today AOL thoughtfully supplied the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
host mailin-02.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.89]:
554-(RLY:B1) The information presently available to AOL indicates this
554-server is
pv of the foundational principles which made the internet
pv possible and which made it different from alternatives such as
pv OSI, very few remain.
Would SPF http://spf.pobox.com/ be a bit less destructive than many
other proposals to counter trivial forgery.
No. Nor will
On Saturday, December 27, 2003 3:23 PM [GMT-5=EST], Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway, I hope folks will stop sending automated rejection notices to
domains who were not involved, other than by forgery, in the transmission
of a virus or spam. In other words, there's relevant
This reminds me:
I'm scared to death of false positives. So much so that every email that
triggers a positive from Spamassassin (i.e. several thousand spams a day)
gets a response. It tries to be as polite as possible, both by being
good-natured in tone and by both a Precedence: bulk header
Doug Luce wrote:
I'm scared to death of false positives.
That is in and of itself scary. What on earth is there about
computers and networks (assumptions: Not connected to weapons,
weapon delivery systems or vehicles, or high-energy sources) that
would account for somebody being scared
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
today AOL thoughtfully supplied the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Did they really?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
host mailin-02.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.89]:
554-(RLY:B1) The information
