Re: [swinog] New list for jobs
ro...@mgz.ch wrote: > well a list doesn't cost anything. > I think as well a software developer doesn't like his inbox filled up > with law or ciso tips but maybe is interessted to job offers .. and > some Tie addicted managers maybe like to offer jobs without read tech > messages ;) i would say its a enrichment to have that list. Lists may be cheap, but that is irrelevant. I second Viktors view - splitting the group too much only splits/destroys the group. Besides, a software developer who does not know how to filter SwiNOG mail into a separate folder, well ... :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (31.8°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] New list for jobs
Pascal Gloor wrote: > To answer some little unhappyness from Viktor, Per and Stanislav, > > It is to allow more offers to be posted, especially from job-agencies. > We have done this because we were asked by an agency to regularly post > on the general list and we refused. Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Perhaps the list would have been better named "jobads" :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (21.8°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Carrier Grade NAT – A Look at the Tradeoffs
Fabian Wenk wrote: > Hello > > I just stumbled over the article "Carrier Grade NAT – A Look at > the Tradeoffs" [1] (from Owen DeLong, Hurricane Electric) at Data > Center Knowledge. I hope this helps to speed up the deployment of > IPv6. I'm still waiting for iWay to provide my company with an IPv6 range on meifi.net. Dunno why it is taking them so long. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.3°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Lösung für eine SMS-Notfallalarmierung und Statuswebseite
Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2014-04-17 10:24 , Andy Christen wrote: >> Grüezi und hoi >> >> Wir suchen für unsere Firma eine Lösung für eine >> SMS-Notfallalarmierung. Leider haben wir für diese Situation kein >> passendes öffentliches Angebot finden können, >> darum gelange ich an die Swinog-Mailingliste und hoffe, dass jemand >> von Ihnen/euch eine annähernd gleiche Lösung für sich selbst oder >> Kunden im Einsatz hat. Wir versenden solche Notfallalarmen über Asterisk und das Swisscom fixed line SMSC. Alarmen werden als Emails generiert und an unser Asterisk Server weitergeleitet. Dort werden die in "smsq" Befehle umgewandelt, und als Dateien in /var/spool/asterisk/motx/ geschrieben und automatisch von Asterisk gesendet. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (11.4°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS service, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Virtual numbers for receiving SMS and voice?
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > hi all, > > I need to have a Swiss phone number which can receive SMS and voice > calls and forward them to my PBX. I know I can build a gateway with a > GSM modem, but I'd rather prefer a service from a provider. Any fixnet line with Asterisk on will also do it. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (8.7°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Virtual numbers for receiving SMS and voice?
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > Per, I propose that first you actually try it before telling. Hi Stanislav you're right, I haven't tried receiving an SMS with Asterisk yet, but do you see any reason why I shouldn't be able to receive SMS on my fixnet line (when it's been correctly set up in Asterisk) ? For the last 2-3 years, I have been getting the occasional message read out to me by Swisscom. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (9.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Virtual numbers for receiving SMS and voice?
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > well, last time I tried, it was only possible to send an SMS from a > Swisscom mobile to a Swisscom fixline. We send SMS'es every day the other way, i.e. from fixline to mobile. This is via ISDN though. > SIP providers were out of scope, and non-Swisscom GSM providers were > too. Probably it's slightly changed, but I don't see any SMS offering > from any SIP provider in Switzerland. Sorry, I missed out that this was with SIP. I've just reviewed our Asterisk config, and we do have a config for receiving SMS'es, but it's been inactive for a couple of years. I also don't see any way of distinguishing between a voice call and an SMS, but I'll have to look closer. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (9.4°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Virtual numbers for receiving SMS and voice?
Per Jessen wrote: > Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > >> well, last time I tried, it was only possible to send an SMS from a >> Swisscom mobile to a Swisscom fixline. > > We send SMS'es every day the other way, i.e. from fixline to mobile. > This is via ISDN though. > >> SIP providers were out of scope, and non-Swisscom GSM providers were >> too. Probably it's slightly changed, but I don't see any SMS offering >> from any SIP provider in Switzerland. > > Sorry, I missed out that this was with SIP. > > I've just reviewed our Asterisk config, and we do have a config for > receiving SMS'es, but it's been inactive for a couple of years. I also > don't see any way of distinguishing between a voice call and an SMS, > but I'll have to look closer. Incoming callerid == SMSC. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (9.5°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Virtual numbers for receiving SMS and voice?
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > well, last time I tried, it was only possible to send an SMS from a > Swisscom mobile to a Swisscom fixline. Have just confirmed that, yes. I tried from two other mobile providers, they didn't work, but with Swisscom it worked. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.0°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Bluewin IP blacklists ?
Does anyone happen to know which blacklists Bluewin uses to reject emails up front? One of my customers is complaining he is unable to communicate with Bluewin users: delivery temporarily suspended: host mxzhh.bluewin.ch[195.186.227.50] refused to talk to me: 451 Connection not accepted from blacklisted IP address [74.55.86.74] The IP address belongs to Webfaction.com, they would like to investigate the matter. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.4°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] IPv6 Business Conference in Zurich, June 18, 2015 - Swinog Member Discount
Silvia Hagen wrote: > Silvia Hagen > Chair Swiss IPv6 Council Hi Silvia, FYI, the website http://www.swissipv6council.ch/ seems to only show a welcome page (from iway). On many other pages I get a 404. For instance http://www.swissipv6council.ch/en/membership/register Gruss Per Jessen -- Per Jessen, Zürich (11.2°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] UPC rejecting mails as spam?
Does anyone @UPC happen to know what this means: host mx.hispeed.ch [213.46.255.2]: 552 5.2.0 rl4b1r00p3kCCMl01l4bgK automated process detected unsolicited content The email is being sent from a UPC connection, via Hostpoint (mail.hostpoint.ch) to a user @swissonline.ch. The user has tried getting an explanation from UPC, but sofar no luck. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (2.8°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] hotmail issues since 18/1 ?
Hoi zäme I have a couple of customers complaining they are unable to send emails to hotmail - typically they see rejects such as this: > 550 SC-001 (BAY004-MC5F11) Unfortunately, messages from 88.198.198.124 > weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider since part > of their network is on our block list. It doesn't affect all customers and checking our logs, it appears to have started 18/1. Prior to that we had no problems delivering outbound mails to hotmail, since then I see 149 bounces with the message above). The customers are on dynamic ranges from Swisscom, UPC and e.g. Virgin (in the UK). Has anyone seen something similar? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-0.1°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] hotmail issues since 18/1 ?
Saverio Proto wrote: > Hello, > > it could be that you problem is related to DMARC. > > big changes are coming, big email providers like gmail,yahoo and I > guess also hotmail are implemeting DMARC. Use of Strict DMARC Policies > will make this big providers reject emails. > >https://dmarc.org/2015/10/global-mailbox-providers-deploying-dmarc-to-protect-users/ The senders have not published any DMARC entries - also, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I have just tried sending mails to "postmas...@hotmail.com" from a couple of our servers at Hetzner, same error message. Other messages go through fine. (28 today sofar). /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (0.2°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] hotmail issues since 18/1 ?
Per Jessen wrote: > Hoi zäme > > I have a couple of customers complaining they are unable to send > emails to hotmail - typically they see rejects such as this: > >> 550 SC-001 (BAY004-MC5F11) Unfortunately, messages from >> 88.198.198.124 weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service >> provider since part of their network is on our block list. It is truly weird. Using the same sender and same path, one email to "some.u...@hotmail.com" is accepted, another to "postmas...@hotmail.com" is rejected. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-0.2°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] hotmail issues since 18/1 ?
Gregor Riepl wrote: >> It is truly weird. Using the same sender and same path, one email >> to "some.u...@hotmail.com" is accepted, another >> to "postmas...@hotmail.com" is rejected. > > They are probably ramping up rejection rates slowly, as suggested > here: https://dmarc.org/overview/ After I filed a support request with Microsoft, they got back to me fairly quickly and said one of our IP-ranges was "a candidate for mitigation". No other explanation offered. I don't see this being a dmarc issue at all, but some sort of internal M$ "reputation list". Thanks for everyone's suggestions! -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.0°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - dedicated server rental in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] DNS Admin tool
Kägi Adrian wrote: > Hi Swinog > I guess all of us is in touch to administrate DNS Servers. And I guess > Bind will be a popular one. In our situation, different admins, with > different skill make changes on zone files. And some guys (. I cannot > understand why.), Anyone who has not managed to work with vi, should not be let near a nameserver. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Offtopic: Servers that companies throw out? :)
Mihai Tanasescu wrote: > Hi guys, > > I am shooting an offtopic, wild question.. though I kind of guess what > the answers might be. Where are the big companies recycling / > throwing away their servers? In my experience, many servers are given to staff who subsequently sell them off on Ricardo. Many others are recycled by the supplier, maybe sold again as refurbished etc. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (22.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UPC Mailservers problems with greylisting
Mike Kellenberger wrote: > Hi > > We are seeing problems with greylisting in mails coming from UPC > mailservers. After receiving our "451 Greylisting" response, we never > see a retry of the mail again. The sender does not receive an NDR. We > have seen this behaviour from the servers at 84.116.36.xxx. Other > servers for example the ones in the range 62.179.121.xxx are retrying > correctly. > > Anybody from UPC here to help sort this out or is anyone else seeing > the same problem or is no one using greylisting anymore these days? Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only greylist dodgy-looking setups. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.2°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UPC Mailservers problems with greylisting
Viktor Steinmann wrote: > On 04.01.2017 08:54, Per Jessen wrote: >> >> Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only >> greylist dodgy-looking setups. >> >> >> /Per >> > I don't see how this approach would scale. To my knowledge, it scales quite well. We maintain a list of regex server-name patterns that we consider 'dodgy' as well as a whitelist. If a reverse lookup matches one of these patterns, we greylist. There are some more checks, e.g. on the HELO, but the reverse mapping is the main one. We run this on a cluster of some 45-46 boxes. The list of patterns is fairly stable. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (1.9°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UPC Mailservers problems with greylisting
Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Hi Per > >> Is there any point in greylisting genuine mailservers? We only >> greylist dodgy-looking setups. > > True, no point in greylisting a propper SMTP engine that does queueing > and would resend the email later in case of a 4XX error. > > But how do you find out which ip's to greylist and which not to? Hi Benoit, as I wrote yesterday, we use a fairly simple set of regex patterns to look at the reverse mapping of the server address, plus another simple set of criteria for e.g. the HELO. I'll be happy to share them with everyone. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-4.2°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Bluewin Error: Der MX-Eintrag fuer die Domaene aerni.com kann nicht verifiziert werden
Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Dear List > > Ok, thank you for the replies as they all point out an apparent PTR > Problem, let me reply to the list. > > According to my knowledge of the DNS rfcs (I did not look it up > right now). > > A Host resource may point to an A record another host resource is > already pointing to. A Host resource could also point to multiple A > records (DNS round robin). > > A in-addr.arpa resource can only point to one PTR record. In _can_ in fact have multiple, but it makes no sense and usually only the first one is used. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (3.5°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] PTR records with CNAME ?
According to RFC1034 and 2181, a PTR record using a CNAME is not permitted. I believe this to still be correct, postfix certainly doesn't work with a CNAME when it does a reverse lookup. Any comments? thanks. Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (28.6°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] PTR records with CNAME ?
Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2018-05-30 16:44, Per Jessen wrote: >> According to RFC1034 and 2181, a PTR record using a CNAME is not >> permitted. I believe this to still be correct, postfix certainly >> doesn't work with a CNAME when it does a reverse lookup. > > Postfix certainly does as: > > $ dig +short 50.131.144.213.in-addr.arpa. ptr > 50.63-28.131.144.213.in-addr.arpa. > citadel.ch.unfix.org. > > would otherwise not work and that trick of CNAME'ing in-addr.arpa > space is used a lot by ISPs to delegate space (as per the above > example where init7 forwards them to my nameservers). > > There is also a nice RFC on that: > https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt Okay, thanks for clarifying that - I was wondering. I don't why my postfixes come up with host name 'unknown'. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (28.8°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] PTR records with CNAME ?
Tobi wrote: > Am 30.05.2018 um 17:35 schrieb Per Jessen: >> Okay, thanks for clarifying that - I was wondering. I don't why my >> postfixes come up with host name 'unknown'. > > afaik postfix logs "unknown" as well if it is not a FcrRDNS means the > hostname retrieved from a PTR query should forward resolve again to > the ip address. > Yes, that is correct. Provided postfix works with a PTR with a CNAME, that bit is okay. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.1°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] emergency connection with a Huawei GSM modem ?
A customer with a flooded telephone cable is trying to re-establish the internet connection over a GSM modem - the mobile operator is Swisscom. He is not getting any inbound traffic, e.g. SMTP on port 25. I was just wondering if this might be blocked? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.3°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] emergency connection with a Huawei GSM modem ?
Per Jessen wrote: > A customer with a flooded telephone cable is trying to re-establish > the internet connection over a GSM modem - the mobile operator is > Swisscom. > He is not getting any inbound traffic, e.g. SMTP on port 25. I was > just wondering if this might be blocked? Question answered, many thanks. Customer isn't much happier, but we're working on that :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.0°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] mail.protection.outlook.com said: 451 4.7.500 Server busy. Please try again later
Does anyone have any idea what sort of rate limits are used by Office365 ? We seem to be hitting $SUBJ more and more often, so we have been scaling back delivery frequencies. It just seems a bit random and arbitrary. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.4°C) ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] Any others having troubles with mails being rejected by:mail-fwd.mx.hostcenter.com
Charles Buckley wrote: > Any good spam solution will allow customer feedback into either a > training or preferably a collaborative reporting system. This is part of the solution we offer, but in truth, only very few, perhaps a handful endusers really use the feedback facilities. I agree it must be part of a good solution, but it's not as effective and as useful as one might think. > The interface for this should ideally be closely integrated with the > capabilities of intelligent mail clients. That would be perfect, but it's unrealistic. A customer is unlikely to want to install new software on e.g. 500 or 1000 PCs to enable an easy feedback. /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Any others having troubles with mails being rejected by:mail-fwd.mx.hostcenter.com
Norbert Bollow wrote: > Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > The interface for this should ideally be closely integrated with >> > the capabilities of intelligent mail clients. >> >> That would be perfect, but it's unrealistic. A customer is unlikely >> to want to install new software on e.g. 500 or 1000 PCs to enable an >> easy feedback. > > Therefore, the interface should be standardized, and the filter > software should add a header, which provides an URL for the > interface, to messages which pass through the filter. Yes, something like that would be very good. Maybe we need to write an RFC for the "X-ReportSpam/Unwanted" header? -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Any others having troubles with mails being rejected by:mail-fwd.mx.hostcenter.com
Markus Wild wrote: >> Therefore, the interface should be standardized, and the filter >> software should add a header, which provides an URL for the >> interface, to messages which pass through the filter. > > Many mail clients (among them those of our favorite business software > vendor...) won't display Mail-Headers in any usable form, probably not > clickable anyway That's fine - the right way to treat such a header would be for the email-client to notice it, and present a special button or option for the user. Just like it reads the From: header and presents that in a nice way. But for that to happen, the "reportunwanted" header would have to be standardised first. And then accepted by the large email-client vendors ... /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Re: reportunwanted (was: Any others having troubles with ...)
Norbert Bollow wrote: > Yes -- in order to achieve the widest possible support among email > client vendors, the specification needs to be a standards-track RFC. Definitely. > Of course then the header shouldn't be an X- header, i.e. it should > be "ReportSpam:" or "ReportUnwanted:" without the "X-". Yep, agree. > I like "ReportUnwanted:" better than "ReportSpam:" because even if > the button in the email client is labelled "report spam", people > will click it for any kind of mail that they want to stop receiving, > they'll not stop to think whether the message fits any specific > definition of spam. Initially I thought the contents of this header should be a URL for accessing the filtering-providers website and report the email, but I think it would be better to have an email-address. Such that when the user clicks "Unwanted", the entire email is sent as an attachment to the address listed in "ReportUnwanted". That way the filtering provider will have all the necessary information to investigate the email, and the end user doesn't need HTTP access. Of course, we would need some sort of mechanism/authentication for preventing spammers from flooding (DoS) such a reporting address. Presumably a filtering provider would restrict the address to only receive reports from known customers' email-servers, but this will need some more thought. /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Huge retry delays in mail from Sunrise
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > We use the email greylisting policy for incoming email for us and our > customers, and it appears that often the email from Sunrise network > comes with huge delays, from several hours to several days. > > Did anyone else see such problems? > Guys from Sunrise, plase contact me directly for more details and > troubleshooting. Why bother greylisting someone who you know will be retrying anyway? Just add the sunrise mail servers to your whitelist. /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ENIDAN Technologies GmbH - managed email-security. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] dnswl.org ?
Matthias Leisi wrote: > 194.67.23.0/24 does not equal the full set of *.mail.ru hostnames. > > Similarly, dnswl.org contains three /24s for uol.com.br (see > http://www.dnswl.org/search.pl?s=3633). Now this is not a statement > that uol.com.br is all nice and cosy, but it's a statement of the fact > that the postmaster for uol.com.br told us that these are the ranges > for the mailservers (and we verified that using eg senderbase.org). > > Since such ranges are usually not as trustworthy as /32s of > well-respected mailserver operators, dnswl.org lists such ranges with > a score of "none"; for all practical reasons, this should translate > into "do not greylist, since there is most likely a legitimate > mailserver at the other end who will retry anyway". This sounds like a pretty good idea, but judging by the size of the rbldnsd file, it's not very popular? Only 4317 entries. /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Complete facilities in Basel, Bern, and Zurich
Patrick Muller wrote: > Dear Mickey, > Do you have a list of equipments and prices ? > Bst regards I'd like a copy too. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Mailout Server
Michele Capobianco wrote: > Does anybody know a Mailserver Software dedicated for Mailout? > > The idea is : > > If you send Mails to x Adresses (every Mail has his own adress) > it works like a normal Mailout server. > > If you send a Mail to 1 adress and to 1 the Server > noticed that and send the 1 in packages of (for example) > 50perHour. Something like that can be configured with postfix. I don't think it's easy though. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Re: blocking ports? (was: does Econophone block port25)
Scott Weeks wrote: > -From: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>- > : To avoid problems there, make a simple policy: if found > : spreading a virus/spamming and having disabled the blockage: > : no Internet for a week. Or a similar measure that can of > : course be lifted after paying a fine. > > Wouldn't that make customers go to another comany for service? Most probably. About three years ago, prior to us becoming a service provider ourselves, we were "just" a customer, and had to sack our provider when they decided to reduce their service by blocking port 25. Personally, I believe any and all restrictions on an internet connection must be be very clearly and very obviously stated in the product/ service description, and that is something many ISPs neglect to do. /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: AW: [swinog] Re: blocking ports?
Jonathan wrote: > Sorry but I disagree with Per. ISPs have a duty to prevent email Spam > which is a terrible curse for us all. If they decide that blocking > port 25 outbound will help then they should do it. Just for the record - I don't have any problem with ISPs blocking ports or otherwise offering a restricted service. That is something for the ISP to decide. Where I have a problem is when such an ISP does not very clearly make people aware of this - quite often such restrictions are hidden under various obscure clauses in the AGBs. > If you are a user, why can't you use the ISPs relay server? If you are > a provider you ought to have your own mail server on a fixed IP > address. In the case I mentioned, we were on a business line with a range of fixed IPs, but the blocking of port 25 was introduced over all, and the ISP refused to make exceptions, so we cancelled the line immediately (after finding a more flexible provider). /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] swisscom smsc 0622100000
Just wondering if anyone knows I need to do anything special to use the Swisscom SMSC at 062210? I'm trying to send an SMS via Asterisk, and although the connection is established, the SMSC just seems to hang up on me. /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: AW: [swinog] swisscom smsc 0622100000
Tschumi Rolf wrote: > this service goes nevertheless only with Swisscom numbers. > the system looks on the CLIP OK, I did suspect something like that - I'll have to check that I'm getting the CLIP set properly, but I am on a Swisscom line etc. I'm also trying to send an SMS to a Swisscom mobile number. Thanks Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Cablecom / chello.at plase contact me offline re your mailservers in various blacklists
Benoit Panizzon wrote: > Hello > > viefep18-int.chello.at [213.46.255.22] > > is hopelessly blacklisted. Apparenty this is the server from which > balcab.ch customers try to send emails to our customers and obviously > don't get through. One of our customers had a similar problem recently - it was solved by Cablecom instructing the customer on how to authenticate properly. Regards Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Nice to know for ISPs: Exchange 2003 SP2 Greylisting bug
Martin Blapp wrote: > We just had a case where we missed some mails from a vendor, and > those mails now have arrived with three month delay. After some > investigation we found the reason for the delay: the vendor is using > Exchange 2003 SP2, which has a known, still unfixed bug. It causes > outbound mail to domains that implement greylisting to be jailed in a > black hole until the SMTP service is restarted. I can't believe that even Exchange would be unable to do a retry - there are plenty of situations where a server might return a temporary 45x error. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Nice to know for ISPs: Exchange 2003 SP2 Greylisting bug
Martin Blapp wrote: > > Hi, > >> I can't believe that even Exchange would be unable to do a retry - >> there are plenty of situations where a server might return a >> temporary 45x error. > > The error isn't easy to reproduce. It seems that some conditions are > necessary. It might be a race condition. > > Exchange never managed it to 100% comply with the existing RFCs. That I can easily believe, but it just seems incredible that it wouldn't be able to deal with a retry. Which is why I doubt it should somehow be related to greylisting. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Fwd: You can say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard
Please sign the petition here : http://www.noooxml.org/petition/ (cookies have to be enabled for this site) /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] spamhaus.org
Roger Buchwalder wrote: > b] I don't unterstand admins who trust any lists 100% > [(I _was_ one of them) Agree - the only lists I trust 100% are my own. > c] I don't unterstand why _Spam_haus take care > [about phishing (how about Phishinghaus?) Well, maybe they're geting bored and needed to think of something else to do :-) -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] spamhaus.org
Adrian Ulrich wrote: > Blocking nic.at was not nice but refusing to delete domains just used > for phising is also not very clever... IMHO, taking any such actions purely based on the unproven statements of an arbitrary organisation would also not have been very clever. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] SMS alerting solution
Philip Iezzi wrote: > We are using sms_send from the smsclient package under Debian: > http://packages.debian.org/stable/comm/smsclient > TAP/UCP protocol, attached ISDN-Modem > We use the same. It's a little expensive if you have many SMS'es - does anyone know who to contact (e.g. at Swisscom) to get a package-deal with a direct TCP interface? /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] SMS alerting solution
Per Jessen wrote: > Yes, that would be interesting - according to aspsms.ch: > > "ASPSMS allows you to send SMS over the TCP/IP protocol from any > program that can use ActiveX/OLE components" ... > > We can't do ActiveX, but a command line php client would be quite > useful. never mind, I've just found their email interface: http://www.aspsms.com/smtp/ -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] SMS alerting solution
Patrick Feisthammel wrote: > http://www.aspsms.ch/instruction/prices.asp > > They provide also a webservice interface which is very easy to use. > A plus: reports about successful delivery of the sms. > > I can give you a perl and php client example which works with aspsms, > if you are interested. Yes, that would be interesting - according to aspsms.ch: "ASPSMS allows you to send SMS over the TCP/IP protocol from any program that can use ActiveX/OLE components" ... We can't do ActiveX, but a command line php client would be quite useful. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Skype
Xaver Aerni wrote: > Sorry Yann, > It isn't only the difference between Skype and Telco. > Whe have had internal an old TVA (mechanic). Since 1 Year we have a > Siemens Hicom system. The old is now running by my brother. and it is > working fine. (since 10 years now) > The Hicom, has everytimes problemes. Sometime the Phones doesn't ring > etc. We moved to an Aastra box just before Christmas last year. Not a big one, 10-12 extensions. Before then end of January I had shifted everything to a box running Asterisk. Far more flexible. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Eines der ersten Urteile gegen Spamer ist draussen
Xaver Aerni wrote: > Hallo, > Der Kanton Zug hat das erste Urteil gegen das Antispamgesetz > verkündet. Dabei stellte es sich auf den gesichtspunkt, dass ein > Abmeldelink alleine genügt. Auf die Punkte, das der Kläger weder eine > Einwilligung gegeben habe und auch keine Geschäftsbeziehung habe, > wurde ignoriert > > Wer interesse hat kann das Urteil selber unter > http://www.pop.ch/urteil.pdf. Ich denke das gibt ein wenig > Gesprächsstoff Has this made it to the press/news anywhere? /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Eines der ersten Urteile gegen Spamer ist draussen
Elvis Altherr wrote: > Ok i agree to fight against spammers, but this is only a fight against > windmills (it's my personel oppion) Perhaps to some degree - but in Denmark for instance, similar legislation has already led to heavy fines for a number of companies. Most recently a distributor got fined SFr5000 for sending out 5000 email invitations. (to existing or former customers). -- /Per Jessen, Zürich ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Kennt jemand das Uceprotect Spamliste
Xaver Aerni wrote: > Did someone know the http://www.uceprotect.net/en/ > I find it verry strong that they are blocking a complete AS in the > Spam list. At the Moment is the Sunrise AS Blocked. It would be more correct to say that they are _listing_ an entire AS - after all, they're not blocking anything. We use uceprotect level1 and -2, but not for blocking, only scoring. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Kennt jemand das Uceprotect Spamliste
Per Jessen wrote: > It would be more correct to say that they are _listing_ an entire AS - > after all, they're not blocking anything. It looks like Sunrise might be listed on their level3 list: This blacklist has been created for HARDLINERS. It can, and probably will cause collateral damage to innocent users when used to block email. UCEPROTECT-Level 3 lists all IP's within an ASN if more than 100 IP's, but also a minimum of 0.2% of all IP's allocated to this ASN got Level 1 listed within the last 7 days. Using that for blocking is asking for trouble. We're not even using it for scoring, although we have considered it. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Why is dedicated hosting so incredibly expensive in Switzerland?
This is probably somewhat off-topic, but some of you guys might have a hint for me. I've been researching the various offers of dedicated hosting in Switzerland, mostly looking at providers listed on providerliste.ch. Everything I have come across is not only 4-5 times the price of what we're renting right now (at Hetzner in Germany), it is also technically inferior. At Hetzner, the entry level DS3000 is a dual-core 64Bit AMD, 2Gb RAM and 2x400Gb disk. Plus 1Tb transfer-volume/month. This is available at EUR49/month. To get anything remotely similar in Switzerland I have to pay SFr300 or more per month. Given that we would need 4 or 5 such servers, colocation very quickly becomes interesting instead. Have I missed any really good dedicated server offerings? Any colocation places in or around Zurich you would recommend? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist
Daniel Kamm wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 21:46 +0100, Marco Meile wrote: >> We have some Problems with the UCEProtect.net blacklist. > > We considered UCEprotect as absolutely unreliable and unprofessional > and are ignoring listings there. And I think so are 'the big swiss > ones'. Hi Daniel, I would be interested to know why you find UCEprotect to be unreliable and unprofessional? > IMO any postmaster who blockes mails upon one blacklist entry is ... > (what was that polite description of moron?) ;) There is no shortage of incompetent postmasters and mail-admins. :-( /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist
Xaver Aerni wrote: > Wy is unproffesional, > UCEprotect is blocking AS I think this isn't proffesional. Actually, UCEprotect is not blocking anything. They only provide the means for other people to do so. Anyone who uses UCEprotect level3 have been duly warned. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist
Peter Keel wrote: > * on the Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote: >> I would be interested to know why you find UCEprotect to be >> unreliable and unprofessional? > > Because of their delisting-procedure. How many networks will end > up in there which have been sending spam at some time, but don't > ever sent spam since then, because their admins fixed the problem, > or the net got reassigned or whatever? UCEprotect level1 and -2 both include automatic delisting. Only level3 does not seem to have automatic delisting. > With UCEprotect, I estimate about 30% of their entries being > listed are such false positives, and this will of course raise > and raise.. I ran some stats on our traffic (we use UCEprotect 1,2,3) for all of october - false positives per level: level1 = 0.75% level2 = 2.06% level3 = 0.96% (we have been using level3 experimentally for the last third of october) false positive = non-spam email sent by levelX listed server. Per Jessen -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist
Xaver Aerni wrote: > Is possible in the international Trafic you have less false positives. > But here in Switzerland is it possble till 30 % false possitives > Mails. > Hello Xaver I have not looked at how much traffic we have coming from Sunrise (for example), but you're right - if we had lots of Sunrise traffic, we would also see more FPs from UCEprotect level3. From our point of view, it wouldn't change much as we only allocate 0.4 points for a level3 hit. I don't have any stats on how much international vs. how much Swiss traffic we have. Interesting question - I'll have to look into that. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist
Roger Buchwalder wrote: > If you find any provider, who block/kill Mails, they is doing a big > failure. You have to punch/slap them. Yes, I agree - however, the fact is that well-known Swiss providers do just that. My company has approached a couple of the bigger players - the answer was "we have 5 blacklists, that's all we need". /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist -- join the club
Charles Buckley wrote: > And then there is SORBS, which the ETH use, who have chosen to put the > shared server I use for mail on a blacklist for some reason. mail.mauto.com is indeed listed by sorbs - I would check that your server hasn't been compromised. Look for traces of an ssh brute force attack perhaps. > Everyone is going crazy about security, so you're likely to see a > proliferation of providers offering to maintain blacklists, who will > do it badly. There is already plenty of such lists - I don't think the number is likely to grow a awful lot. > Much better would be to let the users determine what is spam and what > is not, getting the ISP out of the role of having to play judge on a > topic they don't master. Nah, leave the spam-filtering to us :-) The user and the ISP both have better things to do. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist -- join the club
Per Jessen wrote: > Charles Buckley wrote: > >> And then there is SORBS, which the ETH use, who have chosen to put >> the shared server I use for mail on a blacklist for some reason. > > mail.mauto.com is indeed listed by sorbs - I would check that your > server hasn't been compromised. Look for traces of an ssh brute force > attack perhaps. Uh, sorry - I overlooked that you said "shared". Well, according to SORBS, the server got listed because mail was sent to a spamtrap on 13 August. It could be one of your co-sharers ... if I were you, I'd talk to q-x.ch, and ask them what they're doing about it. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] RE: SORBS (was: UCEProtect Blacklist -- join the club)
Charles Buckley wrote: > But, just as Sunrise, they are not willing to pay the fee to SORBS to > change the status on the list. Instead, they have offered to set up a > SMART host for me, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure how that would change the situation unless they'd also change the IP-address - but never mind. > these issues by finding ways to protect from SPAM that don't involve > hiring a bunch of self-appointed busybodies to strategically > misinterpret actions and blackmail money out of people who add value > by creating arbitrary sets of losers. Are we talking about mature > individuals here? The SORBS people or the mail-admins who use them? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] VoIP
All, I've got a guy working from home in his house in France, not far from Basel. I think he has an ADSL line with wanadoo.fr. He's connected to our exchange over VoIP using SIP. Last week the line quality was perfectly fine, but starting yesterday it's been terrible. I looked at a traceroute, and it appears that his connection from wanadoo.fr to our line (easynet) is routed via UK, New York, London and Frankfurt, which produces awful delays. For the moment, I've asked easynet support to help, but I was just wondering what you guys would do with a case like this? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] UCEProtect Blacklist (Update)
Markus Wild wrote: > UCE Protect is one of those lists who suffer from a very odd sense of > reality.. whoever uses that list to protect his mail servers must be > aware that he'll get a lot of false positives (ie.valid mail won't get > thru). No-one is likely to use uceprotect level3 to block emails, but they might very well use it for scoring. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] poor routing and VoIP latency issues
Mario Iseli wrote: > Hi list :) > > Please try to use more significant subjects for the threads here... ACK. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] cybernet/swisscom - anti-spam measures and blacklists
Is anyone else getting emails rejected by cybernet/Swisscom with this message: 2007-11-14T09:54:49+0100 louiswu72 postfix1/error[8302]: 1FD0D2B0FA: to=, relay=none, delay=2.4, delays=2.4/0/0/0.01, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mail.-.ch[212.90.199.8] refused to talk to me: 421-We are not currently accepting connections from 88.198.198.123. 421-Reason for temporary block: sending us spam 421 Please try again later. We're terminating this connection now.) /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] cybernet/swisscom - anti-spam measures and blacklists
Andre Keller wrote: > Per Jessen schrieb: >> Is anyone else getting emails rejected by cybernet/Swisscom with this >> message: >> >> 2007-11-14T09:54:49+0100 louiswu72 postfix1/error[8302]: 1FD0D2B0FA: >> to=, relay=none, delay=2.4, delays=2.4/0/0/0.01, >> dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host >> mail.-.ch[212.90.199.8] refused to talk to me: 421-We are not >> currently accepting connections from 88.198.198.123. 421-Reason for >> temporary block: sending us spam 421 Please try again later. We're >> terminating this connection now.) >> >> >> >> /Per Jessen, Herrliberg >> > > This looks like greylisting to me... Though the text could be more > specific... Yes, I thought so too - does anyone know if cybernet/swisscom introduced greylisting last night around 2200? (that's when the problem started). /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] cybernet/swisscom - anti-spam measures and blacklists
Per Jessen wrote: > Yes, I thought so too - does anyone know if cybernet/swisscom > introduced greylisting last night around 2200? (that's when the > problem started). This isn't greylisting - our customer who is hosted by cybernet has not received a single email since last night at 2156. They're not very happy. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] cybernet/swisscom - anti-spam measures and blacklists
Andre Keller wrote: > I just wondering why you block with temporary error? When you'd block > with 5xx Error the customer would be informed after he sends the mail > that it wasn't delivered... With 4xx Error he knows not until approx 4 > days after he sent the mail. That seems not to good in my eyes... In this case it's actually very good. A 5xx reject in this case would have caused far more problems. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] cybernet/swisscom - anti-spam measures and blacklists
Markus Wild wrote: > This is not gray listing (it would say so if it were), that IP address > did send SPAM to us, and got temporarily blacklisted for it. You can > contact me privately to sort out the specifics ([EMAIL PROTECTED], or > [EMAIL PROTECTED], in order of preference). Problem solved, but I forgot to say thanks to Markus for his valuable help. Thanks Markus. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] zyxel 2802 as bridge
Flavio Tischhauser wrote: > On Nov 21, 2007 7:56 PM, Silvan Gebhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> hello swinog >> has anyone collected experience with a zyxel 2802 ROuter used as >> modem (mode "bridge")? >> >> I can't get it to work, with routing it finally works, but as bridge >> with my old good pfsense it won't work >> > > Have you tried contacting studerus support? They are very fast and > extremely helpful. Yep, Studerus is good, but Zyxel is not always so good. Not always - I've been waiting for more than three years for a permanent fix for a Zyxel ADSL router. :-( /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Recommendations for root server providers
Flavio Tischhauser wrote: > I can also highly recommend hetzner. You can do almost everything on > your own using their services, like rebooting (in various ways, > including hard reset), installing new linux images etc. If for some > reason your server fails to get the network up after booting, you can > use their "rescue system" (netboot from their servers) and fix > everything yourself. The only time you really need their support is > when the hardware fails or you need a remote console (LARA) installed > to fix your bootloader (free!). I can also recommend Hetzner. > In my experience they outperform many of the "professional providers" > at a fraction of the price. Absolutely. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] gprs01.swisscom-mobile.ch. - 193.247.250.1
Is swisscom mobile going to do something about this? This address is listed by four different blocklists - abuseat, spamcop, sorbs and uceprotect. According to spamcop: "In the past 89.6 days, it has been listed 37 times for a total of 50.0 days." /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] gprs01.swisscom-mobile.ch. - 193.247.250.1
Benoit Panizzon wrote: > They know perfectly well that masses of spam are being sent via gprs > and that their ip is well blacklisted. I was pretty certain that was the case. Thanks. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] green.ch rogue?
Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Hello everyone, > > we (AS12816, LRZ Leibniz Computing Centre Munich, a regional network > for scientific and educational entities in the Munich area) are being > hit by regular spamruns originated from 80.253.80.0/24 for several > months now. This network belongs to We have seen the same throughout November, but nothing since 30nov. > Unfortunately they are not listed on major RBLs yet because most of > them seem not to accept submissions but rather rely on their own > spamtraps. > I've done some survey among the DENOG users and found that while some > of the users have no hit at all, other destinations are heavily > targetted. Users outside of the german speaking area don't seem to be > affected at all. I'm trying to find a way to submit them to Spamhaus > (which we have a paid feed for), but this might take some time. We use greylisting, which took care of all of it. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Perhaps you don't know that i took over the UCEPROTECT-Project in > June 2007, so if you had any problems with UCEPROTECT some > years ago, then you had differences with my predecessor and not with > me. > > Many things have changed here since i am responsible for the project. It does seem somewhat problematic that you would list someone for having a poorly configured auto-responder. How does that fit in with the blacklist policy for Level1? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: > This has been a known problem for a long time already: > http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=gpstechnik.ch&submitted=1033063711&table=abuse > > Sometimes I'm tempted to use rfc-ignorant.org as a blacklist. I know you won't, but be careful anyway - whois.rfc-ignorant also lists 165 TLDs (.dk, .de, .eu ...) due to "no WHOIS server or incomplete data in server". /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Some of you might agree with this
I have just read and signed the online petition: "Use free standards" hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/lortow3/ I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] Some of you might agree with this
Robert Bertschinger wrote: > Per, > > What kind of subhect line is that??? On the first sight it looks just > like a typical, meaningless Spam-Subject line ... > > Anyway, thanks for the link and yes I do agree :-) Hi Robert (and everyone) I didn't want to offend anyone here - not everyone agrees with open standards etc. /Per ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Problems reaching large Websites
Mike Kellenberger wrote: > Hi all > > Anbody else having problems to reach large websites, such as > www.microsoft.com or www.dell.com? Problems in or to the akamai > network? I've been unable to get to www.dell.ch since sometime yesterday at least. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: AW: [swinog] Problems reaching large Websites
Mike Kellenberger wrote: > was ok a few minutes ago, now the problem is back... > Access to dell.ch, ikea.com and sf.tv are now all fine from here (easynet). /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] sms_client originator patch
Andre Keller wrote: > Hi swinoggers > > I'm searching for a possibility to set the originator in sms_client... > (somewhere in ucp.c i asume). > > I saw in the mailinglist of smsclient, that Per Jessen wrote about > that in August 2004. Are these patches still around? Yep, I've still got it somewhere. Give me a couple of minutes to find it. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] sms_client originator patch
Per Jessen wrote: > it's a very simple patch: > http://jessen.ch/files/smsclient-originator-patch Correction: http://jessen.ch/patches/smsclient-originator-patch /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] sms_client originator patch
Per Jessen wrote: > Andre Keller wrote: > >> Hi swinoggers >> >> I'm searching for a possibility to set the originator in >> sms_client... (somewhere in ucp.c i asume). >> >> I saw in the mailinglist of smsclient, that Per Jessen wrote about >> that in August 2004. Are these patches still around? > > Yep, I've still got it somewhere. Give me a couple of minutes to find > it. Andre, it's a very simple patch: http://jessen.ch/files/smsclient-originator-patch Just change the "from" to whatever number you need. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] sms_client originator patch
Per Jessen wrote: > it's a very simple patch: > http://jessen.ch/files/smsclient-originator-patch Wow. That was obviously a very sought-after patch. Since my posting, my weblog has about 60 unique IP-addresses for just this patch :-) /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] anyone from netstream (netvs.ch) listening here?
We've got a customer whose emails (from other people but filtered by us) are frequently being rejected by Netstreams harsh SPF-check. I've asked Netstream to add our servers to their whitelist, but nothing has happened. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] anyone from netstream (netvs.ch) listening here?
Per Jessen wrote: > We've got a customer whose emails (from other people but filtered by > us) are frequently being rejected by Netstreams harsh SPF-check. I've > asked Netstream to add our servers to their whitelist, but nothing has > happened. I was just wondering - 1) how many of you guys use SPF to reject emails when the SPF-check returns '-all' ? 2) have a list of exceptions for the above? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] anyone from netstream (netvs.ch) listening here?
Daniel Roethlisberger wrote: > Per Jessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-02-05: >> We've got a customer whose emails (from other people but filtered by >> us) are frequently being rejected by Netstreams harsh SPF-check. >> I've asked Netstream to add our servers to their whitelist, but >> nothing has happened. > > As a more generic alternative, you could implement SRS in order to > handle forwarding in an ``SPF compliant'' way. This will fix the > problem for all receivers which use SPF for scoring or rejection. We have been thinking about SRS for a while - I'm wondering if SRS is "safe" for mailservers that don't implement SPF/SRS? (I'll do my research anyway, but just in case you know right away). /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] anyone from netstream (netvs.ch) listening here?
Per Jessen wrote: > We have been thinking about SRS for a while - I'm wondering if SRS > is "safe" for mailservers that don't implement SPF/SRS? (I'll do my > research anyway, but just in case you know right away). Looking at the status of libsrs2, I'm not very impressed. Also, we're a postfix site, and postfix seems to be very poorly supported wrt SRS. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] VDSL/Zyxel P2802 HWL not "strong" enough for a small company LAN?
Olivier Mueller wrote: > > I see no traffic peaks, just these disconnects... > If it's any help to you - we've also been seeing many disconnects in the last 1-2 weeks. Not on VDSL, just plain ADSL. Typically every day we would have 3-4 quick disconnects during the night, then maybe a few in the morning too. It has stopped since the weekend I think. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Delayed mail delivery from swissptt.ch ?
On inbound delivery from swissptt.ch, we're seeing an increasing number of of timeouts (both mrz.swissptt.ch and mrp.swissptt.ch) - anyone else seeing the same thing? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Has Bluewin a DNS Problem
Franco Hug wrote: > Step 1: > == > Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78), > which returns the following: > > # nslookup >> 195.141.232.78 > ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode. > Server: www.multipop.ch. > Address:195.141.232.253#53 > > 78.232.141.195.in-addr.arpa name = mailhost.aa795.ch. > 78.232.141.195.in-addr.arpa name = mailhost.aerni.net. plus another 20 hosts This is a silly reverse setup. A reverse lookup should only return one hostname, not 20. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] Has Bluewin a DNS Problem
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote: > ... >> This is a silly reverse setup. A reverse lookup should only return >> one hostname, not 20. > ... > > Well, tend to agree. > > What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very unhappy > as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems acting with > some SC subsidiaries...) which high rate valid messages if certain > brain-dead conditions like PTR not matching MX don't match? Trying to work around them with a dodgy DNS setup is not the right course of action, IMHO. > If this approach works out, it could be considered. It is not illegal. Correct - it's just silly and it doesn't work as expected. 1) a properly working resolver library will return multiple records rotated once for every lookup, so you're never guaranteed to get the same answer to a reverse lookup. 2) most applications, e.g. mail-servers, that do reverse lookups do not expect more than one reply, and will always only process the first one. > It's just against what we are used to over the last 20+ years. Plus it doesn't work. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Environnemental monitoring
Olivier Beytrison wrote: > And you, what do you have in your datacenters ? Any hints to some > other good products ? We use a simple, but very effective setup of an army of two-wire sensors (for temperature e.g. DS18x20 from Dallas/Maxim), all hooked up to a tiny PIC board with a serial interface. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
RE: [swinog] Has Swisscom (TDK Sunrise) problems with DSL in RegionHinwil
Quentin Carpent wrote: > We had the same problems few week ago after a SC upgrade on a BRAS > (Lausanne). Some customers CPE were no more compatible and we had to > change / upgrade their CPE... That was the only solution. > Do you have any more info on this? What kind of CPE? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Blacklisted for fixed to mobile SMSes
Jon Martin wrote: > I'm using sms_client to send alarm SMSes from my monitoring system to > mobile phones. I don't know what happened but it seems our analog > phone line is now blacklisted and the Swisscom SMSC is no longer > accepting our SMSes. The only similar thing I've seen was this: May 15 03:40:09 [23459] : Dialing SMSC 0794998990... May 15 03:40:14 [23459] WARNING: read() Timeout May 15 03:40:40 [23459] : Connection Established. May 15 03:40:40 [23459] : SMSC Respsonse: 01/00079/R/01/N/04/ Not accepted - Maximum messages for the address exceeded/A1 May 15 03:40:40 [23459] ERROR: Message rejected May 15 03:40:40 [23459] : Hangup... May 15 03:40:43 [23459] : Hangup... May 15 03:40:43 [23459] : swisscom Service Time: 34 Seconds May 15 03:40:43 [23459] WARNING: Could not deliver message 0 to on 0796423985 delivery code 170 /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] name-server slowdown?
Starting Monday this week, we've seen a significant delays and timeouts on our upstream name-servers. We saw something similar on our Hetzner servers, but it seems to have gone away now. Has anyone else seen/experienced name-server issues in the last 2-3 days? I know about the BIND patch from last week, could that somehow be involved? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] name-server slowdown?
Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:44:46AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: >> Starting Monday this week, we've seen a significant delays and >> timeouts >> on our upstream name-servers. We saw something similar on our >> Hetzner servers, but it seems to have gone away now. Has anyone else >> seen/experienced name-server issues in the last 2-3 days? >> >> I know about the BIND patch from last week, could that somehow be >> involved? >> > > Not sure if this is your problem but the bind patch was released > mostly untested. The new mode allocates tons of filedescriptors and > fails in various freaky ways. The result is delayed resolving and > various other failures plus an increased load on the nameserver > itself. Thanks, that sounds very possible - I'll have to check with the guys running the upstream servers. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Anyone from Green here?
One of my customers has just been told he needs to pay to get a DNS reverse map entry for thei Green ADSL line with fixed IP. Is that really true?? /Per Jessen, Herrliberg ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
