On 26 October 2011 05:44, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Mike recommends a tactic that leads to idiot hotel admins doing bad things.
You bet I'll criticize it for that.
His mechanism breaks things anyway. I'll criticize it for that too.
Just to clarify, I was merely pointing out a
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Deric Kwokderic.kwok2...@gmail.com wrote:
Our upstream provider said that destination network is blocking our ip.
Now my question is how we can know it
you can't really, if they do things right. (Aside from just not getting there)
Have you tried contacting
My point exactly, I am perfectly happy authenticating and relaying
through either my MX at the office or with Google's SMTP server. But I
just can't do that if SMTPoSSL ports are blocked by some lazy net
admin.
And I definitely hate it when I have to pay (in terms of delay and
overhead) the price
In a perfect world we would all have as many static globally routed IP
addresses as we want with nothing filtered, in the real world a
residential ISP who gives their customers globally routable IPv4
addresses for each computer (ie. a CPE that supports multiple
computers without NAT)
On 25 Oct 2011, at 09:34, Tim tim...@progressivemarketingnetwork.com wrote:
This sadly is very common. It is getting more common by the day it seems but
this practice has started almost a decade ago.
An easy work around is to use a custom port as they seem to just block port
25 as a bad
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Keegan Holley
keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo providers
don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only) customers.
Yes, hosting. I did indeed misspeak.
Hello
I run a few Wordpress sites here and there, but I'm amazed at the
amount of spam that comes from xsserver.eu's clients. Their abuse
department is non-responsive: they do not even have auto responders to
emails and the offending IP addresses keep spamming weeks after my
email.
I have CC'd
We provide service to about 1,000 public schools and libraries in the
state of Maine.
For those users, we block SMTP (port 25 only) traffic unless it goes
through our smarthost for incoming mail, and our mail-relay for
outgoing mail.
Otherwise we would be constantly ending up on blacklists, as
2011/10/25 Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
- Original Message -
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo providers
don't provide active network for colo (as in power and rack only)
customers.
Most?
I'm sure
- Original Message -
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
- Original Message -
From: Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com
I'm assuming colo means hosting, and the OP misspoke. Most colo
providers
don't provide active network for colo (as in power and
On Oct 24, 2011 7:55 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
You can even download it all and erase yourself
if
you want out.
Don't count on it. You may 'disappear' from public view, but that does
not necessarily mean the data is truely 'gone'.
From: steve pirk [egrep] st...@pirk.com
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:24:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Facebook insecure by design
On Oct 24, 2011 7:55 AM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote:
You can even download it all and erase yourself if
you want out.
Don't
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12:33AM -0400, Chris wrote:
Before somebody screams the path of least resistance of just install
Akismet or (insert spam plugin here), that type of thinking just
makes spam even worse because we just keep large, possibly stale,
databases of IP addresses that may or
For folks who do not understand, I'm trying to McColo XSServer so
their lack of response in regards to abuse is gone rather than the
suggestions of scripting (guess you didn't read the full text of the
email) or you pushing a product on me because you work for the ISP
that the product is hosted
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 19:24:23PM -0600, Owen DeLong wrote:
Firewalls are perfectly valid and I have no general objection to
filtering packets based on the policy set by a site. What I object to is
having someone I pay to move my packets tell me that they won't move
some of those packets
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12:33AM -0400, Chris wrote:
Does anyone have any recommendations of where to go next because I'm
just limited to doing a whois on the IP address, emailing the abuse
contact and tracerouting.
Chris,
Can't help much - but can say we find ourselves in a similar boat.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
system integrator -- I've never seen an in house network run like that.
(and for the record, they were charging for
On our retail footprint we block outbound traffic from customers with dynamic
IPs towards port 25, our support tells them to use their ISP's port 587
server That being said, since all of our home users have 50 mbit/sec or
greater upload speeds we are pretty paranoid about the amount of
All,
After a fantastic meeting in Philadelphia we're getting ready to provide you with another content rich
meeting at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego. Registration is now open for the meeting, and you can
take advantage of the Early Bird Registration Discount and save $75 by
In message op.v3y8xvo6tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
system integrator -- I've never seen an in
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:47:03 -0400
Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote:
For folks who do not understand, I'm trying to McColo XSServer so
their lack of response in regards to abuse is gone rather than the
suggestions of scripting (guess you didn't read the full text of the
email) or you pushing a
Jack Bates wrote:
I'm curious if anyone has a pointer on traffic manipulation for
classified traffic.
Basics, I have a really cheap transit connection that some customers are
paying reduced rates to only use that connection (and not my other
transits). Though I've considered support for
Anyone using a CACHEbox? I need to know if they can operate as a layer 2
bridge/proxy.
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Oct 2011, at 23:13, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message op.v3y8xvo6tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd
On our retail footprint we block outbound traffic from customers with dynamic
IPs
towards port 25, our support tells them to use their ISP's port 587 server
That being said, since all of our home users have 50 mbit/sec or greater
upload
speeds we are pretty paranoid about the amount of
On 27/10/11 11:11, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message op.v3y8xvo6tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have to ask them. Or more accurately, you'd need to ask their
system
McColo and Atrivo were disconnected for much larger sins than spamming
someone's wordpress blog.
Many of you do not understand the scope of just spamming a Wordpress blog.
This is a huge business. Shady SEO companies are charging
individuals at least $250 per month to use their spam tools of
In message 4ea8a021.9000...@blakjak.net, Mark Foster writes:
On 27/10/11 11:11, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message op.v3y8xvo6tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:52:46 -0400, Alex Harrowell a.harrow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why do they do that?
You'd have
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Now most people don't care about this but you shouldn't have to get
a business grade service just to have secure email sessions and if
you want to run a SMTP server to do that you are not changing the
amount of traffic going over
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.comwrote:
Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
user.
MAAWG have considered this a best practice for residential/dynamic
On 10/26/2011 10:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddi...@gmail.comwrote:
Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
user.
And it's not just 25.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
days...
to-local-domain, no auth needed.
relay, auth needed.
auth required == TLS required.
Anything else on either port seems not best practice
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
days...
to-local-domain, no auth needed.
relay, auth needed.
auth required == TLS required.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:22:53 -0400
Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote:
McColo and Atrivo were disconnected for much larger sins than
spamming someone's wordpress blog.
Many of you do not understand the scope of just spamming a Wordpress
blog.
I do understand the scope of shady SEO companies.
34 matches
Mail list logo
