Some, with the power and money to do so, are capable of pushing their "standards" onto the 'net... and that is both good and bad. I guess my point is this: Picking somebody other than IETF to do this would most likely change the name but produce the same result. Giving any strong enforcement power to any such body would be disastrous because that power would quickly be abused either directly or through compromise. Imagine, for example, if VeriSign were in charge (chaching!) of how everything worked on the Internet! (I know from personal experience that they would love that... they may even feel entitled to it from some of the conversations I've overheard.) It's not an easy problem. Theanswer resides in real solutions - not in enforcement. You can't pry a good working solution from the cold dead hands of a good systems admin - or even most mediocre ones, but you can be pretty sure that almost every systems admin (good, bad, and ugly) will avoid using a bad solution no matter what enforcement might be at work - if they have any alternative at all. The Internet is an interesting training ground for real life problems we've yet to deal with on this planet. It only works when it really works... network effects create tremendous leverage...but opportunities tocompromise the system for local motiveswill be exploited if they can be - even if that means killing off the whole thing. (sad but we treat each other this way too more often than not...) Broader vision and altruism are often missing from the decision making process - so any single point of authority with significant power finds itself corrupted and manipulated - if not from the inside then from the outside. Often we forget that we're all connected. Often when folks say that the solution is in some strong central authority that can enforce a proper standard, they are really saying "everything would be fine if everyone would just do what I say." These folks fail to consider what it would be like if they got their wish, but the "authority" decided to do things that they couldn't live with. Be careful what you wish for - you might get it. The Internet is a great model for this kind of problem - a problem that we face every day without recognizing it. Humans have not yet discovered how to work and solve these problems (at least not en-mass)- but perhapsthey will now that we can face them from a different perspective. It's easy to forget we all breath the same air, but not so easy to forget when your email isn't working ;-) The IETF, like any body attempting to do that job, is mostly stuck battling a never ending storm of conflicting self interest on the part of the participants. When we (all) figure out how to solve those
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Hi Kevin, I'm not against AOL for doing this, as you would see from following the thread. What I intended to convey is that we need a lot more standards and enforcement of them (e.g. blacklists, dial up lists, port 25 blocking for dynamic addresses, etc.), as well as the all-important notification of new standards to be implemented/enforced. Perhaps an initial standard could be that all mail admins subscribe to a given notification list for policy changes, standards announcements, enforcement, etc. Again, I don't have a problem with what AOL did, I just think changes should be conveyed ahead of time when standards are enforced so the community can prepare. Could AOL be reasonably expected to notify all mail admins around the world that they were changing their procedures? No, of course not. And their HELO did respond with a meaningful, though from our experience inaccurate, announcement. That's why I point to the need for a central body to maintain the standards and NOTIFY subscribed mail admins. In our case, we did have RDNS in place, but from some reason AOL refused us since it didn't match the mail server name. Once we got that changed all was well. If we had had a lot of virtual email domains, as opposed to dedicated IPs for mail services, that would have been much more of a pain that it was. My $0.02 has multiplied...sorry to those who are tired of this topic. Darin. - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:16 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS Darin wrote: I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power to enforce standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best based on customer base) it's the best chance we have. The IETF or other independent body will not be able to enforce any standards, they can make recommendations. And it is up to the internet community to implement the standards and enforce the standards. The standards are enforced wny people do not bend the rules for server or DNS that is not in complience. For example I notify all admins and users that their mail is being held due to DNS configuration errors. When admins do not notify other admins there is an issue with their configuration that is where the system breaks down. So I applaud the big boys for finally enforcing the current standards by blocking invalid reverse dns settings. Here is AOL's definition of a inproperly configured RDNS entry. -- snip from postmaster.aol.com -- Reverse DNS must be in the form of a fully-qualified domain name - reverse DNSes containing in-addr.arpa are not acceptable, as these are merely placeholders for a valid PTR record. Reverse DNSes consisting only of IP addresses are also not acceptable, as they do not correctly establish the relationship between domain and IP address. -- end snip -- They are enforcing the standards already out there. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hosting Support Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS Hi Pete, I do agree with you on all of the problems you present in regards to a governing body that can enforce it's will. However, I think we're already there to some degree with the fact that companies like AOL can enforce policies locally that impact others and force them to adapt to their wishesexcept that it's N companies instead of a single standards board This is not a much different from the be careful what you wish for scenario you mentioned, just more chaotic. You're certainly right on target on the If everyone would just do it like I do it point. However, I think we all realize compromises will be necessary when working together, and I strongly believe that these problems will not be solved without cooperation. I think my main point is still key: I'd much rather be forced into compliance by a standards body that has agreed on a course of action and notifies me of necessary changes ahead of time than by N companies that all make changes without notifying me, forcing me to scramble to address the howling concerns of my customers. Yes, it is possible that the standards might be expensive enough to implement to drive some small companies out of business, but that's not much different from the attrition we can see from customers moving to large companies in order to ensure their email gets delivered to other customers of said company. So, yes, you're right. There will be problems, and it's not a perfect solution, but I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power to enforce standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best based on customer base) it's the best chance we have. Darin. - Original Message - From: Pete McNeil To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question
Hi Jeff, We've taken the stance that no legitimate email should ever be deleted. So, our implementation does not hold or delete any mail. Instead, we simply prepend the title of detected spam with 'SPAM[%tests failed%]' and, depending on the customer's desires, either pass the message on or route to a spam folder. For customers that choose not to have the message routed to a spam folder, we encourage them to set up a simple message rule in their mail client to dump identified spam in a separate folder. That way, we ensure users have the opportunity to receive an review messages, but they don't clog up their inbox. Others might justifiably argue that some spam is offensive enough to warrant deletion, but this is how we've chosen to implement. As a side note, we've also encouraged out customers to use a mail alias for any online subscriptions, forms, etc. We have a simple client app that they can run in the system tray of their desktop to create new email aliases with a note for each subscription. Then, when they start seeing a lot of spam to a certain alias, they can delete it and create another alias for any subscriptions that use it. Most customers set it up as recommended with one alias per subscription or form. It takes a few seconds longer to fill out a form while they type in a description/notes and click a button to generate a new alias, but they love the ability to drastically cut down on spam by protecting their main address. And, they can also take action against a company that didn't follow a stated privacy policy since they know who they gave the alias to. Darin. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:10 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question Okay, we've been using Declude quite successfully for some time, and we're finally trying to clean up all the original mistakes and misuses and misconfigurations. :) I'm looking for suggestions on how others handle some situations and setup. Currently we use a WORDFILTER to delete messages with specific words in subject or body. Such as that V drug that helps some men. Occasionally, we get a legitimate message deleted due to this. We also delete for high weights as well. I'm thinking of instead of deleting, moving these messages to a folder for temporary storage and using a scheduled task to delete anything more than seven days old. Is this similar to what others are doing or is there a better way I might consider? Thanks, Jeff --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
Hi John,
Ok, you got me...why ask about Florida?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
Scott,
I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.
1:47 AM - 2:04 AM not moving at all so I copied them from overflow spool
to another directory.
Big gap until 3:11 PM - mail is coming in faster than can be delivered.
No evidence of a dictionary attack that I've seen so far.
Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.
I'll take the standard user cop out and say I didn't change anything
('cause I didn't).
All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.
Imail 7.15 w/all hotfixes
Win2K Advanced Server
Declude Virus / F-Prot
Declude JM Pro 1.77 beta
Processor(s) running normal.
Any ideas ?
Any responses off list to fsquib at kecksburg dot net please (different
mail
server), as it may take a while with the backlog of mail in the
spool/queue.
Fritz
Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
Network Operations/Mail Administrator
Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
http://www.wpa.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\- against microsoft attachments
---
[This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
_
[This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question
Hi Andy, Sure, I'll need to package it for you, though, as the client depends on a small amount of server-side ASP.NET/SQL 2000. We have SQL on our mail servers, so it's designed for that configuration. The client only needs internet connectivity. I'm leaving tomorrow for the Holidays, but can package it for you when I get back in early January. I've been considering marketing a few of our tools like this, so I would appreciate feedback. I'll contact you off list when I get back. Darin. - Original Message - From: Andy Ognenoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:38 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question We have a simple client app that they can run in the system tray of their desktop to create new email aliases with a note for each subscription. Care to share the app? It sounds like a really cool idea for my own use (I don't know I want my users going crazy creating aliases.) - Andy --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RR.COM
AOL's official policy is just that reverse DNS has to exist, but we did recently experience (about three weeks ago) them blocking mail from us if reverse DNS didn't match the reported server name. Darin. - Original Message - From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RR.COM Scott, Your HELO (nerosoft.com) doesn't match your reverse DNS domain (mail.netbound.com). This could be the result of some idiot at AOL rejecting your E-mail based on those things not matching. The switch should be easy enough to test out this theory. Try changing your domain in IMail to netbound.com for just a second and see what happens. The reverse DNS change just takes a bit longer to propagate, though that might be a good idea to do for the long-term. Generally speaking, reverse DNS is used for E-mail filtering and nothing else of importance, so choose to match mail over all other things. Please let the list know if this works, though I'm just stabbing in the dark of course. I've seen places as large as GM block on just reverse DNS alone, which is pretty stupid in my book, and that warning from AOL's HELO has been there for months at least, and shows that they have at least considered this idiotic move. Matt Scott MacLean wrote: Does anyone know how to expedite getting removed from AOL/Netscape/Compuserve's IP spam list? I have no idea how we got there, but they have been blocking mail from every domain on my server for almost two weeks now. I can guarantee we've never sent any spam their way, or any way, for that matter. Attempting to send email to any of those domains ends up with this result: 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) Trying aol.com (0) 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) Connect aol.com [205.188.156.154:25] (1) 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554-(RLY:B2) The information presently available to AOL indicates this 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554-server is transmitting unsolicited e-mail to AOL. Based on AOL's 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554-Unsolicited Bulk E-mail policy at http://www.aol.com/info/bulkemail.html 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554-AOL cannot accept further e-mail transactions from this server. 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554-Please have your ISP/ASP or server admin call AOL at 1-888-212-5537, 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) 554 or visit http://postmaster.info.aol.com http://postmaster.info.aol.com/ for more information. 20031216 000133 127.0.0.1 SMTP (0384324F) SMTP_DELIV_FAILED They don't even give us a chance - we connect, and they dump us instantly. Calling them at that number gives you not much more than a promise that they'll look into it and get back to you, i.e. they won't bother and will never call you back. The postmaster web site doesn't help much. I'm at a bit of a loss. Hmmm. I just did a test from my mail server. I did a manual telnet to a few different AOL listed MX servers on port 25, and got this: 220-rly-ya02.mx.aol.com ESMTP mail_relay_in-ya2.4; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:55:45 -0500 220-America Online (AOL) and its affiliated companies do not 220- authorize the use of its proprietary computers and computer 220- networks to accept, transmit, or distribute unsolicited bulk 220- e-mail sent from the internet. Effective immediately: AOL 220- may no longer accept connections from IP addresses which 220 have no reverse-DNS (PTR record) assigned. I was able to do a manual HELO, RCPT FROM, MAIL TO, DATA and successfully send an email. The server has only one IP bound, so it can't be because it's using a different IP address. What gives? At 04:31 PM 12/16/2003, Bill wrote: Hi, FYI, rr.com has finally removed my IP from their spammer list as of today. It took 4 requests dating back to 11/18. I only knew we were no longer being blocked because one of my customers told me a message got through. My log file from today verified this to be true. I never did receive and messages from them other than the auto-responses. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Morgan Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] RR.COM Hi, We are having a problem sending e-mail to any user at rr.com. Our messages are refused as spam. I have checked all of the databases that they say they use and we are not listed in any of them. Over the last three weeks, I have sent several messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the address that they say to use for problems like this) but have only gotten automated responses confirming receipt of the message. Has anyone else had a problem with rr.com? If so, how did you resolve it? Thanks, Bill --- [This E-mail was scanned
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Title: Message This is exactly why I think we should have a some sort of global internet council for setting standards, rather than all of us little guys having to react, after the fact, whenever a large player makes a change. The global council could maintain a distribution list to help mail admins to keep up with proposed changes and implementation schedules. This is very similar to any other industry that must keep up with compliance standards. In some ways this also seems like an unfair competition tactic as it makesthe little guyslook bad when our customers can't send mail to AOL...it encourages customers to move to the large players to avoid not having mail delivered to their users. Darin. - Original Message - From: Todd Holt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:32 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS I know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but If so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using their EULA to prevent software from operating, then why dont those same people get upset at AOL for the internet-nazi-police tactics used to prevent mail from being delivered? MS just says that you cant use certain apps on their OS. AOL says that you cant deliver mail through mail servers (that control more email than any other on the planet) because they deemed it bad through inaccurate, generalized and dare I say monopolistic policies. The lack of complaints about AOL just shows that the MS bashers are not upset about the MS policies (or monopoly), they just want to complain about the big company on the block. I think if the majority owner of AOL was the richest person on the planet, they would bash AOL. How short sided!!! Further, all of the justice dept. proceedings are based on complaints by the competition, not the users. On the other hand, AOL has thousands of consumer complaints, but very few (if any) complaints by competitors. Its obvious that the justice dept. just wants to appease whiny losers like Jim Barksdale and Scott McNealy. And the MS bashers just fall in line. Lemmings. Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy SchmidtSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS Hi, I just noticed that AOL has stepped up their policies another notch. They used to say that "AOL **MAY**" not accept email from servers without Reverse DNS. In the last two weeks, that changed: http://postmaster.aol.com/guidelines/standards.html AOL's servers will not accept connections from unsecured systems. These include open relays, open proxies, open routers, or any other system that has been determined to be available for unauthorized use. AOL's mail servers will not accept connections from systems that use dynamically assigned or residential IP addresses. AOL will not deliver e-mail that contains a hex-encoded Universal Resource Locator (URL). (Ex: http://%6d%6e%3f/) AOL's mail servers will reject connections from any IP address that does not have reverse DNS (a PTR record). Best RegardsAndy SchmidtHM Systems Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Title: Message Totally agree. I know we'll always be at their mercy, but at least we would have some warning then...grin Darin. - Original Message - From: Todd Holt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:14 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS I would agree with this type of governing body. One that sets standards like RDNS entries and what they mean. pessimistic rant But it is still up to each mail admin(s) to implement an anti-spam policy. And the history of governing bodies is such that only the biggest players have a voice. This would probably mean that AOL, Earthlink, RR, Hotmail, etc would be on the governing council and it would be interpreted to their greatest competitive advantage and nothing would have changed! /pessimistic rant Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hosting SupportSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:47 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS This is exactly why I think we should have a some sort of global internet council for setting standards, rather than all of us little guys having to react, after the fact, whenever a large player makes a change. The global council could maintain a distribution list to help mail admins to keep up with proposed changes and implementation schedules. This is very similar to any other industry that must keep up with compliance standards. In some ways this also seems like an unfair competition tactic as it makesthe little guyslook bad when our customers can't send mail to AOL...it encourages customers to move to the large players to avoid not having mail delivered to their users. Darin. - Original Message - From: Todd Holt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:32 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS I know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but If so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using their EULA to prevent software from operating, then why dont those same people get upset at AOL for the internet-nazi-police tactics used to prevent mail from being delivered? MS just says that you cant use certain apps on their OS. AOL says that you cant deliver mail through mail servers (that control more email than any other on the planet) because they deemed it bad through inaccurate, generalized and dare I say monopolistic policies. The lack of complaints about AOL just shows that the MS bashers are not upset about the MS policies (or monopoly), they just want to complain about the big company on the block. I think if the majority owner of AOL was the richest person on the planet, they would bash AOL. How short sided!!! Further, all of the justice dept. proceedings are based on complaints by the competition, not the users. On the other hand, AOL has thousands of consumer complaints, but very few (if any) complaints by competitors. Its obvious that the justice dept. just wants to appease whiny losers like Jim Barksdale and Scott McNealy. And the MS bashers just fall in line. Lemmings. Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy SchmidtSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS Hi, I just noticed that AOL has stepped up their policies another notch. They used to say that "AOL **MAY**" not accept email from servers without Reverse DNS. In the last two weeks, that changed: http://postmaster.aol.com/guidelines/standards.html AOL's servers will not accept connections from unsecured systems. These include open relays, open proxies, open routers, or any other system that has been determined to be available for unauthorized use. AOL's mail servers will not accept connections from systems that use dynamically assigned or residential IP addresses. AOL will not deliver e-mail that contains a hex-encoded Universal Resource Locator (URL). (Ex: http://%6d%6e%3f/) AOL's mail servers will reject connections from any IP address that does not have reverse DNS (a PTR record). Best RegardsAndy SchmidtHM Systems Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Hi Burzin, I wasn't thinking from an individual standpoint, but globally, as in cooperative efforts by all mail system providers to provide traceability and valid sender enforcement. I certainly realize that I individually have no control over others' systems to prevent spam, but with cooperative efforts between all providers we can make a difference. Not sure about the second part of your argument regarding FPs and business risk, and how it relates to this topic. Certainly I've always taken the stance that we have to err on the conservative side to ensure all legitimate business correspondence gets delivered, even if it means some spam gets through. My point is again that I'd like us to all put our heads together to see what measures we can initiate that will prevent spam from being sent in the first place. Outbound port 25 blocking from dynamic addresses is a start, but would only be partially effective as trojans, open relays, and port redirectors allow spammers to get around it. I guess what I was thinking is if we all could come up with a scenario to all but eliminate spam through cooperation by all providers, we could write up our recommendations and publish the results to the major players, lobbyists, and independent and government agencies to try to make it happen. As I mentioned before I'm wary of efforts that encourage spammers to develop viruses and worms to circumvent the blocks we put in place, as that could be a much bloodier battle than the one we're currently in, but here's what I think the initial pieces to this are. There are obvious holes in this list, though, and it doesn't completely solve the problem. 1. All SMTP servers verify the sending IP and add it to the headers for traceability. Some mailservers and ISPs do this, but most do not. Thankfully, this is something that Declude assists us with. 2. Port 25 blocking for all dynamic addresses with all network providers. This could cause some problems as I'm sure there are many legitimate networks that send from internal networks that are only connected via dynamic addresses, but it seems to be a critical piece to this effort. Forcing businesses that run internal mail servers to static addresses might not be a bad thing, though. 3. Globally managed open relay list and blacklist, preferably maintained by some sort of non-profit internet council. This could help close many open relays if an authoritative, complete list was formed and maintained. This organization should be responsive to removal requests, but require the burden of proof on the petitioner. 4. SMTP AUTH required on all SMTP servers, forcing users to properly authenticate in order to send. This might help reduce the virus threat. This is far from foolproof as the virus could use local mail profiles that have been set up with SMTP AUTH instead of embedding it's own SMTP component, but it's a start. I know that this won't be easy, but if we could make it happen, the end result would be extremely satisfying. Any comments, or other ideas to add to this list? Scott, sorry if this is too far off-topic, but I thought this would be a good community to discuss the possibilities. Let me know if you'd rather we take this discussion to another list. Darin. - Original Message - From: Burzin Sumariwalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts Hi Darin, For the sake or arguement, I'm assuming one keeps one's server and up-to-date, patched, and takes prudent efforts to secure these devices. Most people probably don't secure workstations well enough. The server side of the equation is too complex. I don't think you (as an individual) can prevent spam from being sent. You can only control the email that you send and the actions you take in response to spam. You as an administator can prevent Spam from being sent outbound, but beyond securing the server and taking prudent measures your users are going to have to put up with false positives. Businesses run on email, and I'm not sure most companies would be willing to take such risks. Burzin At 09:12 PM 12/12/2003, you wrote: Everyone keep the ideas flowing... maybe we can come up with ideas as to how to keep spam from being sent to begin with. -- Burzin Sumariwalla Phone: (314) 994-9411 x291 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: (314) 997-7615 Pager: (314) 407-3345 Networking and Telecommunications Manager Information Technology Services St. Louis County Library District 1640 S. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63131 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
snip I think what you are saying (traceability and valid sender) can be summed up as good email server management. /snip Yes, I believe most of us on the list do this. The point is bringing more awareness to the global community to encourage all admins to do this. snip but as many people on the list have pointed out, many server admins don't abide by these practices. /snip Ditto from above snip Ultimately some of this may be fixed by a successor to SMTP. This may not be a bad route to pursue, but there's always this thing about backwards compatibility. /snip I've long advocated a successor to SMTP to deal with the authentication and traceability issues snip If a large enough ISP or a group of ISPs takes action to prevent spam and if these efforts prevent enough mail from being delivered or make it a hastle for email to be delivered, it dimishes the utility of email. /snip Yes, obviously we need to make to make every effort to ensure valid email gets delivered. That's why I suggested a global internet council to support tighter standards. Again, the only way we're going to win this battle is through cooperation. snip I think we are only a step or two (at most) away from spammers developing viruses/worms. /snip They already have. I want to avoid encouraging them to be more active in this area. Again, soliciting suggestions for this. snip 1. All SMTP servers verify the sending IP and add it to the headers for traceability. Some mailservers and ISPs do this, but most do not. Thankfully, this is something that Declude assists us with. I do this myself, but I can imagine organizations where they may not want this information out there for all to see. /snip Again, cooperation is needed. snip 2. Port 25 blocking for all dynamic addresses with all network providers. ... A subject of much discussion and consternation. I weight dynamic addresses. /snip With weighting only for dynamic addresses, there is always the possibility that spam can slip through. If we shut down other ways of sending, not blocking dynamic addresses will result in a mich higher percentage of spam getting through. snip I think we have several defacto lists out there already. Some of these are free, but I suspect that the better ones will become non-profits and charge a subscription. /snip None are adequate to the needs. That's why I suggested a global internet council to manage them. snip 4. SMTP AUTH required on all SMTP servers, forcing users to properly ... I do this now, but had to get all my users upgraded to correct clients. snip We switched about three years ago, but it was well received by our customer base. Yes, all of these suggestions will take some effort, but the end result of this, along with other suggestions not as yet raised, will be significant progress in the battle. How about some new suggestions for methods to combat the spammers? - --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF support to be added to next beta
Scott, Great idea! This is the kind of idea I was hoping for. Certainly it can be spoofed until all mailservers utilize this test, but it can at least add to negative weighting in the meantime...except for the trojan issue, of course. Darin. - Original Message - From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 6:54 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF support to be added to next beta We will be adding support for SPF (Sender Permitted From, at http://spf.pobox.com ) to the next beta of Declude JunkMail. This is a system that lets owners of domains publish information on what mailservers people can use to send mail from the domain. We expect that this can be very useful in blocking spam (similar to the SPAMDOMAINS test), as well as helping ensure that legitimate mail gets through. http://spf.pobox.com/dns.html covers how to add an SPF record for your own domain. At its simplest, if all your E-mail is coming from your mailserver, and your mailserver is listed in your MX record, you would add a TXT record of v=spf1 +mx -all for your domain. The SPF records always start with v=spf1; the +mx means that any E-mail from an IP listed in your MX records is good, and the -all is a default so that any other E-mail is bad. The SPF system is much, much more flexible than the SPAMDOMAINS test, and it lets domain owners control the settings (which allows them to be much more accurate). If widely implemented, it will make it much more difficult for spammers to get their spam delivered. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
While I generally agree with port 25 blocking as an interim mechanism to stem the tide of spam, especially from dynamic IPs, more and more is coming from trojan viruses that get installed on poorly protected PCs. All we need right now is to add an economic incentive to the worm/virus threat, which has the potential to be a much more insidious problem. Bottom line: The open architecture of the internet is coming back to haunt us. Not enough safeguards were put in place to protect from this unforeseen problem. Traceability is one of the most important aspects of policy enforcement, but as in port blocking, that would also encourage spam worms and viruses... and it still treats the symptoms and not the cause. Everyone keep the ideas flowing... maybe we can come up with ideas as to how to keep spam from being sent to begin with. Darin. - Original Message - From: David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts Dynamic IP's is exactly where it should be done, that's where most of the spam comes from. As far as serving your customers goes it's easy enough to open a hole for a customer with a legitimate reason to use a remote mail server. Any action is going to be a pain for someone, that's the reason spam is so rampant. In the interest of free and open communication we've let things get too lax. Sometimes for good reason. It would be great to use reverse DNS or rather the lack of as a reason to reject mail but this results in rejecting mail from not only the new or clueless admin but also the many whose providers don't give them control of their reverse DNS. Blocking port 25 will accomplish nearly as much with a lot less pain I believe. Most customers simply don't have the need to use a remote SMTP server and one line in an access list will take care of those who do. It's more trouble for the provider for sure yet if enough people did it the resulting savings in spam control would make up for it many times. Road Runner is one that should do it by the way. We get a lot of spam from their dynamic IPs. They should have no trouble doing a DNS entry and opening port 25 for a paying business customer. David Daniels System administrator Starfish Internet Service [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts Has anyone considered the trouble this causes to remote mail hosts? First this has caused many calls from my fairly small customer base whenever someone starts all of a sudden blocking port 25. Secondly, it limits my capabilities as I can no longer handle their outgoing E-mail. Third, this creates issues where things like slow ISP mail servers, blocked E-mail and other issues related to the ISP impact my business regardless of my ability to control it. If an ISP is going to do this as a practice, they shouldn't do it from dynamic addresses, and they should have a simple method of asking that a static IP be allowed to use port 25. If Road Runner ever did this to me, I would be gone the next day even if I had to deal with slower speeds with DSL. This is a very bad idea, and it's a kluge of a fix for what should be done through monitoring and action only on those that cause problems. ISP's should be proactive in monitoring for zombied machines and shutting off certain ports to them when found. I know that some large ISP's do this type of thing already, but there needs to be some products that the smaller ISP's also integrate so that the blunt-force method doesn't stop companies like me from better serving business customers. If the trend keeps up, I'll probably look at ways to accept SMTP connections over port 80 as a work around, but that expense comes out of my pocket for no good reason IMO. Matt Burzin Sumariwalla wrote: I was thinking of something much simpler... Verifying that the IP appears in a MX record Verifying that Reverse DNS is set Basically the RFC ignorant stuff... Of course your network would have to deal with traffic before shunning it. :( I like your idea much better. Burzin At 01:10 PM 12/12/2003, you wrote: If ISPs would block outbound port 25 that would go a long way towards keeping spam. Right now most of our spam is coming from cable and DSL IPs. We block outbound port 25 except from our mail servers and a couple of customers who have a legitimate reason to use another mail server. If so we open a hole to that mail server only. It's done on a case by case basis. Is it a pain in the ass? Most certainly but if any spam leaves our network it will be easy as hell to track. It really burns my ass to be spammed from these networks because the provider is either too lazy or incompetent to
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses
I'm not sure if everyone has heard, but IronPort bought SpamCop. It's likely that they're fiddling with it. There's an article on Slashdot from Wednesday about it. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/03/2016218mode=threadtid=111tid=126tid=137tid=187 Personally, After seeing so many FPs as a result of SpamCop weighting, I stopped using it a year ago. Darin. - Original Message - From: Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few days that the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate e-mailers are showing up on SPAMCOP's blocklists? Specifically I've seen IP addresses for NYTIMES.COM, MICROSOFT.COM and MACROMEDIA.COM and a few others. Does anyone think it's possible that SPAMCOP's databases are being gamed by Spammers by submitting lots of e-mails with legit IP addresses and pretend that they came across as spam? Or maybe there are uninformed SPAMCOP users who are submitting legit e-mail to SPAMCOP as representative of spam? Or even that IronPort's purchase of SPAMCOP has somehow affected the way that they do things? Just curious. These legit IPs showing up on SPAMCOP are really throwing lots of False Positives in my weighting system. Thanks, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. _ [This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
