On 21/10/2007, at 7:22 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
Blocking 25/TCP is acceptable, blocking 587/TCP is not - it is
designed for mail submission to an MSA, so serves little use for
spam, save when a spammer has detected an open mail relay listening
on
Jim Popovitch (yahoo) writes:
If there can be weeks long discussions on 240/4 or ipv6,
240/4 and ipv6 is on topic.
why not at
least a day or two of remembrances from everyone on what Abha did for
the community as well as ways she might have helped you?
Because Abha would
If something comes that is not whitelisted then email is sent
back asking you to confirm that it is not spam. I received one of these
confirmation requests for a piece of spam that I did not send out.
Whenever I get one of those, I go ahead and confirm the message so the spam
gets through to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
It's not just mail. These days the mantra seems to be only allow port
80 and 443 through, the users don't need anything else. specially in
situations you cite (public wifi, hotel nets etc.). In these cases, i
believe even ssh won't go through.
On 10/21/07, D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If something comes that is not whitelisted then email is sent
back asking you to confirm that it is not spam. I received one of these
confirmation requests for a piece of spam that I did not send out. I
complained to them that this was
Possible scenario...
Subscriber bandwidth caps are in theory too high, if the ISP can't support it --
but if the ISP were to lower them, the competition's service would look better,
advertising the larger supposed data rate -- plus the cap reduction would hurt
polite users.
In the absence of
On 10/22/07, William Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you publish SPF records so that remote sites can detect forgeries
claiming to be from your domain?
In other words Do you play russian roulette with your email?
John Levine's got something really good on this at
7 matches
Mail list logo
