Hmmm...
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
try checking host your hostname and dig -x your ip
check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If you set
it using /etc/hostname then it won't match the one given by the isp and
thus the two checks would differ and
Hi,
Am Fr, den 19.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 20:30:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
The solution is
- lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
- using the proviers smarthost (good)
My parents' ISP is now blocking my ISP's SMTP servers but not their whole
IP
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hmmm...
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
try checking host your hostname and dig -x your ip
check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If you set
it using /etc/hostname then it won't
Am So, den 21.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 16:02:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Micha Feigin um 15:14:
try checking host your hostname and dig -x your ip
check in your mail headers exactly what hostname is used. If
On Thursday 18 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
You share a network neighbourhood with _others_. Your machine start
connections to my machine, and when my machine want's to answer your
machine half an hour later, _your_ machine is gone, or another machine
is answering, or...,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:09:26PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
In practice, most dynamic IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
Incorrect.
Most german providers
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
The solution is
- lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
- using the proviers smarthost (good)
My parents' ISP is now blocking my ISP's SMTP servers but not their whole
IP range. So if I had followed your advice about mailrouting,
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:20, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
The solution is
- lots of exceptions in exim.conf (bad)
medium
- using the proviers smarthost (good)
bad -- That's just given in to the arrogant people.
Good: add exceptions to exim.conf when you have to, then send polite (very
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 20:30, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hi,
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 09:06:
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
everyone should be forced to use a providers machine as smarthost.
But it is not right to punish the innocent as
On Friday 12 December 2003 01:50, Antonio Rodr wrote:
From that description I suspect you may be trying to e-mail to domains
that use dynablock.easynet.nl -- a blacklist of dynamically allocated
IP addresses. Fortunately (according to
http://abuse.easynet.nl/dynablocker.html) that
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:04:58 GMT
Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
important!) e-mails to the admins of those domains explaining why you
need to route your own mail and stating that they are contravening the
end-to-end principles of the internet and punishing the innocent with
the guilty. If
On Thursday 18 December 2003 12:00, Richard Kimber wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:04:58 GMT
Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
important!) e-mails to the admins of those domains explaining why you
need to route your own mail and stating that they are contravening the
end-to-end principles of the
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
In practice, most dynamic IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
Incorrect.
Most german providers cancel the connection every 24 hours to force a
new DynIP on the machine.
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 03:11:
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
- There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively
discriminate between spam
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
move
on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:09:26PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Hi,
Am Do, den 18.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 02:56:
In practice, most dynamic IPs are in use by 24/7 connections which
will hold that IP for days, weeks, or months at a time.
Incorrect.
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 01:21, Karsten M. Self wrote:
This isn't acceptable for general-purpose communications, however.
And I'd suggest you look into common carrier laws as well (I'm
somewhat familiar with US statutes) as to showing preferences by
customer. I see little distinction
Incoming from Magnus von Koeller:
Content-Description: signed data
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 01:21, Karsten M. Self wrote:
This isn't acceptable for general-purpose communications, however.
And I'd suggest you look into common carrier laws as well (I'm
And if you don't like your ISP's
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:09:18 +
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail coming
from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much more likely
to be spam or viruses? Who are you to tell me that I have to accept such
Hi,
Thanks for your useful mail. This thread started to fill my killfile...
:-)
Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
- There are highly specific filters and methods which can effectively
discriminate between spam and non-spam content. Activity-based
lists,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:13:35PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb ScruLoose um 21:36:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
move backwards from something that's more accurate, in favour of
something that's much, MUCH less accurate?
Incoming from Magnus von Koeller:
Content-Description: signed data
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make any sense to
move backwards from something that's
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
On Wednesday 17 December 2003 21:36, ScruLoose wrote:
And, given the popularity of online blacklists that track IPs that
are _actually__used_ by spammers, how does it make
on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your useful mail. This thread started to fill my killfile...
:-)
Am Mi, den 17.12.2003 schrieb Karsten M. Self um 01:21:
- There are highly specific filters and methods which can
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full of
nonsense since one guy is not able to
Hi,
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Magnus von Koeller um 23:02:
On Sunday 14 December 2003 22:46, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
There's no alternative. You can't block open relays on dynamic IPs,
since they are _dynamic_ IPs. Yes, what's happening to you is
unfair. Any better ideas? I don't
Hi,
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 09:06:
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
everyone should be forced to use a providers machine as smarthost.
But it is not right to punish the innocent as well as the guilty.
It's not a question of morale. :-)
With
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
eventhough you have a dynamic IP address.
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, Joerg Rossdeutscher
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
Exactly my point--a mail server is local software.
Just another good
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I said that yesterday, and
Debian User wrote:
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
eventhough you have a dynamic IP address.
I think what you missed is that
but using a smarthost is a way around this.
or, just tell your friends who are using aol, earthlink, snet, etc.
, that you cannot send email to them because their isp is uptight
;)
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, charlie derr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Debian User wrote:
maybe i missed
Hi,
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 21:34:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:27:09PM -0800, Raquel Rice ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have a block of static IPs. I have the blessings of my provider.
I was even asked to stop using their servers as a smart host.
Yet, my IP numbers are listed as being a range used as Cable, DSL
Dial Ups and
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary
entities to determine who can and can not run a mail server.
interesting articles.
realisically, as i have some business domains on my server, i cannot
prevent users from receiving email from aol et. al. accounts. furthermore,
i have to use a friend's open relay as smarthost to get aol-bound
email off my server.
is there no other way to stop aol et.
Hi,
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb ScruLoose um 21:36:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Mo, den 15.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 02:55:
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I said that yesterday, and today I find this mailinglist full of
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 21:34:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Local software can destroy (your) local stuff.
Exactly my point--a mail server is local software.
wow ... so, if you don't have exposure to the joys and sorrows of
running your own server on the net, how can you really learn?
then, the net and everyone who uses it should be licensed like ham
radio operators? afterall, the net is just a transmission medium
like rf is a transmission medium.
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for only allowing arbitrary
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:34 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Di, den 16.12.2003 schrieb Wesley J Landaker um 22:15:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Don't do somethink risky if you not /really/ need that. And you
absolutely don't need a mailserver at
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:33:59PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
Let's turn this around: why should *I* be forced to accept mail
coming from a dynamic IP, when statistically such mail appears much
more likely to be spam or viruses?
Incoming from Debian User:
or, just tell your friends who are using aol, earthlink, snet, etc.
, that you cannot send email to them because their isp is uptight
... And their ISP is uptight because in the past, they've been
blacklisted left and right for having _sent_ spam.
AOHell has been
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:56, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
A DDoS attack is something you _want_ to do. You will not do that
accidently.
Are you sure?
Look at this:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-27.11.03-000/default.shtml
[Site's in German, though.]
--
--- Magnus von Koeller
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 22:12, Debian User wrote:
i have to use a friend's open relay as smarthost to get aol-bound
email off my server.
That probably won't work long... Just wait till that server gets on
the Open Relay block lists and then nobody'll get your email anymore.
Apart from
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:32:10 -0500, Antonio Rodr wrote:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems
that some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are
blocking all dinamic ips. Some isps are
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:42:07PM -0500, charlie derr wrote:
Debian User wrote:
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify hosts you are allowing to relay w/ the host_accept_relay
setting in exim.conf? this will allow you not to be an open relay
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:15:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
* No one should be allowed to eat more than one meal a day.
And no asking for seconds, Oliver.
Wesley, I've thoroughly enjoyed the wit which you've brought to this
thread.
Thank you very much.
--
paul
that point is/was not lost on me ... i just did not articulate.
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, ScruLoose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ca wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:42:07PM -0500, charlie derr wrote:
Debian User wrote:
maybe i missed something in a previous post... isn't it the purpose
to soecify
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:09:18PM +, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:34:03PM -0700, Wesley J Landaker wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 1:08 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
A mailserver can harm _others_.
I totally agree. Which is why I'm all for
on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Debian User ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At Tuesday, 16 December 2003, Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]
com wrote:
on Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:27:09PM -0800, Raquel Rice ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
net) wrote:
I have a block of static IPs. I have the
Local software is childish, dangerous and nonsense.
Yes
cause, flooding mail servers, writing DDoS attacks, etc! Which is why
my proposal specifically called for not allowing users to own or use
their own machines. In fact, attempting to subvert this should be
punishable by death.
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 12:57:
On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
There's nothing wrong with fetching mail
- immediately after every dial in
- every 10 minutes when being online
-
On Sunday 14 December 2003 21:40, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Running and maintaining a mailserver is a difficult job.
Configuring a mailserver to route mail outward from a firewalled LAN is
not difficult.
Incorrect
configured mailservers can cause a lot of problems to others.
That's
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 22:41, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
This is even easier. Your local mailserver should not immediately
deliver to the recipient, but to your providers smarthost. The mail will
But how could I do this?
Sorry if I'm capturing a thread here... I've posted my quetsions to that
On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
I agree to that. Not everyone should use a private mailserver. Hobbyists
and Freaks should not run such service, it's a job for professionals,
and those have a static ip. I'm really tired of writing a lot in
mailinglists an get
On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
wrote:
Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail from
everywhere. There is absolutely nothing you can do except to
use your providers mailserver.
On Saturday 13 December 2003
On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free, uncensored,
fast email system.
Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better description for my
email account if it wasn't for my Spam filtering - considering that
95% of my email is
On Sunday 14 December 2003 12:41 pm, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free,
uncensored, fast email system.
Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better description
for my email account if it
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:26:07 -0500,
Al Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually ... I have several email addresses, and my mail comes
in from several paths. MY spam filtering seems to be nearly
100% effective on the freeelectron address, which I control.
It
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Al Davis um 17:21:
On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
wrote:
Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail from
everywhere. There is absolutely nothing you can do except to
use your
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 12:57:
On Saturday 13 December 2003 09:50, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
There's nothing wrong with fetching mail
- immediately after every dial in
- every 10 minutes when being online
- every 3 hours no matter if already online
Works fine here.
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Raquel Rice um 03:27:
Blocking an IP range just without
knowing they are open relays or sending out spam is no better than
arresting a black man because the police officer has some idiot
belief that black men commit all crimes.
There's no alternative. You can't
On Sunday 14 December 2003 22:46, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
There's no alternative. You can't block open relays on dynamic IPs,
since they are _dynamic_ IPs. Yes, what's happening to you is
unfair. Any better ideas? I don't see one. And I don't want to
receive spam from millions of open
Incoming from Joerg Rossdeutscher:
Censorship? Nonsense.
Blah, blah, blah. *plonk*
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sunday 14 December 2003 2:37 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am So, den 14.12.2003 schrieb Al Davis um 17:21:
On Thursday 11 December 2003 03:56 pm, Joerg Rossdeutscher
wrote:
Yes, many ISPs do that, and it's a good thing.
We all would drown in spam if they accepted mail from
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:41:59PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
On Sunday 14 December 2003 17:21, Al Davis wrote:
It is worth putting up with some spam to get a free, uncensored,
fast email system.
Free, uncensored and worthless would be a better
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:48:25PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Quoting Antonio Rodr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Adam um 23:26:
On Thursday 11 December 2003 21:10, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Thanasis Kinias um 21:51:
AOL was the first that I encountered to do this; over the
summer, they started blocking all e-mail originating from Cox IP
addresses. Not long thereafter, Cox blocked all outbound SMTP except to
their own mailserver, so I had to go
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:29:05 -0800
Vineet Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* TR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031212 04:02]:
Somebody whose attribution has been removed wrote:
Well, really you'll just need one such router, with the bad
domains listed on that domains = line. Me, I'd use a filename
On Saturday 13 December 2003 10:00, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Thanasis Kinias um 21:51:
AOL was the first that I encountered to do this; over the
summer, they started blocking all e-mail originating from Cox IP
addresses. Not long thereafter, Cox blocked
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 at 09:46 GMT, Joerg Rossdeutscher penned:
I agree to that. Not everyone should use a private mailserver.
Hobbyists and Freaks should not run such service, it's a job for
professionals, and those have a static ip. I'm really tired of writing
a lot in mailinglists an get
On Friday 12 December 2003 01:50, Antonio Rodr wrote:
Please do post an example. I think I need one. Thanks.
This example is from an Exim 4 config file, but I think it will work in
Exim 3 too. (Could someone please correct this if it's wrong?) The
following stanza goes in the ROUTERS
My isp killed me again, when I tried to email to my self a test after
changing exim.conf as indicated So, let me ask a couple of questions:
* Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
# For AOL...
aol:
driver = domainlist
domains = aol.com
scripsit TR:
* Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
# For AOL...
aol:
driver = domainlist
domains = aol.com
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
Is there a space between the * and smtp?
Yes,
* TR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031212 04:02]:
Somebody whose attribution has been removed wrote:
Well, really you'll just need one such router, with the bad domains
listed on that domains = line. Me, I'd use a filename there and
that way be able to just edit the file whenever I felt like it
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my emails without problems. At some
point I thought
Quoting Antonio Rodr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my
scripsit Antonio Rodr:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems
that some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking
all dinamic ips. Some isps are accepting my emails without
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
dinamic ips.
Yes, many
You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain. Or, you
can give up entirely and relay everything, like I was forced to do.
Then add something like this as the very first entry in the section:
coxsucks:
driver = domainlist
transport = remote_smtp
scripsit Antonio Rodr:
You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain. Or, you
can give up entirely and relay everything, like I was forced to do.
Then add something like this as the very first entry in the section:
coxsucks:
driver = domainlist
On Thursday 11 December 2003 20:40, Antonio Rodr wrote:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in my block, or that they are blocking all
dinamic ips. Some isps are
On Thursday 11 December 2003 21:10, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
Hi,
Am Do, den 11.12.2003 schrieb Antonio Rodr um 21:32:
I have exim set in my sid machine, with mutt as MUA. Some isps are
rejecting my emails. I have looked at the reason provided, it seems that
some have blocked the ips in
scripsit Adam:
Which may or may not be reliable. My ISP's mailservers are reliable
_most_ of the time -- but when they are not, they do not return
warning messages until they bounce the mail after 48 hours on the
queue.
Try Cox. In their latest episode of incompetence, there was no
From that description I suspect you may be trying to e-mail to domains
that use dynablock.easynet.nl -- a blacklist of dynamically allocated
IP addresses. Fortunately (according to
http://abuse.easynet.nl/dynablocker.html) that blacklist will go out
of commission soon. I hope responsible
* Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
# For AOL...
aol:
driver = domainlist
domains = aol.com
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
You will need to set this up for each obnoxious mail domain.[...]
Well, really
scripsit Vineet Kumar:
* Thanasis Kinias ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031211 13:03]:
# For AOL...
aol:
driver = domainlist
domains = aol.com
transport = remote_smtp
route_list = * smtp.west.cox.net
You will need to set this up for each obnoxious
90 matches
Mail list logo
