On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 03:06:16PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> If you set things up to receive mail directly, then you will be taking the
> very actions that distinquish you from spammers, who generally only send
> mail. But as long as you connect to some other POP/IMAP server to pick up
> mail, your server won't appear to be something any different than a spammer
> would appear.
Not in all cases, observe I receive mail directly:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 38896 invoked from network); 7 Feb 1999 21:08:30 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
by nwhn-sh8-port100.snet.net with SMTP; 7 Feb 1999 21:08:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 13784 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Feb 1999 21:06:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 17451 invoked from network); 7 Feb 1999 21:06:12 -0000
Received: from rigel.ipal.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 7 Feb 1999 21:06:12 -0000
Received: (from phil@localhost)
by rigel.ipal.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA07225;
Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:06:17 -0600
that doesn't change the fact that when my machine sends mail it will say:
HELO <some name that maps to a dynamic IP #>
When the dialup pool I use is finally blocked I'll have to go back to
sending outgoing mail via UUCP, however ezmlm bounce processing will no
longer work, since adding :alias+uucp to control/virtualdomains breaks
the VERP'd return-path.
Being on a lot of mailinglists, I should have realized the SPAMers have
gained control of most people, when any single SPAM item generates
neverending threads on how the list should be closed or moderated (and
in the process no one realizing that the argument is a magnitude of
order worse than the SPAM itself).
--
Scott Kenney >|< [EMAIL PROTECTED]
