RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Andy Schmidt
 1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries.
They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.


Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a painful time of
adjustment.

But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies, when many of
their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that they are unable
to send emails anymore.  There is no need for them to DELEGATE DNS, but at
least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your needs (e.g.
generic host entries for your domain).

In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?

Best Regards
Andy Schmidt

Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?


Jason,
Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.  

For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is business class.
It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by most as
acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to delegate RDNS.

And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would
classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch because
of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net

The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider DSL
to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL (symmetric
DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my T-1.

In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries. They
need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.

2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't put a lot of
stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really appreciate Pete
McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for the same things
that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the context.  I think we
need more out of the box thinking like this.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
 I wanted to throw this question to the list:
 
 1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their
mailservers?
 
 2) If so, why not?
 
 Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership to
who
 actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs given to
me
 by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all of them, even the IPs I 
 haven't used yet. If anyone looks my IPs up they will see something
like:
 Number.freedom2be.net as reverse DNS. This is basically telling them
that
 freedom2be.net is the operator of the IP address.
 
 3) Shouldn't all mail servers on the internet have a reverse DNS entry 
 with some valid administrative domain name?  We use freedom2be.net 
 exclusively for our reverse DNS entries. As our mail server is
multi-homed
 with many different domains. If someone needs to contact the
appropriate
 owner of the IP, say our mail server was doing something bad (which
it
 never has) they would know that freedom2be.net is the domain to
email.
 (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Isn't this a good idea?
 
 --Jason
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To 
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type 
 unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe,
just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe
Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Matthew Bramble
Why not just require everyone in the world to show the secret sign 
before having their E-mail accepted?  Sarcasm obviously, but reverse DNS 
entries are not necessary for E-mail to function properly, and in many 
cases won't even match the domain given in HELO...so why require it?  
This also will do near nothing to stop the flood of spam over the 
long-haul, so it appears to be a net negative due to the problems that 
this creates.

Sorry, but I just see this as another blunt weapon, and again, something 
that becomes our problem to deal with when problems occur.  Just like I 
expect to see many legit servers sending E-mail without DNS entries, I 
also expect companies which take such actions to be almost impossible to 
reach for corrections because they are obviously causing widespread 
problems and don't have the staff to handle all of the inquiries that 
would result, and of course, their lack of logic appears to have spread 
to other highly imperfect anti-spam measures which have blacklisted at 
least three list members reported in the last few days.

The only positive about all of this is that it continues to prove the 
incompetence of such companies to deal with spam, and that just makes me 
look all the better.

Naturally, this is all just my opinion, so please don't be offended that 
I disagree so strongly.

Matt



Andy Schmidt wrote:

1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries.
 

They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.

Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a painful time of
adjustment.
But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies, when many of
their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that they are unable
to send emails anymore.  There is no need for them to DELEGATE DNS, but at
least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your needs (e.g.
generic host entries for your domain).
In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?

Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
Jason,
Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.  

For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is business class.
It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by most as
acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to delegate RDNS.
And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would
classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch because
of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider DSL
to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL (symmetric
DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my T-1.
In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries. They
need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.
2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't put a lot of
stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really appreciate Pete
McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for the same things
that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the context.  I think we
need more out of the box thinking like this.
Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

I wanted to throw this question to the list:

1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their
   

mailservers?
 

2) If so, why not?

Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership to
   

who
 

actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs given to
   

me
 

by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all of them, even the IPs I 
haven't used yet. If anyone looks my IPs up they will see something
   

like:
 

Number.freedom2be.net as reverse DNS. This is basically telling them
   

that
 

freedom2be.net is the operator of the IP address.

3) Shouldn't all mail servers on the internet have a reverse DNS entry 
with some valid administrative domain name?  We use freedom2be.net 
exclusively for our reverse DNS entries. As our mail server is
   

multi-homed
 

with many different domains. If someone needs to contact the
   

appropriate
 

owner of the IP, say our mail server was doing something bad (which
   

it
 

never has) they would 

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Queue

2003-12-17 Thread R. Scott Perry

Is there a way to turn off Declude Queue?
Yes, but it's kind of like turning off your car engine -- you can do it, 
but can't do much of anything else until you turn it back on.

 Somehow, it seems that Declude is thinking there is a problem and is putting
 all Q into the overflow file. However, the spool only has a couple hundred
 files.
That's because there *is* a problem.  The number of files in the spool 
isn't very important.  All that Declude Queue looks at is the total number 
of running processes that it knows were started by services (the ones that 
cause Microsoft to crash the server if there are too many of them).  So if 
the number of Declude.exe and SMTP32.exe processes is fairly high (around 
30), there's a reason that Declude Queue is doing this.

   -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)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter question

2003-12-17 Thread Markus Gufler

Hi Doug,

If you look for somethink like this, maybe give a try to SpamChk an external
test for Declude Junkmail. 

SpamChk will accumulate the weight for every instance of a certain keyword.
You can define also a max. number of how many instances should be counted,
and the weight for keywords can be dinamically reduced for large messages.

Markus





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter question


This may sound stupid, but if I create a filter searching for a
string in an email...
BODY 2 CONTAINS xyz
and the email contains 4 instances of that string
now is the xyx time for all xyz good men xyz to come to the aid xyz
of their country
does the filter return an internal value of 8 or 2?


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Discussing of Anti-Spam filters. Was Web-o-Trust

2003-12-17 Thread Keith Anderson

That would be true if all of the servers using those IP addresses were 100%
trustworthy, but that's impossible.  Servers are compromised all the time.
The people running them can make mistakes, creating open proxies or open
relays, or they can be bribed to allow a spammer access.  Very few spam
arrives to your mail server directly from a spammer.

Until people stop buying the products advertised in spam, there will always
be spam.


 On the other hand, a list of IP sources that are whitelisted and the
 protocols for using/generating that list represent a strong solution
 that can and should be described openly.



---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Discussing of Anti-Spam filters. Was Web-o-Trust

2003-12-17 Thread Andy Schmidt
I'm sure it's not a 100% fix - but, if I can block spam that's originating
from the Spammer's easiest and preferred targets (known open relays run by
ignorant mail admins, infected zombie machines, etc.), then a lot has been
won. Those machine's are much less likely to show up with correct SPF data
or Web-O-Trust, etc.

If occasionally a trusted (professionally managed) server is being
infiltrated an accidental exposure (or a newly discovered vulnerability), I
have a much better chanced to reach someone with a very open ear to the
problem - than when I try to tell RoadRunner to look through their dial-up
connection logs to see which of their customers was using IP xx.xx.xx.xx at
a certain time of day - and then contacting that customer and tell them to
download and update a current virus-scanner.

If Spammers have to find the much fewer accidental (not ignorant) server
faults, rather than being able to mail from every machine in the universe,
things are much more manageable.


Best Regards
Andy Schmidt

Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 09:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Discussing of Anti-Spam filters. Was
Web-o-Trust



That would be true if all of the servers using those IP addresses were 100%
trustworthy, but that's impossible.  Servers are compromised all the time.
The people running them can make mistakes, creating open proxies or open
relays, or they can be bribed to allow a spammer access.  Very few spam
arrives to your mail server directly from a spammer.

Until people stop buying the products advertised in spam, there will always
be spam.


 On the other hand, a list of IP sources that are whitelisted and the 
 protocols for using/generating that list represent a strong solution 
 that can and should be described openly.



---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe,
just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe
Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread atlantis . declude
Todd, thanks for the insight.

 Jason,
 Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.
Instead of delegating the RDNS to you, would they make the changes for you?
Say, give them a list of your IPs and what you would like the RDNS to be?
I guess I'm very fortunate to have worked with competent, and cooperative
ISPs the past 5 years. I too had my servers once on SDSL. and in 2
different colo facilities. All gave me RDNS the way I wanted it. (btw, all
the providers I used were great, I just moved a few times)
 And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would
 classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch
 because of our RNDS from MPower:
 las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
That's just not fair, AND not worth your money. You should demand that they
serve you the way you need to be!
 The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider
 DSL to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL
 (symmetric DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my
 T-1.
ARgggH!! Agreed. Stupid admins!  Is the world not full of too many of them
already?
Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. I think you need to pressure your
provider to give you RDNS entries with your own domain name content, after
all you are a paying business-class customer. You might want to refer them
to the RFC that states RDNS is a good thing, your being lumped into dynamic
block lists based on the contents of the existing RDNS name is a serious
operational issue, and AOL's policies for blocking email.
--Jason

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread atlantis . declude
Agreed. However, this is happening to us. (a la AOL policies and others to
follow) and we have to adapt.
As I pointed out, I think the value of RDNS (regardless of it not stopping
or slowing down spam) is that it identifies the operator of an IP address
more clearly than the large netblock allocated to the upstream ISP.
I once had an ISP that allocated my tiny netblock to me personally!!! They
actually created a sub-netblock and I was listed in the ARIN whois!  Not
saying that is a good idea.
However RDNS can help identify the operator of the IP in cases with tiny
netblocks for colo, SDSL, and other business class connections.
--Jason

At 02:16 AM 12/17/2003, you wrote:
Why not just require everyone in the world to show the secret sign before
having their E-mail accepted?  Sarcasm obviously, but reverse DNS entries
are not necessary for E-mail to function properly, and in many cases won't
even match the domain given in HELO...so why require it?
This also will do near nothing to stop the flood of spam over the
long-haul, so it appears to be a net negative due to the problems that
this creates.

Sorry, but I just see this as another blunt weapon, and again, something
that becomes our problem to deal with when problems occur.  Just like I
expect to see many legit servers sending E-mail without DNS entries, I
also expect companies which take such actions to be almost impossible to
reach for corrections because they are obviously causing widespread
problems and don't have the staff to handle all of the inquiries that
would result, and of course, their lack of logic appears to have spread to
other highly imperfect anti-spam measures which have blacklisted at least
three list members reported in the last few days.

The only positive about all of this is that it continues to prove the
incompetence of such companies to deal with spam, and that just makes me
look all the better.

Naturally, this is all just my opinion, so please don't be offended that I
disagree so strongly.

Matt



Andy Schmidt wrote:

1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries.

They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.


Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a painful time of
adjustment.

But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies, when many of
their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that they are unable
to send emails anymore.  There is no need for them to DELEGATE DNS, but at
least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your needs (e.g.
generic host entries for your domain).

In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?

Best Regards
Andy Schmidt

Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?


Jason,
Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.

For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is business class.
It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by most as
acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to delegate RDNS.

And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would
classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch because
of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net

The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider DSL
to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL (symmetric
DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my T-1.

In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries. They
need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this.

2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't put a lot of
stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really appreciate Pete
McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for the same things
that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the context.  I think we
need more out of the box thinking like this.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

I wanted to throw this question to the list:

1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their

mailservers?


2) If so, why not?

Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership to

who


actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs given to

me


by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all 

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support



Probably, but if so, they're not doing their 
job. We need an organization that is less ivory tower and more proactive 
in enforcing standards and best practices.
Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: Pete 
McNeil 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
Isn't the IETF supposed to be this body?_MAt 09:14 PM 
12/16/2003, you wrote:
I would agree with this type of governing body. One that sets 
  standards like RDNS entries and what they mean.  
  pessimistic rantBut it is still up to each mail admin(s) to implement 
  an anti-spam policy. And the history of governing bodies is such that 
  only the biggest players have a voice. This would probably mean that 
  AOL, Earthlink, RR, Hotmail, etc would be on the governing council…and it 
  would be interpreted to their greatest competitive advantage…and nothing would 
  have changed!/pessimistic rantTodd Holt Xidix 
  Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 
  702.319.4349 -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf 
  Of Hosting SupportSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:47 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSThis is 
  exactly why I think we should have a some sort of global internet council for 
  setting standards, rather than all of us little guys having to react, after 
  the fact, whenever a large player makes a change. The global council 
  could maintain a distribution list to help mail admins to keep up with 
  proposed changes and implementation schedules. This is very similar to 
  any other industry that must keep up with compliance 
  standards.In some 
  ways this also seems like an unfair competition tactic as it makes the little 
  guys look bad when our customers can't send mail to AOL...it encourages 
  customers to move to the large players to avoid not having mail delivered to 
  their users.Darin.- Original Message - From: Todd Holt To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:32 PMSubject: RE: 
  [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSI know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but…If 
  so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using their EULA to 
  prevent software from operating, then why don’t those same people get upset at 
  AOL for the internet-nazi-police tactics used to prevent mail from being 
  delivered?MS just says that you can’t use certain apps on their 
  OS. AOL says that you can’t deliver mail through mail servers (that 
  control more email than any other on the planet) because they deemed it “bad” 
  through inaccurate, generalized and dare I say “monopolistic” 
  policies.The lack of complaints about AOL just shows that the MS 
  bashers are not upset about the MS policies (or monopoly), they just want to 
  complain about the big company on the block. I think if the majority 
  owner of AOL was the richest person on the planet, they would bash AOL. 
  How short sided!!!Further, all of the justice dept. proceedings 
  are based on complaints by the competition, not the users. On the other 
  hand, AOL has thousands of consumer complaints, but very few (if any) 
  complaints by competitors. It’s obvious that the justice dept. just 
  wants to appease whiny losers like Jim Barksdale and Scott McNealy. And 
  the MS bashers just fall in line. Lemmings.Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, 
  Inc Las Vegas, NV USA www.xidix.com 702.319.4349 -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf 
  Of Andy SchmidtSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:26 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNSHi,I just 
  noticed that AOL has stepped up their policies another notch.They 
  used to say that "AOL **MAY**" not accept email from servers without 
  Reverse DNS. In the last two weeks, that changed:http://postmaster.aol.com/guidelines/standards.html 
  
AOL's servers will not accept connections from unsecured systems. These 
include open relays, open proxies, open routers, or any other system that 
has been determined to be available for unauthorized use. 
AOL's mail servers will not accept connections from systems that use 
dynamically assigned or residential IP addresses. 
AOL will not deliver e-mail that contains a hex-encoded Universal 
Resource Locator (URL). (Ex: http://%6d%6e%3f/) 
AOL's mail servers will reject connections from any IP address that does not 
have reverse DNS (a PTR 
record). Best RegardsAndy 
  SchmidtHM Systems 
  Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, 
  NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 
  201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 
  934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/ 
  


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We can retire now

2003-12-17 Thread Katie La Salle-Lowery
Title: Message



My 
alter ego is a salesperson for a computer center (my boss owns the computer 
center and the ISP--I do sales for one and network admin for the other). 
At least once a week, often more, I get a call supposedly from a hearing 
impaired person using a relay operator. This person always has a different 
name but the same request--they want me to drop ship notebook pc's and charge 
them to a credit card. Now, these calls come through the ATT and 
Sprint relay services--legitimate operations. When I have called them they 
say they are aware of the scam but are legally obligated to perform the relay 
duty. However, they both told me that if I simply ask the operator if the 
caller is using a home device for TTY or is using an Internet siteI'll be 
given a straight answer. The scam calls are always using the Internet 
sites. We have "real" deaf customers here in town. They call using 
the Montana Relay, they can provide call-back numbers, etc. So, there are 
some ways of distinguishing the legit calls from the fraudulent one. 


In any 
event, I simply tell all callers that it is our policy not to drop ship 
merchandise ordered over the phone to be charged to a credit card. 
About two years ago we were asked to ship a large quantity of memory to a 
location in Colorado. It seemed odd that someone from CA would call 
someone in MT to ship memory to CO. The caller claimed they had been 
referred to us by one of our customers--which was plausible but it still smelled 
fishy. We declined unless payment was in the form of a cashier's 
checked. Another reseller in town fell for it. It was a big enough 
hit to hurt them very badly. They are no longer in 
business.

~Katie


  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Kami RazvanSent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 
  7:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [Declude.JunkMail] We can retire now
  http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3730401p1=0
  
  Good to find the 
  signature for this email .. 
  
  Has anyone seen 
  this?
  
  Regards,
  Kami


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Todd Holt
I have been told many times that MPower will create an RDNS entry, but
only the using the standard format for all MPower RDNS entries (which is
obviously inaccurate).  

I would love to have it changed to reflect our company name.  Can you
forward the name of your contact or have them contact me?

Thanks,

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
 Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:43 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
 Todd, by understanding at Mpower is they will not delegate, but will
make
 an
 entry for you for what you need. If they are not allowing an entry for
 you,
 contact me off list as I have a contact at Mpower that may be able to
look
 into it.
 
 John Tolmachoff
 Engineer/Consultant/Owner
 eServices For You
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:33 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
  Jason,
  Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.
 
  For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is business
  class.  It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by
most
  as acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to delegate
  RDNS.
 
  And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that
would
  classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch
  because of our RNDS from MPower:
  las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
 
  The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins
consider
  DSL to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL
  (symmetric DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment
than my
  T-1.
 
  In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
  1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS
entries.
  They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to
do
  this.
 
  2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
  classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't put a
lot
  of stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really
  appreciate Pete McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that
looks
  for the same things that I would look for by hand, in the content,
not
  the context.  I think we need more out of the box thinking like
this.
 
  Todd Holt
  Xidix Technologies, Inc
  Las Vegas, NV  USA
  www.xidix.com
  702.319.4349
 
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
  
   I wanted to throw this question to the list:
  
   1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their
  mailservers?
  
   2) If so, why not?
  
   Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership
to
  who
   actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs
given to
  me
   by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all of them, even the
IPs I
   haven't used yet. If anyone looks my IPs up they will see
something
  like:
   Number.freedom2be.net as reverse DNS. This is basically telling
them
  that
   freedom2be.net is the operator of the IP address.
  
   3) Shouldn't all mail servers on the internet have a reverse DNS
entry
   with some valid administrative domain name?  We use
freedom2be.net
   exclusively for our reverse DNS entries. As our mail server is
  multi-homed
   with many different domains. If someone needs to contact the
  appropriate
   owner of the IP, say our mail server was doing something bad
(which
  it
   never has) they would know that freedom2be.net is the domain to
  email.
   (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Isn't this a good idea?
  
   --Jason
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  
  
  
   ---
   [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
   (http://www.declude.com)]
  
   ---
   This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
   unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
   type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
   at http://www.mail-archive.com.
   ---
   [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
   (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
  (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
  (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
  unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
  type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
  at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Todd Holt
 In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?

Obviously you have never relayed your outbound mail through an ISP! If
you had, you would not suggest that course of action. :)

Currently, I have no problems.  I hope that I can keep it this way!

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
 Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:46 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
  1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS
entries.
 They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do
 this.
 
 
 Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a painful time of
 adjustment.
 
 But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies, when many
of
 their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that they are
 unable
 to send emails anymore.  There is no need for them to DELEGATE DNS,
but at
 least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your needs
(e.g.
 generic host entries for your domain).
 
 In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
 
 Jason,
 Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.
 
 For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is business
 class.
 It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by most as
 acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to delegate
RDNS.
 
 And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would
 classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch
 because
 of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
 
 The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider
 DSL
 to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL
(symmetric
 DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my T-1.
 
 In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
 1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS
entries.
 They
 need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do
this.
 
 2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
 classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't put a lot
of
 stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really
appreciate
 Pete
 McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for the same
things
 that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the context.  I
think
 we
 need more out of the box thinking like this.
 
 Todd Holt
 Xidix Technologies, Inc
 Las Vegas, NV  USA
 www.xidix.com
 702.319.4349
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
  I wanted to throw this question to the list:
 
  1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their
 mailservers?
 
  2) If so, why not?
 
  Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership to
 who
  actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs given
to
 me
  by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all of them, even the IPs
I
  haven't used yet. If anyone looks my IPs up they will see something
 like:
  Number.freedom2be.net as reverse DNS. This is basically telling them
 that
  freedom2be.net is the operator of the IP address.
 
  3) Shouldn't all mail servers on the internet have a reverse DNS
entry
  with some valid administrative domain name?  We use
freedom2be.net
  exclusively for our reverse DNS entries. As our mail server is
 multi-homed
  with many different domains. If someone needs to contact the
 appropriate
  owner of the IP, say our mail server was doing something bad
(which
 it
  never has) they would know that freedom2be.net is the domain to
 email.
  (such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Isn't this a good idea?
 
  --Jason
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
  (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
  unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type
  unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at
  http://www.mail-archive.com.
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
  (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Todd Holt
Jason,
I think I have been convinced to push this issue with MPower.  First I
hope that John's contact can help me out, but I will also forward the
RFC to them.

Thanks for the debate! :)

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:35 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
 Todd, thanks for the insight.
 
   Jason,
   Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.
 
 Instead of delegating the RDNS to you, would they make the changes for
 you?
 Say, give them a list of your IPs and what you would like the RDNS to
be?
 
 I guess I'm very fortunate to have worked with competent, and
cooperative
 ISPs the past 5 years. I too had my servers once on SDSL. and in 2
 different colo facilities. All gave me RDNS the way I wanted it. (btw,
all
 the providers I used were great, I just moved a few times)
 
   And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that
would
   classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch
   because of our RNDS from MPower:
   las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
 
 That's just not fair, AND not worth your money. You should demand that
 they
 serve you the way you need to be!
 
   The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins
consider
   DSL to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL
   (symmetric DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment
than
 my
   T-1.
 
 ARgggH!! Agreed. Stupid admins!  Is the world not full of too many of
them
 already?
 
 Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. I think you need to pressure
 your
 provider to give you RDNS entries with your own domain name content,
after
 all you are a paying business-class customer. You might want to refer
them
 to the RFC that states RDNS is a good thing, your being lumped into
 dynamic
 block lists based on the contents of the existing RDNS name is a
serious
 operational issue, and AOL's policies for blocking email.
 
 --Jason
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Pete McNeil
Title: Message



This is a common perception... and one that I share to some extent. None 
the less, it's not an easy problem. The network runs on consensus - and that is 
nearly impossible to build and enforce. Ultimately, we hope, what works will win 
out and become recognized as a standard. That is more likely than any body 
creating a "standard" and then "enforcing" it into place.

Some, with the power and money to do so, are capable of pushing their 
"standards" onto the 'net... and that is both good and bad.

I guess my point is this: Picking somebody other than IETF to do this 
would most likely change the name but produce the same result. Giving any strong 
enforcement power to any such body would be disastrous because that power would 
quickly be abused either directly or through compromise. Imagine, for example, 
if VeriSign were in charge (chaching!) of how everything worked on the Internet! 
(I know from personal experience that they would love that... they may even feel 
entitled to it from some of the conversations I've 
overheard.)

It's not an easy problem.

Theanswer resides in real solutions - not in enforcement. You can't 
pry a good working solution from the cold dead hands of a good systems admin - 
or even most mediocre ones, but you can be pretty sure that almost every systems 
admin (good, bad, and ugly) will avoid using a bad solution no matter what 
enforcement might be at work - if they have any alternative at 
all.

The Internet is an interesting training ground for real life problems 
we've yet to deal with on this planet. It only works when it really works... 
network effects create tremendous leverage...but opportunities 
tocompromise the system for local motiveswill be exploited if they 
can be - even if that means killing off the whole thing. (sad but we treat each 
other this way too more often than not...) Broader vision and altruism are often 
missing from the decision making process - so any single point of authority with 
significant power finds itself corrupted and manipulated - if not from the 
inside then from the outside.

Often we forget that we're all connected. Often when folks say that the 
solution is in some strong central authority that can enforce a proper standard, 
they are really saying "everything would be fine if everyone would just do what 
I say." These folks fail to consider what it would be like if they got their 
wish, but the "authority" decided to do things that they couldn't live with. Be 
careful what you wish for - you might get it.

The Internet is a great model for this kind of problem - a problem that 
we face every day without recognizing it. Humans have not yet discovered how to 
work and solve these problems (at least not en-mass)- but 
perhapsthey will now that we can face them from a different perspective. 
It's easy to forget we all breath the same air, but not so easy to forget when 
your email isn't working ;-)

The IETF, like any body attempting to do that job, is mostly stuck 
battling a never ending storm of conflicting self interest on the part of the 
participants. When we (all) figure out how to solve those problems more 
efficiently then good standards will emerge and consensus will be easier to 
develop.

In the mean time, it's a race to develop good working solutions and hope 
they catch on before too much damage is done - for all I know this method might 
even be the model solution in the end... It seems to work in nature - competing 
diversity, with successful paradigms sweeping away the old... broad 
communication and collaboration offering advantage to those who participate... 
it makes me think...

Sorry for all the philosophy...

_M

PS: A Beautiful Mind was a great movie (IMO). There was a great moment 
wheresomecomplex realities of economics were crystallized and made 
transparent - I love when that happens.Let's not all "go for the 
blonde".

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Hosting SupportSent: Wednesday, December 17, 
  2003 9:51 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
  Probably, but if so, they're not doing their 
  job. We need an organization that is less ivory tower and more proactive 
  in enforcing standards and best practices.
  Darin.
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Pete 
  McNeil 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
  Isn't the IETF supposed to be this body?_MAt 09:14 
  PM 12/16/2003, you wrote:
  I would agree with this type of governing body. One that sets 
standards like RDNS entries and what they mean.  
pessimistic rantBut it is still up to each mail admin(s) to 
implement an anti-spam policy. And the history of governing bodies is 
such that only the biggest players have a voice. This would probably 
mean that AOL, Earthlink, RR, Hotmail, etc would be on the governing 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Todd Holt
AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
Declude. 
This is true.

So what's the whining all about?
1. AOL publishes a policy that they don't adhere to.
2. The policy changes regularly.
3. If we have a problem sending mail to them, they are unreachable.
4. They are pointing fingers at us little guys as the problem.  How
many spam have you received from an AOL account?  

I can only speak for myself, but none of those apply to me.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
 Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:40 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 Exactly, Chuck.
 
 AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
Declude.
 So
 what's the whining all about? I've been desperately waiting for years
for
 some of the big players to enforce standards (e.g., reverse DNS) and
 prudent
 practices (e.g., no open relays, mail servers on dynamic IPs have to
relay
 through their providers).  I applaud AOL and hope Yahoo and Hotmail
follow
 suit soon.
 
 Then I can move the Reverse DNS failures and the Open Relay and DUL
RBLs
 from a carefully chosen weight to straight DELETE - and simply adopt
 industry standards.
 
 If someone complains, I no longer have to defend to business
managers,
 why
 my servers are the only ones bouncing some moron's email - because
that
 point won't be made anymore.
 
 Even better, it will force wanna-be mail-admin's to either learn their
 trade
 or to get someone do to it right. Not every tinkerer who runs Windows
 NT/2000/XP workstation on their DSL or Cable modem at home needs to
run
 personal web services and turn on SMTP (ideally in open relay mode) -
if
 they do, they can do it for their own entertainment. But unless they
do it
 correctly (e.g., define a smart host), their mails won't be delivered
to
 the
 outside world. Nothing wrong with that.
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Schick
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:07 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 
 I will disagree.  I do not believe there is any comparison between MS
EULA
 and AOL mail policies.   I do not see AOL's actions as the
 ...internet-nazi-police tactics... as you claim.  I do not see where
AOL
 is gaining any competitive advantage, they are simply trying to
protect
 their network and client base the same as many of us.  I have picked
up
 many
 AOL customers for Internet access because they could no longer stand
the
 spam in their AOL mail accounts.
 
 I actually applaud AOL doing this - it will force many people to get a
 reverse DNS entry and maybe they will fix their DNS record along the
way.
 If I block people because of Reverse DNS, the blocked entity will
simply
 criticize our policies.  If AOL blocks them they will fix their rdns.
 
 If more mail servers had the MX records and reverse DNS entries, I
could
 tighten up my filtering because I would have less worries about
blocking
 legitimate mail from badly configured mail servers.
 
 I guess I do not see the problem - it is not much different than when
most
 ISPs started blocking Port 25 for access.  Or implemented SMTP
 Authentication.
 
 Just me 2 cents on the subject.
 
 Chuck Schick
 -- Original Message --
 From: Todd Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:32:57 -0800
 
 I know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but.
 
 If so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using
 their EULA to prevent software from operating, then why don't those
 same people get upset at AOL for the internet-nazi-police tactics
used
 to prevent mail from being delivered?
 
 MS just says that you can't use certain apps on their OS.  AOL says
 that you can't deliver mail through mail servers (that control more
 email than any other on the planet) because they deemed it bad
 through inaccurate, generalized and dare I say monopolistic
policies.
 
 The lack of complaints about AOL just shows that the MS bashers are
not
 upset about the MS policies (or monopoly), they just want to complain
 about the big company on the block.  I think if the majority owner of
 AOL was the richest person on the planet, they would bash AOL.  How
 short sided!!!
 
 Further, all of the justice dept. proceedings are based on complaints
 by the competition, not the users.  On the other hand, AOL has
 thousands of consumer complaints, but very few (if any) complaints by
 competitors. It's obvious that the justice dept. just wants to
appease
 whiny losers like Jim Barksdale and Scott McNealy.  And the MS
bashers
 just fall in line.  Lemmings. Todd Holt
 

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support
Title: Message



Hi Pete,

I do agree with you on all of the problems you 
present in regards to a governing body that can enforce it's will. 
However, I think we're already there to some degree with the fact that companies 
like AOL can enforce policies locally that impact others and force them to adapt 
to their wishesexcept that it's N companies instead of a 
singlestandards board This is not a much differentfrom the "be 
careful what you wish for" scenario you mentioned, just more 
chaotic.

You're certainly right on target on the "If 
everyone would just do it like I do it" point. However, I think we all 
realize compromises will be necessary when working together, and I strongly 
believe that these problems will not be solved without cooperation.

I think my main point is still key: I'd much rather 
be forced into compliance by a standards body that has agreed on a course of 
action and notifies me of necessary changes ahead of time than by N companies 
that all make changes without notifying me, forcing me to scramble to address 
the howling concerns of my customers. Yes, it is possible that the 
standards might be expensive enough to implement to drive some small companies 
out of business, but that's not much different from the attrition we can see 
from customers moving to large companies in order to ensure their email gets 
delivered to other customers of said company.

So, yes, you're right. There will be 
problems, and it's not a perfect solution, but I think if the IETF or some other 
body can gain enough power to enforce standardsthat are the consensus of 
the majority (probably best based on customer base) it's the best chance we 
have.
Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: Pete 
McNeil 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

This is a common perception... and one that I share to some extent. None 
the less, it's not an easy problem. The network runs on consensus - and that is 
nearly impossible to build and enforce. Ultimately, we hope, what works will win 
out and become recognized as a standard. That is more likely than any body 
creating a "standard" and then "enforcing" it into place.

Some, with the power and money to do so, are capable of pushing their 
"standards" onto the 'net... and that is both good and bad.

I guess my point is this: Picking somebody other than IETF to do this 
would most likely change the name but produce the same result. Giving any strong 
enforcement power to any such body would be disastrous because that power would 
quickly be abused either directly or through compromise. Imagine, for example, 
if VeriSign were in charge (chaching!) of how everything worked on the Internet! 
(I know from personal experience that they would love that... they may even feel 
entitled to it from some of the conversations I've 
overheard.)

It's not an easy problem.

Theanswer resides in real solutions - not in enforcement. You can't 
pry a good working solution from the cold dead hands of a good systems admin - 
or even most mediocre ones, but you can be pretty sure that almost every systems 
admin (good, bad, and ugly) will avoid using a bad solution no matter what 
enforcement might be at work - if they have any alternative at 
all.

The Internet is an interesting training ground for real life problems 
we've yet to deal with on this planet. It only works when it really works... 
network effects create tremendous leverage...but opportunities 
tocompromise the system for local motiveswill be exploited if they 
can be - even if that means killing off the whole thing. (sad but we treat each 
other this way too more often than not...) Broader vision and altruism are often 
missing from the decision making process - so any single point of authority with 
significant power finds itself corrupted and manipulated - if not from the 
inside then from the outside.

Often we forget that we're all connected. Often when folks say that the 
solution is in some strong central authority that can enforce a proper standard, 
they are really saying "everything would be fine if everyone would just do what 
I say." These folks fail to consider what it would be like if they got their 
wish, but the "authority" decided to do things that they couldn't live with. Be 
careful what you wish for - you might get it.

The Internet is a great model for this kind of problem - a problem that 
we face every day without recognizing it. Humans have not yet discovered how to 
work and solve these problems (at least not en-mass)- but 
perhapsthey will now that we can face them from a different perspective. 
It's easy to forget we all breath the same air, but not so easy to forget when 
your email isn't working ;-)

The IETF, like any body attempting to do that job, is mostly stuck 
battling a never ending storm of conflicting self interest on the part of the 
participants. When we (all) figure out how to solve those 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread atlantis . declude
For those wondering what we are talking about:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1912.html
RFC 1912 - Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors
Please consider RFC1912 section 2.1 that doesn't *require* that the reverse 
DNS entries, but makes it clear that not having one is a use at your own 
risk type of situation.

--Jason

Jason,
I think I have been convinced to push this issue with MPower.  First I
hope that John's contact can help me out, but I will also forward the
RFC to them.
Thanks for the debate! :)

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:35 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

 Todd, thanks for the insight.

   Jason,
   Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.

 Instead of delegating the RDNS to you, would they make the changes for
 you?
 Say, give them a list of your IPs and what you would like the RDNS to
be?

 I guess I'm very fortunate to have worked with competent, and
cooperative
 ISPs the past 5 years. I too had my servers once on SDSL. and in 2
 different colo facilities. All gave me RDNS the way I wanted it. (btw,
all
 the providers I used were great, I just moved a few times)

   And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that
would
   classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch
   because of our RNDS from MPower:
   las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net

 That's just not fair, AND not worth your money. You should demand that
 they
 serve you the way you need to be!

   The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins
consider
   DSL to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as SDSL
   (symmetric DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment
than
 my
   T-1.

 ARgggH!! Agreed. Stupid admins!  Is the world not full of too many of
them
 already?

 Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. I think you need to pressure
 your
 provider to give you RDNS entries with your own domain name content,
after
 all you are a paying business-class customer. You might want to refer
them
 to the RFC that states RDNS is a good thing, your being lumped into
 dynamic
 block lists based on the contents of the existing RDNS name is a
serious
 operational issue, and AOL's policies for blocking email.

 --Jason

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Andy Schmidt
Good point, they should be more accessible. That would be my biggest
complaint with most black-lists.

As far as policies - as long as their policy is simply to follow RFCs (or
universally agreed recommendations, e.g. no open relays/proxies), I don't
see any obligation on their end to try to put everyone on notice.  The RFCs
were notice enough for years.

SPAM from AOL accounts - hm, I have to admit that I only see an
(automatically selected) cross-section of spam messages with header (which
are routed to SPAMCOP for analysis) - but I can't remember seeing AOL as an
implicated party often (if ever).

Best Regards
Andy Schmidt

HM Systems Software, Inc.
600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846

Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206

http://www.HM-Software.com/


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
Declude. 
This is true.

So what's the whining all about?
1. AOL publishes a policy that they don't adhere to.
2. The policy changes regularly.
3. If we have a problem sending mail to them, they are unreachable. 4. They
are pointing fingers at us little guys as the problem.  How many spam have
you received from an AOL account?  

I can only speak for myself, but none of those apply to me.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
 Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:40 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 Exactly, Chuck.
 
 AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
Declude.
 So
 what's the whining all about? I've been desperately waiting for years
for
 some of the big players to enforce standards (e.g., reverse DNS) and 
 prudent practices (e.g., no open relays, mail servers on dynamic IPs 
 have to
relay
 through their providers).  I applaud AOL and hope Yahoo and Hotmail
follow
 suit soon.
 
 Then I can move the Reverse DNS failures and the Open Relay and DUL
RBLs
 from a carefully chosen weight to straight DELETE - and simply adopt 
 industry standards.
 
 If someone complains, I no longer have to defend to business
managers,
 why
 my servers are the only ones bouncing some moron's email - because
that
 point won't be made anymore.
 
 Even better, it will force wanna-be mail-admin's to either learn their 
 trade or to get someone do to it right. Not every tinkerer who runs 
 Windows NT/2000/XP workstation on their DSL or Cable modem at home 
 needs to
run
 personal web services and turn on SMTP (ideally in open relay mode) -
if
 they do, they can do it for their own entertainment. But unless they
do it
 correctly (e.g., define a smart host), their mails won't be delivered
to
 the
 outside world. Nothing wrong with that.
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Schick
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:07 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 
 I will disagree.  I do not believe there is any comparison between MS
EULA
 and AOL mail policies.   I do not see AOL's actions as the
 ...internet-nazi-police tactics... as you claim.  I do not see where
AOL
 is gaining any competitive advantage, they are simply trying to
protect
 their network and client base the same as many of us.  I have picked
up
 many
 AOL customers for Internet access because they could no longer stand
the
 spam in their AOL mail accounts.
 
 I actually applaud AOL doing this - it will force many people to get a 
 reverse DNS entry and maybe they will fix their DNS record along the
way.
 If I block people because of Reverse DNS, the blocked entity will
simply
 criticize our policies.  If AOL blocks them they will fix their rdns.
 
 If more mail servers had the MX records and reverse DNS entries, I
could
 tighten up my filtering because I would have less worries about
blocking
 legitimate mail from badly configured mail servers.
 
 I guess I do not see the problem - it is not much different than when
most
 ISPs started blocking Port 25 for access.  Or implemented SMTP 
 Authentication.
 
 Just me 2 cents on the subject.
 
 Chuck Schick
 -- Original Message --
 From: Todd Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:32:57 -0800
 
 I know this will stir a few people the wrong way, but.
 
 If so many people are upset that MS is being monopolistic by using 
 their EULA to prevent software from operating, then why don't those 
 same people get upset at 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Kevin Bilbee
Darin wrote:
I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power to enforce
standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best based on
customer base) it's the best chance we have.


The IETF or other independent body will not be able to enforce any
standards, they can make recommendations. And it is up to the internet
community to implement the standards and enforce the standards. The
standards are enforced wny people do not bend the rules for server or DNS
that is not in complience.

For example I notify all admins and users that their mail is being held due
to DNS configuration errors. When admins do not notify other admins there is
an issue with their configuration that is where the system breaks down. So I
applaud the big boys for finally enforcing the current standards by blocking
invalid reverse dns settings. Here is AOL's definition of a inproperly
configured RDNS entry.

-- snip from postmaster.aol.com --
Reverse DNS must be in the form of a fully-qualified domain name – reverse
DNSes containing in-addr.arpa are not acceptable, as these are merely
placeholders for a valid PTR record. Reverse DNSes consisting only of IP
addresses are also not acceptable, as they do not correctly establish the
relationship between domain and IP address.
-- end snip --


They are enforcing the standards already out there.

Kevin Bilbee





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hosting Support
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


Hi Pete,

I do agree with you on all of the problems you present in regards to a
governing body that can enforce it's will.  However, I think we're already
there to some degree with the fact that companies like AOL can enforce
policies locally that impact others and force them to adapt to their
wishesexcept that it's N companies instead of a single standards board
This is not a much different from the be careful what you wish for
scenario you mentioned, just more chaotic.

You're certainly right on target on the If everyone would just do it like I
do it point.  However, I think we all realize compromises will be necessary
when working together, and I strongly believe that these problems will not
be solved without cooperation.

I think my main point is still key: I'd much rather be forced into
compliance by a standards body that has agreed on a course of action and
notifies me of necessary changes ahead of time than by N companies that all
make changes without notifying me, forcing me to scramble to address the
howling concerns of my customers.  Yes, it is possible that the standards
might be expensive enough to implement to drive some small companies out of
business, but that's not much different from the attrition we can see from
customers moving to large companies in order to ensure their email gets
delivered to other customers of said company.

So, yes, you're right.  There will be problems, and it's not a perfect
solution, but I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power
to enforce standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best
based on customer base) it's the best chance we have.

Darin.


- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


This is a common perception... and one that I share to some extent. None the
less, it's not an easy problem. The network runs on consensus - and that is
nearly impossible to build and enforce. Ultimately, we hope, what works will
win out and become recognized as a standard. That is more likely than any
body creating a standard and then enforcing it into place.

Some, with the power and money to do so, are capable of pushing their
standards onto the 'net... and that is both good and bad.

I guess my point is this: Picking somebody other than IETF to do this would
most likely change the name but produce the same result. Giving any strong
enforcement power to any such body would be disastrous because that power
would quickly be abused either directly or through compromise. Imagine, for
example, if VeriSign were in charge (chaching!) of how everything worked on
the Internet! (I know from personal experience that they would love that...
they may even feel entitled to it from some of the conversations I've
overheard.)

It's not an easy problem.

The answer resides in real solutions - not in enforcement. You can't pry a
good working solution from the cold dead hands of a good systems admin - or
even most mediocre ones, but you can be pretty sure that almost every
systems admin (good, bad, and ugly) will avoid using a bad solution no
matter what enforcement might be at work - if they have any alternative at
all.

The Internet is an interesting training ground for real life problems we've
yet to deal with on this planet. It only works when it really works...

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support
Hi Kevin,

I'm not against AOL for doing this, as you would see from following the
thread.  What I intended to convey is that we need a lot more standards and
enforcement of them (e.g. blacklists, dial up lists, port 25 blocking for
dynamic addresses, etc.), as well as the all-important notification of new
standards to be implemented/enforced.  Perhaps an initial standard could be
that all mail admins subscribe to a given notification list for policy
changes, standards announcements, enforcement, etc.

Again, I don't have a problem with what AOL did, I just think changes should
be conveyed ahead of time when standards are enforced so the community can
prepare.  Could AOL be reasonably expected to notify all mail admins around
the world that they were changing their procedures?  No, of course not.  And
their HELO did respond with a meaningful, though from our experience
inaccurate, announcement.  That's why I point to the need for a central body
to maintain the standards and NOTIFY subscribed mail admins.  In our case,
we did have RDNS in place, but from some reason AOL refused us since it
didn't match the mail server name.  Once we got that changed all was well.
If we had had a lot of virtual email domains, as opposed to dedicated IPs
for mail services, that would have been much more of a pain that it was.

My $0.02 has multiplied...sorry to those who are tired of this topic.

Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


Darin wrote:
I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power to enforce
standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best based on
customer base) it's the best chance we have.


The IETF or other independent body will not be able to enforce any
standards, they can make recommendations. And it is up to the internet
community to implement the standards and enforce the standards. The
standards are enforced wny people do not bend the rules for server or DNS
that is not in complience.

For example I notify all admins and users that their mail is being held due
to DNS configuration errors. When admins do not notify other admins there is
an issue with their configuration that is where the system breaks down. So I
applaud the big boys for finally enforcing the current standards by blocking
invalid reverse dns settings. Here is AOL's definition of a inproperly
configured RDNS entry.

-- snip from postmaster.aol.com --
Reverse DNS must be in the form of a fully-qualified domain name - reverse
DNSes containing in-addr.arpa are not acceptable, as these are merely
placeholders for a valid PTR record. Reverse DNSes consisting only of IP
addresses are also not acceptable, as they do not correctly establish the
relationship between domain and IP address.
-- end snip --


They are enforcing the standards already out there.

Kevin Bilbee





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hosting Support
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


Hi Pete,

I do agree with you on all of the problems you present in regards to a
governing body that can enforce it's will.  However, I think we're already
there to some degree with the fact that companies like AOL can enforce
policies locally that impact others and force them to adapt to their
wishesexcept that it's N companies instead of a single standards board
This is not a much different from the be careful what you wish for
scenario you mentioned, just more chaotic.

You're certainly right on target on the If everyone would just do it like I
do it point.  However, I think we all realize compromises will be necessary
when working together, and I strongly believe that these problems will not
be solved without cooperation.

I think my main point is still key: I'd much rather be forced into
compliance by a standards body that has agreed on a course of action and
notifies me of necessary changes ahead of time than by N companies that all
make changes without notifying me, forcing me to scramble to address the
howling concerns of my customers.  Yes, it is possible that the standards
might be expensive enough to implement to drive some small companies out of
business, but that's not much different from the attrition we can see from
customers moving to large companies in order to ensure their email gets
delivered to other customers of said company.

So, yes, you're right.  There will be problems, and it's not a perfect
solution, but I think if the IETF or some other body can gain enough power
to enforce standards that are the consensus of the majority (probably best
based on customer base) it's the best chance we have.

Darin.


- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Any suggestions on some tests ??

2003-12-17 Thread Alejandro Valenzuela
Thank you all for your suggestions.. 
Alex V.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Any suggestions on some tests ??


If you have Declude JunkMail Pro, then the custom filters shared on my 
site are all generally good at detecting this sort of thing.  This one 
in particular would have been it by DYNAMIC, FOREIGN, 
TLD-WESTERNEUROPEAN, and TLD-MIDDLEEASTERN for a total of 9 points (or 
90% of fail weight according to recommended scoring) between those 
filters alone.

http://www.mailpure.com/software/decludefilters/

The subject is also base64 encoded Latin-1 (normal text), and that can 
be filtered as well, though there are some rare occurrances where this 
can be used with foreign languages utilizing high-bit characters.

SUBJECT  8  CONTAINS  iso-8859-1?b?

Matt



Alejandro Valenzuela wrote:

Is there any test on declude that will detect this ??
beside ipr4 tests ??

only failed one test, not enough to tag it as spam... (on WEIGHT=10)


Received: from worldonline.de [80.230.246.63] by mail.fanosa.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-8.04) id A910153400AA; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:24:48 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.001 (windows; U; NT4.0; en-us) Gecko/25250101
Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?b?VHJ5IFNvbWUgVmlhZ3JcYSEgSGFyZCBhcyBhIFBvbGUgaW4gMTUgbWludXRl
c
w==?=
From: Darrell Middleton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:29:24 +
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
   boundary==_NextPart_000_0889_494E5F41.4FA5DE8F
X-RBL-Warning: SORBS_DUL: Dynamic IP Address See:
http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=80.230.246.63
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [80.230.246.63]
X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for
spam.
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SORBS_DUL, IPNOTINMX, NOLEGITCONTENT [4]
X-Country-Chain: 
X-Date-Time: 12/15/2003 @ 23:24:51
X-Note: This E-mail was sent from cable-246-63.inter.net.il
([80.230.246.63]).
X-IMAIL-SPAM-URL-DBL: www.545dre2c.com
X-RCPT-TO: DELETED
Status: U
X-UIDL: 365550799

htmlbody
center!--4veh7o3diyt--a href=http://www.545dre2c.com?rid=1097;
!--srq13mYftm2B--
img src=http://www.test57v6.com/a7.gif; border=0/a/center
/html/body
  



---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
[Declude - This Mail was sent from 24.107.232.14 ]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?

2003-12-17 Thread Chuck Schick
Matthew:

You do not need an abuse or postmaster account for mail to function
properly.  You do not need to accept Null sender to have email function
properly.  But the mail system on the Internet only works because of
cooperative interoperability.  The RFCs are the standards out there and it
things will work better by adherence to a set of standards.  The increase in
Spam has caused all of us to change how we operate (otherwise we would not
be on this list).  When we set up our first mail server, I did not filter
for spam, did not require SMTP Authentication, did not care about the
configuration of sending servers, and had Imail set to relay for local users
for a year and a half.  I cannot run my business nor my mail servers like I
did back then.  People that do not want to run their servers in accordance
with industry standards are going to find that it will be more challenging
for them over time.

I do agree with you about it making us all look better.

Chuck Schick
Warp 8, Inc.
303-421-5140
www.warp8.com




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Matthew Bramble
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:16 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?


 Why not just require everyone in the world to show the secret sign
 before having their E-mail accepted?  Sarcasm obviously, but
 reverse DNS
 entries are not necessary for E-mail to function properly,
 and in many
 cases won't even match the domain given in HELO...so why require it?
 This also will do near nothing to stop the flood of spam over the
 long-haul, so it appears to be a net negative due to the
 problems that
 this creates.

 Sorry, but I just see this as another blunt weapon, and
 again, something
 that becomes our problem to deal with when problems occur.
 Just like I
 expect to see many legit servers sending E-mail without DNS
 entries, I
 also expect companies which take such actions to be almost
 impossible to
 reach for corrections because they are obviously causing widespread
 problems and don't have the staff to handle all of the inquiries that
 would result, and of course, their lack of logic appears to
 have spread
 to other highly imperfect anti-spam measures which have
 blacklisted at
 least three list members reported in the last few days.

 The only positive about all of this is that it continues to prove the
 incompetence of such companies to deal with spam, and that
 just makes me
 look all the better.

 Naturally, this is all just my opinion, so please don't be
 offended that
 I disagree so strongly.

 Matt



 Andy Schmidt wrote:

 1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying
 RDNS entries.
 
 
 They need to do a better job of this, but have little
 motivation to do this.
 
 
 Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a
 painful time of
 adjustment.
 
 But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies,
 when many of
 their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that
 they are unable
 to send emails anymore.  There is no need for them to
 DELEGATE DNS, but at
 least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your
 needs (e.g.
 generic host entries for your domain).
 
 In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP?
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS?
 
 
 Jason,
 Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS.
 
 For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas.  It is
 business class.
 It has is a static block of 8 IPs.  Normally considered by most as
 acceptable to host a mail server.  But Mpower refuses to
 delegate RDNS.
 
 And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria
 that would
 classify us as unacceptable.  Bundling us into the dynamic
 IP bunch because
 of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net
 
 The most common reason for this reasoning is that most
 admins consider DSL
 to be equal to consumer.  But there is such a thing as
 SDSL (symmetric
 DSL) at speeds  2Mbit!  A better hosting environment than my T-1.
 
 In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here:
 1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying
 RDNS entries. They
 need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation
 to do this.
 
 2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail
 classification.  Don't lump all DSL into spam source.  Don't
 put a lot of
 stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists.  I really
 appreciate Pete
 McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for
 the same things
 that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the
 context.  I think we
 need more out of 

[Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question

2003-12-17 Thread jcochran
Okay, we've been using Declude quite successfully for some time, and 
we're finally trying to clean up all the original mistakes and misuses 
and misconfigurations.  :)

I'm looking for suggestions on how others handle some situations and 
setup.

Currently we use a WORDFILTER to delete messages with specific 
words in subject or body.  Such as that V drug that helps some men.  
Occasionally, we get a legitimate message deleted due to this.  We 
also delete for high weights as well.  I'm thinking of instead of deleting, 
moving these messages to a folder for temporary storage and using a 
scheduled task to delete anything more than seven days old.  Is this 
similar to what others are doing or is there a better way I might 
consider?

Thanks,

Jeff
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support
Hi Jeff,

We've taken the stance that no legitimate email should ever be deleted.  So,
our implementation does not hold or delete any mail.  Instead, we simply
prepend the title of detected spam with 'SPAM[%tests failed%]' and,
depending on the customer's desires, either pass the message on or route to
a spam folder.  For customers that choose not to have the message routed to
a spam folder, we encourage them to set up a simple message rule in their
mail client to dump identified spam in a separate folder.  That way, we
ensure users have the opportunity to receive an review messages, but they
don't clog up their inbox.  Others might justifiably argue that some spam is
offensive enough to warrant deletion, but this is how we've chosen to
implement.

As a side note, we've also encouraged out customers to use a mail alias for
any online subscriptions, forms, etc.  We have a simple client app that they
can run in the system tray of their desktop to create new email aliases with
a note for each subscription.  Then, when they start seeing a lot of spam to
a certain alias, they can delete it and create another alias for any
subscriptions that use it.  Most customers set it up as recommended with one
alias per subscription or form.  It takes a few seconds longer to fill out a
form while they type in a description/notes and click a button to generate a
new alias, but they love the ability to drastically cut down on spam by
protecting their main address.  And, they can also take action against a
company that didn't follow a stated privacy policy since they know who they
gave the alias to.

Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question


Okay, we've been using Declude quite successfully for some time, and
we're finally trying to clean up all the original mistakes and misuses
and misconfigurations.  :)

I'm looking for suggestions on how others handle some situations and
setup.

Currently we use a WORDFILTER to delete messages with specific
words in subject or body.  Such as that V drug that helps some men.
Occasionally, we get a legitimate message deleted due to this.  We
also delete for high weights as well.  I'm thinking of instead of deleting,
moving these messages to a folder for temporary storage and using a
scheduled task to delete anything more than seven days old.  Is this
similar to what others are doing or is there a better way I might
consider?

Thanks,

Jeff
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

_
[This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web]


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question

2003-12-17 Thread Andy Ognenoff
 We have a simple client app that they can run in the system tray of their
 desktop to create new email aliases with a note for each subscription.

Care to share the app?  It sounds like a really cool idea for my own use (I
don't know I want my users going crazy creating aliases.)

- Andy


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question

2003-12-17 Thread Dan Geiser
Hello, Jeff,
In our setup we use a HOLD weight and a DELETE weight.

-
global.cfg

WEIGHTRANGE-10+  weightrange x x 10 35
WEIGHT-DELETE  weight  x x 36 0
-

-
$default$.junkmail

WEIGHTRANGE-10+  HOLD
WEIGHT-DELETE  DELETE
-

Our HOLD weight is meant to catch as much spam as possible and catch as
little legit e-mail as possible.  The DELETE weight is meant to be high
enough that NO legit e-mail could ever possibly be deleted.  All e-mail that
is HELD is reviewed a couple of times a day for False Positives using
SpamReview.  We have a scheduled task which runs once a night and deletes
any e-mails from the HOLD directories older than 30 days.

Does that help?

Dan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question


 Okay, we've been using Declude quite successfully for some time, and
 we're finally trying to clean up all the original mistakes and misuses
 and misconfigurations.  :)

 I'm looking for suggestions on how others handle some situations and
 setup.

 Currently we use a WORDFILTER to delete messages with specific
 words in subject or body.  Such as that V drug that helps some men.
 Occasionally, we get a legitimate message deleted due to this.  We
 also delete for high weights as well.  I'm thinking of instead of
deleting,
 moving these messages to a folder for temporary storage and using a
 scheduled task to delete anything more than seven days old.  Is this
 similar to what others are doing or is there a better way I might
 consider?

 Thanks,

 Jeff
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group
 http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan



---
Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group 
http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


[Declude.JunkMail] Public DJM Config Files

2003-12-17 Thread Dan Geiser
Hello, All,
Is there anyone on this list besides Kami who makes their Declude JunkMail
files publically viewable as he does?

Just curious.  I'm always looking for new ideas.

Thanks, Much!
Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group 
http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Public DJM Config Files

2003-12-17 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
I have some thing in the works.

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:44 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Public DJM Config Files
 
 Hello, All,
 Is there anyone on this list besides Kami who makes their Declude JunkMail
 files publically viewable as he does?
 
 Just curious.  I'm always looking for new ideas.
 
 Thanks, Much!
 Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 ---
 Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group
 http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Todd Holt
 SPAM from AOL accounts - hm, I have to admit that I only see an
 (automatically selected) cross-section of spam messages with header
(which
 are routed to SPAMCOP for analysis) - but I can't remember seeing AOL
as
 an implicated party often (if ever).

I am interpreting this statement as you don't think AOL users are a
source of spam.  Here is a small sample of addresses in our kill.lst
that have been added because they send spam:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If AOL is so interested in stopping spam, they should start with their
own users!  I think that they only want to stop inbound spam because
that doesn't come from paying customers. Outbound spam, on the other
hand, shouldn't be touched (in AOLs terms) because you wouldn't want to
make a paying customer mad, would you?  Well I scan all emails, both
directions.  It's a violation of our TOS to send spam and I want to stop
it.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:18 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 Good point, they should be more accessible. That would be my biggest
 complaint with most black-lists.
 
 As far as policies - as long as their policy is simply to follow RFCs
(or
 universally agreed recommendations, e.g. no open relays/proxies), I
don't
 see any obligation on their end to try to put everyone on notice.  The
 RFCs
 were notice enough for years.
 
 SPAM from AOL accounts - hm, I have to admit that I only see an
 (automatically selected) cross-section of spam messages with header
(which
 are routed to SPAMCOP for analysis) - but I can't remember seeing AOL
as
 an
 implicated party often (if ever).
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 HM Systems Software, Inc.
 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 http://www.HM-Software.com/
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:09 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 
 AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
 Declude.
 This is true.
 
 So what's the whining all about?
 1. AOL publishes a policy that they don't adhere to.
 2. The policy changes regularly.
 3. If we have a problem sending mail to them, they are unreachable. 4.
 They
 are pointing fingers at us little guys as the problem.  How many
spam
 have
 you received from an AOL account?
 
 I can only speak for myself, but none of those apply to me.
 
 Todd Holt
 Xidix Technologies, Inc
 Las Vegas, NV  USA
 www.xidix.com
 702.319.4349
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:40 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
  Exactly, Chuck.
 
  AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
 Declude.
  So
  what's the whining all about? I've been desperately waiting for
years
 for
  some of the big players to enforce standards (e.g., reverse DNS) and
  prudent practices (e.g., no open relays, mail servers on dynamic IPs
  have to
 relay
  through their providers).  I applaud AOL and hope Yahoo and Hotmail
 follow
  suit soon.
 
  Then I can move the Reverse DNS failures and the Open Relay and DUL
 RBLs
  from a carefully chosen weight to straight DELETE - and simply adopt
  industry standards.
 
  If someone complains, I no longer have to defend to business
 managers,
  why
  my servers are the only ones bouncing some moron's email - because
 that
  point won't be made anymore.
 
  Even better, it will force wanna-be mail-admin's to either learn
their
  trade or to get someone do to it right. Not every tinkerer who runs
  Windows NT/2000/XP workstation on their DSL or Cable modem at home
  needs to
 run
  personal web services and turn on SMTP (ideally in open relay mode)
-
 if
  they do, they can do it for their own entertainment. But unless they
 do it
  correctly (e.g., define a smart host), their mails won't be
delivered
 to
  the
  outside world. Nothing wrong with that.
 
  Best Regards
  Andy Schmidt
 
  Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
  Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck
Schick
  Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:07 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 
  I will disagree.  I do not believe there is any comparison between
MS
 EULA
  and AOL mail policies.   I do not see AOL's actions as the
  ...internet-nazi-police 

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS

2003-12-17 Thread Andy Schmidt
Todd:

Oh I often see email that has a mail from of [EMAIL PROTECTED] - which means
nothing.  In most cases, these are bogus addresses. I can generate tons of
spam that appears to come from YOUR email address - even though you are not
a spammer.

What counts is, whether the mail was actually sent from AOL's mail servers.
When I trace the TRUE source of the email, it usually is never truly from
AOL.


Best Regards
Andy Schmidt

Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 07:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS


 SPAM from AOL accounts - hm, I have to admit that I only see an 
 (automatically selected) cross-section of spam messages with header
(which
 are routed to SPAMCOP for analysis) - but I can't remember seeing AOL
as
 an implicated party often (if ever).

I am interpreting this statement as you don't think AOL users are a source
of spam.  Here is a small sample of addresses in our kill.lst that have been
added because they send spam:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If AOL is so interested in stopping spam, they should start with their own
users!  I think that they only want to stop inbound spam because that
doesn't come from paying customers. Outbound spam, on the other hand,
shouldn't be touched (in AOLs terms) because you wouldn't want to make a
paying customer mad, would you?  Well I scan all emails, both directions.
It's a violation of our TOS to send spam and I want to stop it.

Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV  USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:18 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 Good point, they should be more accessible. That would be my biggest 
 complaint with most black-lists.
 
 As far as policies - as long as their policy is simply to follow RFCs
(or
 universally agreed recommendations, e.g. no open relays/proxies), I
don't
 see any obligation on their end to try to put everyone on notice.  The 
 RFCs were notice enough for years.
 
 SPAM from AOL accounts - hm, I have to admit that I only see an 
 (automatically selected) cross-section of spam messages with header
(which
 are routed to SPAMCOP for analysis) - but I can't remember seeing AOL
as
 an
 implicated party often (if ever).
 
 Best Regards
 Andy Schmidt
 
 HM Systems Software, Inc.
 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
 
 Phone:  +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
 Fax:+1 201 934-9206
 
 http://www.HM-Software.com/
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:09 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
 
 AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
 Declude.
 This is true.
 
 So what's the whining all about?
 1. AOL publishes a policy that they don't adhere to.
 2. The policy changes regularly.
 3. If we have a problem sending mail to them, they are unreachable. 4. 
 They are pointing fingers at us little guys as the problem.  How 
 many
spam
 have
 you received from an AOL account?
 
 I can only speak for myself, but none of those apply to me.
 
 Todd Holt
 Xidix Technologies, Inc
 Las Vegas, NV  USA
 www.xidix.com
 702.319.4349
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 10:40 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AOL and Reverse DNS
 
  Exactly, Chuck.
 
  AOL is implementing the very same checks that we are using in
 Declude.
  So
  what's the whining all about? I've been desperately waiting for
years
 for
  some of the big players to enforce standards (e.g., reverse DNS) and 
  prudent practices (e.g., no open relays, mail servers on dynamic IPs 
  have to
 relay
  through their providers).  I applaud AOL and hope Yahoo and Hotmail
 follow
  suit soon.
 
  Then I can move the Reverse DNS failures and the Open Relay and DUL
 RBLs
  from a carefully chosen weight to straight DELETE - and simply adopt 
  industry standards.
 
  If someone complains, I no longer have to defend to business
 managers,
  why
  my servers are the only ones bouncing some moron's email - because
 that
  point won't be made anymore.
 
  Even better, it will force wanna-be mail-admin's to either learn
their
  trade or to get someone do to it right. Not every tinkerer who runs 
  Windows NT/2000/XP workstation on their DSL or Cable modem at home 
  needs to
 run
  personal web services and turn on SMTP (ideally in open 

[Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread Fritz Squib
Scott,
 I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.

1:47 AM - 2:04 AM not moving at all so I copied them from overflow  spool
to another directory.

Big gap until 3:11 PM - mail is coming in faster than can be delivered.

No evidence of a dictionary attack that I've seen so far.

Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.

I'll take the standard user cop out and say I didn't change anything
('cause I didn't).

All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.

Imail 7.15 w/all hotfixes
Win2K Advanced Server
Declude Virus / F-Prot
Declude JM Pro 1.77 beta
Processor(s) running normal.

Any ideas ?

Any responses off list to fsquib at kecksburg dot net please (different mail
server), as it may take a while with the backlog of mail in the spool/queue.

Fritz

Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
Network Operations/Mail Administrator
Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
http://www.wpa.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail 
/\- against microsoft attachments

---
[This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:35 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
 
 Scott,
  I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
 declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.
 
 1:47 AM - 2:04 AM not moving at all so I copied them from overflow  spool
 to another directory.
 
 Big gap until 3:11 PM - mail is coming in faster than can be delivered.
 
 No evidence of a dictionary attack that I've seen so far.
 
 Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.
 
 I'll take the standard user cop out and say I didn't change anything
 ('cause I didn't).
 
 All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
 three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.
 
 Imail 7.15 w/all hotfixes
 Win2K Advanced Server
 Declude Virus / F-Prot
 Declude JM Pro 1.77 beta
 Processor(s) running normal.
 
 Any ideas ?
 
 Any responses off list to fsquib at kecksburg dot net please (different
 mail
 server), as it may take a while with the backlog of mail in the
 spool/queue.
 
 Fritz
 
 Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
 Network Operations/Mail Administrator
 Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
 http://www.wpa.net
 
 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
 /\- against microsoft attachments
 
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Oh geez Fritz, Scott is going to pull his hair out on this one, as he and I
just spent the day figuring out the same type of problem on a server I am
working on.

Quadripple check the DNS servers. Change to a known good other one. That
what it turned out to be in my case. Some times they returned queries fine,
other times they timed out.

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:35 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
 
 Scott,
  I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
 declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.
 
 1:47 AM - 2:04 AM not moving at all so I copied them from overflow  spool
 to another directory.
 
 Big gap until 3:11 PM - mail is coming in faster than can be delivered.
 
 No evidence of a dictionary attack that I've seen so far.
 
 Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.
 
 I'll take the standard user cop out and say I didn't change anything
 ('cause I didn't).
 
 All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
 three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.
 
 Imail 7.15 w/all hotfixes
 Win2K Advanced Server
 Declude Virus / F-Prot
 Declude JM Pro 1.77 beta
 Processor(s) running normal.
 
 Any ideas ?
 
 Any responses off list to fsquib at kecksburg dot net please (different
 mail
 server), as it may take a while with the backlog of mail in the
 spool/queue.
 
 Fritz
 
 Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
 Network Operations/Mail Administrator
 Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
 http://www.wpa.net
 
 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
 /\- against microsoft attachments
 
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread R. Scott Perry

 I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.
This will happen if E-mail isn't being scanned/delivered as fast as it is 
coming in.  In most cases, it is a DNS issue.

Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.
Is that your normal mail volume?  If not, you should check the content of 
the files to see what is happening (such as a mail loop or a user sending 
out spam).

All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.
Have you double-checked the first DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings?

   -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)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support
Hi John,

Ok, you got me...why ask about Florida?

Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory


BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:35 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

 Scott,
  I've got a little problem here, all of a sudden (as of this morning) the
 declude overflow directory is flooded with mail waiting to be delivered.

 1:47 AM - 2:04 AM not moving at all so I copied them from overflow  spool
 to another directory.

 Big gap until 3:11 PM - mail is coming in faster than can be delivered.

 No evidence of a dictionary attack that I've seen so far.

 Currently 30,927 in the overflow directory and growing.

 I'll take the standard user cop out and say I didn't change anything
 ('cause I didn't).

 All of my DNS servers are responding correctly, I've switched between all
 three that I have available with no noticeable improvement.

 Imail 7.15 w/all hotfixes
 Win2K Advanced Server
 Declude Virus / F-Prot
 Declude JM Pro 1.77 beta
 Processor(s) running normal.

 Any ideas ?

 Any responses off list to fsquib at kecksburg dot net please (different
 mail
 server), as it may take a while with the backlog of mail in the
 spool/queue.

 Fritz

 Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
 Network Operations/Mail Administrator
 Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
 http://www.wpa.net

 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
 /\- against microsoft attachments

 ---
 [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

_
[This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web]


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question

2003-12-17 Thread Hosting Support
Hi Andy,

Sure,  I'll need to package it for you, though, as the client depends on a
small amount of server-side ASP.NET/SQL 2000.  We have SQL on our mail
servers, so it's designed for that configuration.  The client only needs
internet connectivity.

I'm leaving tomorrow for the Holidays, but can package it for you when I get
back in early January.  I've been considering marketing a few of our tools
like this, so I would appreciate feedback.

I'll contact you off list when I get back.

Darin.


- Original Message - 
From: Andy Ognenoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Design Concept/Process Question


 We have a simple client app that they can run in the system tray of their
 desktop to create new email aliases with a note for each subscription.

Care to share the app?  It sounds like a really cool idea for my own use (I
don't know I want my users going crazy creating aliases.)

- Andy


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

_
[This E-mail virus scanned by 4C Web]


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread Fritz Squib
John,
 Nope, I'm in snowy western Pennsylvania.  Sprint  ATT backbone(s).

My DNS servers seem to be resolving everything OK, no warnings in the DJM
log file, same DNS server for Imail DNS and my ip4r tests.

The network guys and a consultant have been working on getting BGP up
between the two links and it's been acting kind of funky...I'll blame it on
them since I'm not responsible for that anymore.

Fritz

Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
Network Operations/Mail Administrator
Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
http://www.wpa.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail 
/\- against microsoft attachments

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory


BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You

---
[This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread Dave Doherty
Hi,

I had a similar problem a while back. There is a known and internally
documented bug that goes back several versions in IMail.

Under some circumstances, IMail loses the ability to resolve ANY dns entries
if you follow their suggestion and enter more than one IP address in the DNS
box separated by spaces. They say it is rare and they have been unable to
duplicate it in the lab so they haven't fixed it. I told them I thought they
should fix it anyway, especially since the tech admitted to knowing just
what I was talking about after making the usual suggestions to change the
NIC card. (ergo: maybe not so rare)

Anyway, the solution that worked for me was to set up a DNS server just for
IMail, and have it provide the reference to several outside name servers.
Someone here argued for doing that on the mail server itself, which is
probably a good idea, but I set up a dedicated server just for that purpose.
Sounds extravagant, I know, but I haven't had a problem since with DNS or
the queue.

-Dave Doherty
 Skywaves, Inc.



- Original Message - 
From: Fritz Squib [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory


 John,
  Nope, I'm in snowy western Pennsylvania.  Sprint  ATT backbone(s).

 My DNS servers seem to be resolving everything OK, no warnings in the DJM
 log file, same DNS server for Imail DNS and my ip4r tests.

 The network guys and a consultant have been working on getting BGP up
 between the two links and it's been acting kind of funky...I'll blame it
on
 them since I'm not responsible for that anymore.

 Fritz

 Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
 Network Operations/Mail Administrator
 Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
 http://www.wpa.net

 ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
 /\- against microsoft attachments

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
 (Lists)
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory


 BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?

 John Tolmachoff
 Engineer/Consultant/Owner
 eServices For You

 ---
 [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.




---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory

2003-12-17 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Dave, that is exactly how I over came the problem I had, set up MS DNS on
the same server as Imail in cache only mode and only for Imail and Declude.

BTW, that is also a suggestion to avoid DNS server problems, as Declude will
only use the first server listed in Imail anyways. This way, by having the
DNS service on the Imail server with multiple forwarders, you will never
have a DNS problem. 

John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Doherty
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:12 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
 
 Hi,
 
 I had a similar problem a while back. There is a known and internally
 documented bug that goes back several versions in IMail.
 
 Under some circumstances, IMail loses the ability to resolve ANY dns
 entries
 if you follow their suggestion and enter more than one IP address in the
 DNS
 box separated by spaces. They say it is rare and they have been unable to
 duplicate it in the lab so they haven't fixed it. I told them I thought
 they
 should fix it anyway, especially since the tech admitted to knowing just
 what I was talking about after making the usual suggestions to change the
 NIC card. (ergo: maybe not so rare)
 
 Anyway, the solution that worked for me was to set up a DNS server just
 for
 IMail, and have it provide the reference to several outside name servers.
 Someone here argued for doing that on the mail server itself, which is
 probably a good idea, but I set up a dedicated server just for that
 purpose.
 Sounds extravagant, I know, but I haven't had a problem since with DNS or
 the queue.
 
 -Dave Doherty
  Skywaves, Inc.
 
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Fritz Squib [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:59 PM
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
 
 
  John,
   Nope, I'm in snowy western Pennsylvania.  Sprint  ATT backbone(s).
 
  My DNS servers seem to be resolving everything OK, no warnings in the
 DJM
  log file, same DNS server for Imail DNS and my ip4r tests.
 
  The network guys and a consultant have been working on getting BGP up
  between the two links and it's been acting kind of funky...I'll blame it
 on
  them since I'm not responsible for that anymore.
 
  Fritz
 
  Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
  Network Operations/Mail Administrator
  Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
  http://www.wpa.net
 
  ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
  /\- against microsoft attachments
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
  (Lists)
  Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:08 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow Directory
 
 
  BTW, this is not on a mail server some where around Florida, is it?
 
  John Tolmachoff
  Engineer/Consultant/Owner
  eServices For You
 
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.]
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
  unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
  type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
  at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 
 
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.