Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

Joe Acquisto-j4 skrev den 2013-05-06 22:16: And how, exactly, is a sender to determine someone read an email one has sent? there was something last year that was called rfc-ignorant.org :) if one of there listed domains wanted to be unlisted thay must reply to a link sent to ab...@listed.exam

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

John Hardin skrev den 2013-05-06 18:08: Sorry, I was assuming that abuse-alert@ was being offered *instead of* rather than in addition to abuse@ no need to sorry, there is alot of admins that assume the same, only rule is to start with abuse@ If there is a working abuse@ address that *isn'

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

Neil Schwartzman skrev den 2013-05-06 14:58: Disagreed. So long as abuse@ is working, the domain is compliant with RFCs. There is nothing wrong with having an alternate address, particularly since abuse@ tends to garner a ton of spam. problem is to know what email to "spam" abuse reports to, n

RE: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

Chris Santerre skrev den 2013-05-06 17:27: 10 days and still being abused badly. Recommending for everyone to just refuse any .pw time for spamhaus ? :=) for those wanting an SA rule, here: header PW_IS_BAD_TLD From =~ /.pwb/ describe PW_IS_BAD_TLD PW TLD ABUSE score PW_IS_BAD_TLD 3 here i

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On 06.05.13 16:16, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: And how, exactly, is a sender to determine someone read an email one has sent? Seems to me, the best one can do is be satisfied with no DSN. That's why I wrote "if it's visibly ignored, trashed, dropped" (according to old explanation of D.J.Balling in

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

And how, exactly, is a sender to determine someone read an email one has sent? Seems to me, the best one can do is be satisfied with no DSN. joe a. . Chiming in here, the 'abstract' of the same RFC clearly states: This specification enumerates and describes Internet mail addresses (m

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

Hello, We have an email address ab...@registry.pw in place. The mails sent on this email address will be processed within 24-48 hours, which is our SLA. However, if an email is sent on abuse.al...@registry.pw and abuse.al...@directi.com, it reaches to us directly on our mailboxes and it will be t

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On 06-05-13 19:55, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > > > On May 6, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas > wrote: > >>> On May 6, 2013, at 9:08 AM, John Hardin >> > wrote: If there is a working abuse@ address that *isn't being ignored*, they

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On May 6, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> On May 6, 2013, at 9:08 AM, John Hardin wrote: >>> If there is a working abuse@ address that *isn't being ignored*, they're >>> compliant. > > On 06.05.13 09:55, Neil Schwartzman wrote: >> heh, i don't think 'don't ignore' is part

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On May 6, 2013, at 9:08 AM, John Hardin wrote: If there is a working abuse@ address that *isn't being ignored*, they're compliant. On 06.05.13 09:55, Neil Schwartzman wrote: heh, i don't think 'don't ignore' is part of the RFC, but yeah. well, if it clearly is not working, it's not complian

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

heh, i don't think 'don't ignore' is part of the RFC, but yeah. On May 6, 2013, at 9:08 AM, John Hardin wrote: > If there is a working abuse@ address that *isn't being ignored*, they're > compliant.

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On Mon, 6 May 2013, Neil Schwartzman wrote: On May 5, 2013, at 7:04 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Sun, 5 May 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote: John Hardin skrev den 2013-05-05 22:44: abuse-alert on any domain is not rfc compliant Agreed. Disagreed. So long as abuse@ is working, the domain is com

RE: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

10 days and still being abused badly. Recommending for everyone to just refuse any .pw for those wanting an SA rule, here: header PW_IS_BAD_TLDFrom =~ /\.pw\b/ describe PW_IS_BAD_TLDPW TLD ABUSE score PW_IS_BAD_TLD3 Change score to whatever you want. Enjoy. --Chris

Re: .pw / Palau URL domains in spam

On May 5, 2013, at 7:04 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Sun, 5 May 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote: > >> John Hardin skrev den 2013-05-05 22:44: >> >> abuse-alert on any domain is not rfc compliant > > Agreed. Disagreed. So long as abuse@ is working, the domain is compliant with RFCs. There is noth

Problem with virtual config dir and variables not expanding

I'm running postfix + dovecot + spamassassin and I achieved to get everything working except make spamassassin understand that I'm using virtual users and because of that it should create user_prefs files for each user (as in, in each user's dir) rather than using a single file. That's what my sys