Brian wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
They're not properly setup if they have a dynamic IP address, and most
xDSL customers get a dynamic IP. Given that 95% of all email is spam,
What is improper (technically incorrect) in the setup when sending email
from a dynamic IP address?
It is one of
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/12/2011 3:33 PM, lee wrote:
Spamhouse blocks you even when you haven't done anything wrong and then
refuses to remove you.
Please share your correspondence with Spamhaus that proves what you
state. After a loaded statement like this you
Hi,
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/11/2011 2:22 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
They're not properly setup if they have a dynamic IP address, and most
xDSL customers get a dynamic IP. Given that 95% of all email is spam,
and 90% of that is from bot infected PCs on consumer xDSL/cable lines,
would you
On 12/07/11 07:36, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/11/2011 2:22 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
But, the blocking of xDSL mail servers that are properly set up just
because they aren't going through an ISP is a horrible abuse of the
Internet.
They're not properly setup if they have a dynamic IP
On 12/07/11 07:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/11/2011 3:55 PM, Chris Davies wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
You're obviously new to the world of running an email server and spam
fighting
About 20 years experience in a professional environment, with about 5
or so running an
On Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 00:36:54 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/11/2011 2:22 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
But, the blocking of xDSL mail servers that are properly set up just
because they aren't going through an ISP is a horrible abuse of the
Internet.
They're not properly setup if
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/10/2011 8:31 PM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/10/2011 7:26 AM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
Yes, the HELO checks are first. It seems to make
Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk writes:
The contention is that mail from residential (whatever that means)
static and dynamic IPs must be eliminated. The users probably get the
same choice in the implementation of this policy as they do in
choosing whether to be sent spam.
The contention has
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:50:20 +0200
lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk writes:
The contention is that mail from residential (whatever that means)
static and dynamic IPs must be eliminated. The users probably get
the same choice in the implementation of this policy
Joe j...@jretrading.com writes:
To be honest, I wouldn't try to block email from consumers at
source. It would be easy to do, so I think the ISPs must agree with
me. If that were to happen, the spammers won't give up and get proper
jobs, they'll put more effort into compromising networks
On 7/12/2011 3:33 PM, lee wrote:
Yeah, when you know in advance from which IPs you don't want to receive
mail, you can lock them out before they can contact the MTA. Isn't that
something that could be done with your table?
One could probably configure fail2ban to add IP addresses from which
On 7/12/2011 4:50 PM, lee wrote:
The contention has pretty much been decided already :( To decide
whether to send and to receive mail is not up to the users. Only the
postmasters can do that.
It is not surprising that they are striving hard to keep and to extend
their powers, or is it?
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Because no one should be receiving email directly from residential PCs,
most which have dynamic IP addresses, some static addresses.
Do you include people who run their own MTA on consumer xDSL in this
sweeping statement? I'm genuinely curious about
On 7/11/2011 4:27 AM, Chris Davies wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Because no one should be receiving email directly from residential PCs,
most which have dynamic IP addresses, some static addresses.
Do you include people who run their own MTA on consumer xDSL in this
On Mon 11 Jul 2011 at 08:04:48 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/11/2011 4:27 AM, Chris Davies wrote:
Do you include people who run their own MTA on consumer xDSL in this
sweeping statement? I'm genuinely curious about this one, as I fall in
to that (probably small) group.
You're
Hi,
Brian wrote:
The spammers use the network to send (usually) unwanted mail. The spam
fighters deny legitimate use of the network. The two groups make using
email harder.
Exactly.
I successfully ran a mail server for a number of years without rDNS, but
then was forced to get it. No
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
You're obviously new to the world of running an email server and spam
fighting
About 20 years experience in a professional environment, with about 5
or so running an MTA at home (may be longer; I can't remember). Does
that count as new? I don't think
On 7/11/2011 2:22 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
But, the blocking of xDSL mail servers that are properly set up just
because they aren't going through an ISP is a horrible abuse of the
Internet.
They're not properly setup if they have a dynamic IP address, and most
xDSL customers get a dynamic
On 7/11/2011 3:55 PM, Chris Davies wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
You're obviously new to the world of running an email server and spam
fighting
About 20 years experience in a professional environment, with about 5
or so running an MTA at home (may be longer; I can't
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
The rDNS check is very useful because it keeps out tons of SPAM without
occupying too many resources. It also seems to be common practise. Do
you have a better suggestion?
Just checking for the existence of
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:47:19 +0200
lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
So there isn't any check on what's given in the [E]HELO statement with
this. Now I've spent about tow hours trying to figure out how to
check if the $sender_helo_name is resolveable and didn't get anywhere
other than finding
On 7/10/2011 7:26 AM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
The rDNS check is very useful because it keeps out tons of SPAM without
occupying too many resources. It also seems to be common practise. Do
you have a better suggestion?
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/10/2011 7:26 AM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
Just checking for the existence of rDNS is no longer sufficiently
effective against bot spam from infected residential hosts. This
On 7/10/2011 8:31 PM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/10/2011 7:26 AM, lee wrote:
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com writes:
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
Just checking for the existence of rDNS is no longer sufficiently
effective against bot spam from
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:33:23 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
(...)
What I am thinking of doing is making the two MX records both at the
same level number, 10, and having that do round robin as well (again,
just the one mail server, accessible via both connections). Does anyone
see any issues
Hi,
Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:33:23 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
(...)
What I am thinking of doing is making the two MX records both at the
same level number, 10, and having that do round robin as well (again,
just the one mail server, accessible via both connections). Does
Andrew McGlashan andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au writes:
Can rDNS lookups for different IPs return the same result such as
mail.example.com or must each IP have it's own unique PTR record
name?
Apparently they can, though I don't like the idea. For outgoing email,
you need to make sure
On 09/07/11 18:15, lee wrote:
Andrew McGlashan andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au writes:
Can rDNS lookups for different IPs return the same result such as
mail.example.com or must each IP have it's own unique PTR record
name?
Apparently they can, though I don't like the idea. For
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org writes:
On 09/07/11 18:15, lee wrote:
Andrew McGlashan andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au writes:
Can rDNS lookups for different IPs return the same result such as
mail.example.com or must each IP have it's own unique PTR record
name?
Apparently they
Erwan David writes:
My mail server is behind a NAT gateway in IPv4, and directly connects
in IPv6. What shoud I configure it for HELO : the name of the NAT
gateway (for IPv4) or its own name (IPv6 only from outside) ?
When your IPv6 SMTP server connects to another IPv6 SMTP server over
IPv6
On 09/07/11 19:00, lee wrote:
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org writes:
On 09/07/11 18:15, lee wrote:
Andrew McGlashan andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au writes:
Can rDNS lookups for different IPs return the same result such as
mail.example.com or must each IP have it's own unique PTR
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:00:42 +0200
lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org writes:
On 09/07/11 18:15, lee wrote:
Apparently they can, though I don't like the idea. For outgoing
email, you need to make sure that the hostname given in [E]HLO
statements and the IP
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org writes:
On 09/07/11 19:00, lee wrote:
My mail server is behind a NAT gateway in IPv4, and directly connects in
IPv6. What shoud I configure it for HELO : the name of the NAT gateway
(for IPv4) or its own name (IPv6 only from outside) ?
Hm. Can you send me an
Joe j...@jretrading.com writes:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:00:42 +0200
lee l...@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Erwan David er...@rail.eu.org writes:
On 09/07/11 18:15, lee wrote:
This kind of check is useless and makes loose too many legit emails.
The rDNS check is very useful because it keeps
Joe j...@jretrading.com writes:
-Check that HELO resolves in public DNS either to a domain or an A
record, though not necessarily the same one as the sender PTR
Oh well, it just occurred to me that this check seems pointless because
people can configure their MTAs to supply anything they like
On 7/9/2011 12:00 PM, lee wrote:
The rDNS check is very useful because it keeps out tons of SPAM without
occupying too many resources. It also seems to be common practise. Do
you have a better suggestion?
Just checking for the existence of rDNS is no longer sufficiently
effective against
Hi,
I have a client server, it is accessible via two separate Internet
connections.
I've managed to get it set up so that the single server can be accessed
fully via either Internet connection with some interesting routing
configuration.
Now I know that the website can be serviced via
37 matches
Mail list logo
