Jeremy Kister wrote:
Hi Matthew,
I highly appreciate your time in replying to my emails. I further
appreciate you removing 64.115.0.0/16 from the sorbs duhl.
One of my partners in crime sent the first email (via web-form) to sorbs on
April 6th. On april 10th, I repeated. both were addressed from
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Speaking about whitelistingcomp.mail.sendmail google
> link...Reproduced below..
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sendmail+whitelist+dns&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=ac4e9990.0311250514.65c4e614%40posting.google.com&rnum=9
ok...you'v
Jeremy Kister wrote:
I became aware that just about all of 64.115.0.0/16
In this same email, I also stated:
1. exactly which 64.115 networks were dynamic
Ok now I have settled into another night of fixing things... I see no
mails from yourself in the ticketting system which indicate dynamic
r
Matthew Sullivan wrote:
You will note my post before Christmas about the up and coming
whitelisting mechanism - I am still collecting details for people
wanting to use it - unfortunately for a variety of reasons the
whitelisting mechanism is still not ready to go public.
Yours
Matthew
Sp
Jeff Kell wrote:
Jeremy Kister wrote:
[... giant snip ...]
We are a former user of SORBS. Our issue was not that of dynamic IPs,
but rather their spamtrap listings. A few weeks ago, at least two of
Comcast's legitimate mail servers was blacklisted. As Comcast has a
majority of the cable serv
In case you didn't know, SORBS admins do populate this list from time to
time, so I might be worth going through a few things...
Jeremy Kister wrote:
I became aware that just about all of 64.115.0.0/16, a network that I (among
others) run, has been listed as "dynamic ip space" in sorbs as of Apr
Jeremy Kister wrote:
[... giant snip ...]
We are a former user of SORBS. Our issue was not that of dynamic IPs,
but rather their spamtrap listings. A few weeks ago, at least two of
Comcast's legitimate mail servers was blacklisted. As Comcast has a
majority of the cable service in our area, w
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> telling them they were mistaken. Finding no documentation on how they
> deem networks "dynamic" or "static" I changed my rDNS scheme from
> ppp-64-115-x-x to 64-115-x-x Note to all: "ppp" in no way signifies
> dial-up; we run ppp over almost every circ
I became aware that just about all of 64.115.0.0/16, a network that I (among
others) run, has been listed as "dynamic ip space" in sorbs as of April 2nd.
On
April 6th I sent my first email (via web-form) to sorbs telling them they
were
mistaken. Finding no documentation on how they deem networks
