And so is Yahoo.com. They are legitimate.
Why bring up yahoo, except to spew your FUD? We aren't blocking yahoo networks. Yahoo was in the list of MTA connections, not in the list of rejects.
You were implying that the more connections you get from a domain, the more likely it is to be spam.
-Again, Len, you're lying.
again, Scott, your full of sh!t.
Please, Len -- while I'm certainly being annoying <G>, I'm being honest, and not resorting to name calling. You said that you have no false positives by blocking attbi; that is a lie.
Unless you state that by "false positive" you mean something completely different than the anti-spam term "false positive", you're lying.
I'll leave the weasel words and qualifying BS to you, Scott.
The weasel words are yours, Len. I've been dealing with the anti-spam industry since 1997, and "false positive" has always referred to non-spams that were caught as spam. And, using statistics, "false positive" *must* refer to non-spams that are caught as spam, *unless* you are using a test that isn't a spam test. If that is the case, though, don't go masquerading a non-spam-test as a spam test.
I defined extremely clearly yesterday that if I, as MX administrator, declare a network to be an illegimate source of msgs, then by that definition, which is perfectly valid and clear to anybody who wants to understand it, there are no false positives. EVERY msg from that network is illegitimate at my MX.
And that's OK -- but don't claim that it is a spam test. If your test is designed to block all E-mail from subscriber networks, whether or not the E-mail would otherwise be desired, make that clear. While you are making it clear that [1] You are blocking E-mail from subscriber networks, and [2] You consider all E-mail from subscriber networks to be illegitimate, you aren't making it clear that [3] Your test isn't designed to block spam (if it is, "false positive" refers to non-spam that gets caught), it's designed to block E-mail from subscriber networks (which it does well), whether those E-mails are spam or not.
Sorry to use such harsh words
stop BS, Scott, you are relishing trash talking every post I put in this list. You'r making a fool of yourself.
Len, you're the one who is using phrases like "full of sh!t." to refer to me. I'm not insulting you, just pointing out where you are either making mistakes or being misleading. For a long time, I put up with it. But it just can't go on when you persuade people to block large portions of the Internet without knowing that they are blocking legitimate E-mail.
If you would simply clarify what you are pushing on people, I would stop. When you come up with posts that are accurate and not misleading, I don't respond like this. If you do post inaccuracies or misleading comments, I feel that it is in everyone's best interest for me to correct you. I'd rather that people think I'm a fool than to have lots of legitimate E-mail blocked without good reason. I'm in this to block spam, not for prestige.
FYI, I see some legitimate E-mails here with reverse DNS entries that include attbi.com.
So what?
You are blocking them. You do not tell people that you are blocking them. You tell people that blocking attbi has 0 false positives. That is not true.
-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)]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
