Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who recommended this?!
Alun wrote:
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were recommended
against. They were recommended against for a reason, that reason
being that they expose the user base to password and other guessing.
Who
Paul Slootman wrote:
There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
first. I agree with them. 20% of the junk I get are bogus
On Tue 19 Apr 2005, Andrew Gideon wrote:
Paul Slootman wrote:
There's a difference between giving a 5xx response during SMTP, and
first accepting a message and then later bouncing it to the (supposed)
envelope sender. I believe spamcop is protesting the latter, not the
first. I agree
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The I.P. address is listed in bl.spamcop.net as hitting spamtraps.
Just so you know, spamcop view bounces as spam. According to them, you
should never send bounces. I believe the right approach is to convince
admins to drop spamcop from their RBL list, rather than remove
Continuing this off-topic issue:
On Mon 18 Apr 2005, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The I.P. address is listed in bl.spamcop.net as hitting spamtraps.
Just so you know, spamcop view bounces as spam. According to them, you
should never send bounces. I believe the right
with that, especially the ones that have been DDOS from spammers and
viruses impersonating their domain.
A few years ago I saw a posting in the spamcop.net forum reporting that
AOL had posted in the SPAM-L mailing list that AOL was changing their
system to only use SMTP rejects and that they were going
John E. Malmberg wrote:
The essential SMTP NACK is not what is the problem as long as it is
done during the SMTP connection using reject codes. Issuing a SMTP
reject code for undeliverable messages will never cause a spamcop.net
listing.
Reject codes were very common once. Then they were
Unfortunately I must report that legitimate emails are also blocked by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.
After exchanging a number of private emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], my next answer was blocked without reason at all.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe or change options:
Christian Nekvedavicius wrote:
Unfortunately I must report that legitimate emails are also blocked by
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.
If you e-mails are being blocked by a sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org listing then
you should be complaining loudly to your network provider.
It my help if you find out what list(s)
Martin Pool wrote:
John Van Essen wrote:
The policy is to block as much spam as possible without blocking
legitimate posts. A 100% solution is impossible, even if we had human
moderation (humans make mistakes).
I am seeing reports on news.admin.net-abuse.email from Steve Linford
that he is
Hi,
I'm not sure what the policy of this list is and I bet everyone has a spam
filter, so nobody might have noticed, but we got spammed.
Can anyone send mail to the list or do you have to subscribe first ?
-- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:42:19 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers dag-at-wieers.com
|Rsync List| ... wrote:
I'm not sure what the policy of this list is and I bet everyone has a spam
filter, so nobody might have noticed, but we got spammed.
Can anyone send mail to the list or do you have to subscribe
than 60 spam messages to the list were blocked.
I got several. Delivered to the mailing list from:
cpe-24-243-54-175.satx.res.rr.com [24.243.54.175]
unknown [219.252.105.93]
unknown [218.59.89.16]
unknown [200.159.206.55]
The first one has been in the dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net blacklist since
14 matches
Mail list logo
