On 23.06.2015 08:44, Paul Stead wrote:
On 19/06/15 18:46, Axb wrote:
and if you run a local NS BL: ns1.alpnames.com
Some of these domains look legit, not sure about sources of spam, mind?
maybe, possibly, probably...
a NS BL entry can add a score - doesn't have to be poison pill.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:11:27AM +0200, Axb wrote:
serious sites won't stick to that NS anyway.
And private sites should not be sending e-mail anyway?
Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On 19/06/15 18:46, Axb wrote:
and if you run a local NS BL: ns1.alpnames.com
Some of these domains look legit, not sure about sources of spam, mind?
anyhuman.digital. 86400 in ns ns1.alpnames.com.
cricket.global. 3600in ns ns1.alpnames.com.
gib.website.
On 23.06.2015 09:18, Marc Selig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:11:27AM +0200, Axb wrote:
serious sites won't stick to that NS anyway.
And private sites should not be sending e-mail anyway?
Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
have you missed the point?
If someone wants to
On 19 Jun 2015, at 13:46, Axb wrote:
On 19.06.2015 19:42, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No offense to lepers, but is .science to be avoided? I’ve had
email this week from about 17 different .science domain names, and 13
were blocked because of ZenBL and the rest turned out to be SPAM
anyway.
On 21/06/2015 06:46, Bill Cole wrote:
Nope. None of the recent crop of new gTLDs has been the source of measurable
legitimate mail. The .science sewer is the latest in a steady stream of gTLDs
to be poisoned by spammers taking advantage of an inherently irresponsible
registry business
for convenience, postfix SA TLD-blocking snippets together:
in postfix
/etc/postfix/main.cf
...
smtpd_sender_restrictions =
...
+ check_sender_access pcre:/etc/postfix/reject_TLDs.pcre
permit_mynetworks
, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500
Registered Linux User No: 307357
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Ben Koetter [mailto:p...@sys4.de]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 10:23 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: .science the new leper of TLD's?
* Philip
* Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com:
No offense to lepers, but is .science to be avoided? I’ve had email this
week from about 17 different .science domain names, and 13 were blocked
because of ZenBL and the rest turned out to be SPAM anyway.
I’m thinking that I should
No offense to lepers, but is .science to be avoided? I’ve had email this week
from about 17 different .science domain names, and 13 were blocked because of
ZenBL and the rest turned out to be SPAM anyway.
I’m thinking that I should just refuse connections from any host whose rDNS is
.science…
On 19.06.2015 19:42, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No offense to lepers, but is .science to be avoided? I’ve had email this week
from about 17 different .science domain names, and 13 were blocked because of
ZenBL and the rest turned out to be SPAM anyway.
I’m thinking that I should just refuse
On 19/06/15 18:46, Axb wrote:
On 19.06.2015 19:42, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No offense to lepers, but is .science to be avoided? I’ve had email
this week from about 17 different .science domain names, and 13 were
blocked because of ZenBL and the rest turned out to be SPAM anyway.
I’m
12 matches
Mail list logo
