Of course it's easy to contact our customers! But in some cases, it can be difficult to contact the mail provider of our customers in order to ask to belong to their whitelist...
PB 2013/8/14 Stan Hoeppner <[email protected]> > On 8/14/2013 7:14 AM, Philippe Bloix wrote: > > Thanks for your response > > > > I'm not a spammer :-), i'm working in a telecom firm where we send emails > > to our customers. > > Ok, so you're a telecom company and the receivers in question are your > customers. > > > In fact, it's not easy to contact some receivers who is rate limiting, > > So even though the receivers are your customers, it's "not easy to > contact them"? So you're telling us you do not have contact information > on file for your customers. How do you bill them for your services? > And yet you want to email addresses at said customer domains at a rate > of 10/sec. Obviously you do have a way of contacting them, yes? What > type of emails are you sending your customers whom you're unable to > contact, that require such a rate as to prompt them to rate limit you? > > > then in theses cases the goal is to reduce the rate per sec (about 10 > mails > > per domain per sec); > > You're a "telecom firm". You're flooding your CUSTOMERS, whom you are > not able to "easily" contact. They are rate limiting you due to the > flood of mail. So instead of contacting them to work this out, you > instead want to circumvent their rate limiting. > > Sorry "Philippe" but I'm calling BS on this. Nothing you've said here > makes any sense. Nobody floods their own customers to the point that > said customers enable rate limits. They'd contact you first before > enabling limits, yet you claim it's "not easy" to contact them. > > All of this is doubletalk Bull$hit. > > > i'm astonished that postfix (without addons) is not > > allowed to do that but at best only 1 mail per domain per sec. > > Postfix is not a good platform for sending spam. You should find other > software to do this with. Maybe botnet rental is a good choice for you. > > -- > Stan > > >
