on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:33:45PM -0800, Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:52:30PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
For the second time: I'm not saying you have to move *all* your
services to another provider, address, or pipe. Given current spam
filtering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:33:45PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
They'd have to receive smtp traffic on port ! 25. Remember, port 25 is
blocked for him...
Since when?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :http://ursine.ca/
`. `'`
on Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:38:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:05:45PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I don't like it either, Paul, but it's a losing battle.
Not if postmasters do their job the right way instead of blacklisting
millions of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:47:47PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Not if postmasters do their job the right way instead of blacklisting
millions of innocents. That's why spam fighters have somewhat of a
bad reputation: Too many people claiming
on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:26:43PM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:47:47PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Not if postmasters do their job the right way instead of blacklisting
millions of innocents. That's why spam fighters have somewhat of a
bad
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:52:30PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
For the second time: I'm not saying you have to move *all* your
services to another provider, address, or pipe. Given current spam
filtering realities, you probably *will* have to find someone -- a major
ISP, a friend, a small
On Sunday 15 February 2004 18:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:48:02AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Because the large upstream that can't do a decent job of running
a
smarthost also can't do a decent job of policing their
Paul Johnson wrote:
Two wrongs do not make right.
So use a well-maintained, automated blacklist, like bl.spamcop.net.
Otherwise, it would be like accusing everybody in an apartment
building of making and selling meth, even if they only found one lab
in one apartment and no other evidence anybody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:37:01AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
At least DSLExtreme does the right thing and lets their
customers opt out of the block by signing an extra waiver stating they are
aware of what port 25 is and will be held responsible
Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm not big on enforcing smarthosts. For one thing, my upstream
couldn't run a mail server if it's life depended on it. So why
eliminate small but working sites from being able to mail, forcing
them to forward everything through broken sites?
Because the large upstream
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:48:02AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Because the large upstream that can't do a decent job of running a
smarthost also can't do a decent job of policing their network or shutting
down spammers on their network. The
on Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:03:21PM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 09:41:11PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
The problem of _not_ enforcing use of smart hosts is that you've now got
viral spew from many point sources rather than a single point (or small
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:05:45PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I don't like it either, Paul, but it's a losing battle.
Not if postmasters do their job the right way instead of blacklisting
millions of innocents. That's why spam fighters have
on Mon, Feb 09, 2004, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives some junk mail.[1] The difference is only in
which server is sending the bounce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:18:32PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives some junk mail.[1] The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:45:24PM -0500, Al Davis wrote:
On Friday 13 February 2004 01:18 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Not so.
Unfortunately, Karsten, you are wrong here.
Back up your statement, please.
As a result, for improper action,
On Saturday 14 February 2004 04:39 pm, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:45:24PM -0500, Al Davis wrote:
On Friday 13 February 2004 01:18 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Not so.
Unfortunately, Karsten, you are wrong here.
Back up your statement, please.
It is easy to find out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Al Davis wrote:
Compose a message, but change the From to where you want the bounce to
go. Put a bogus address in To.
Send it!
And it didn't find it's way back to the bounce destination.
- --
.''`.
on Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:45:24PM -0500, Al Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
on Mon, Feb 09, 2004, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 09:41:11PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
The problem of _not_ enforcing use of smart hosts is that you've now got
viral spew from many point sources rather than a single point (or small
set of points) which can be reasonably
on Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 11:45:15AM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:18:07PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
If I've understood the configuration I have tried to make correctly,
if you reject the virus in the SMTP-dialog, either due to a
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 02:18:07PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
| Hi all!
|
| The recent MS viruses has been bothersome for quite a few of us, I
| presume, because of the noise it creates. I have configured my Exim4
| install to reject MS executables at SMTP-time, so I don't see a lot of
|
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives some junk mail.[1] The difference is only in
which server is sending the bounce message.
The presumption
On Monday 09 February 2004 17:52, Steve Lamb wrote:
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives some junk mail.[1] The difference is only in
which
Steve Lamb wrote:
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
(after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
third party receives some junk mail.[1] The difference is only in
which server is sending the bounce message.
Hi all!
The recent MS viruses has been bothersome for quite a few of us, I
presume, because of the noise it creates. I have configured my Exim4
install to reject MS executables at SMTP-time, so I don't see a lot of
the actual virus.
But I suppose I get a few bounces, like everyone, because
26 matches
Mail list logo
