On Sat, February 21, 2009 19:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Very well, but you're also using a RBL with a known high risk of
blocking nonspam email.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=verizon.net
your small isp should really have power enough to solve the
On 21.02.09 13:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
It seems clear to me that policies with false positives of up to 50% of
their hits are acceptable to you, so the 0.4% false positive rate of the
HELO message should be acceptable to you.
rfci is acceptable for me on my mail server, while
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I really wander why did you want to send me the mail privately. Do
youreally think It does not belong to this list?
On 24.02.09 07:50, Matt Kettler wrote:
*shrug*.. again, it's very clear you don't want my help.
Sorry, no wanting direct mail and not wanting
On Tue, February 24, 2009 13:50, Matt Kettler wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I really wander why did you want to send me the mail privately. Do
youreally think It does not belong to this list?
*shrug*.. again, it's very clear you don't want my help.
please unsubscribe, we dont need a
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, February 24, 2009 13:50, Matt Kettler wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I really wander why did you want to send me the mail privately. Do
youreally think It does not belong to this list?
*shrug*.. again, it's very clear you don't want my
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On Tue, February 24, 2009 13:50, Matt Kettler wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I really wander why did you want to send me the mail privately. Do
youreally think It does not belong to this list?
*shrug*.. again, it's very clear you don't want my help.
please
On Tue, February 24, 2009 16:20, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ummm Did you just ask Matt to unsubscribe?? He's one of the
developers. I think most of us would prefer that he stick around...
:)
he one of the dumpest developpers to ? :)
if he really is then make a CC: spam stopper into the next
On Wed, February 25, 2009 00:03, mouss wrote:
what do you exactly mean?
why did you cc me here ?
sorry but i dont get it :/
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Ummm Did you just ask Matt to unsubscribe?? He's one of
the developers. I think most of us would prefer that he
stick around... :)
--
Bowie
maybe Hardin will lend them each some guns and they can duke it out on the
range or something
;-)
- rh
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, February 24, 2009 13:50, Matt Kettler wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I really wander why did you want to send me the mail privately. Do
youreally think It does not belong to this list?
*shrug*.. again, it's
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
So, please, can we *finally* drop that topic?
If anyone new to the list happens to Cc you, just tell him. And
everything should be ok.
+1.
Benny, if you are so violently opposed to the normal format of this
list, I, in all seriousness, suggest you consider
SA jello wrestling?
:)
--
John Hardin
Hardin,
SA jello wrestling?
now that is just sick. [sic]
...just not wanting to imagine a bunch of over caffinated computer geeks
rolling in jello...
Now, on the other hand, *jdow* and friends in jello might be much more
interesting for
At 23:16 21-02-2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
why does a smtp server have dynamic hostname alike in the first place ?
What is a dynamic hostname?
Regards,
-sm
On Sat, February 21, 2009 19:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Very well, but you're also using a RBL with a known high risk of
blocking nonspam email.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=verizon.net
your small isp should really have power enough to solve the above
listning very easely,
On Sun, February 22, 2009 09:15, SM wrote:
What is a dynamic hostname?
you dont know it either ?
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On Sat, February 21, 2009 02:38, mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my
entire ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
probably a rule that considers vms173007pub.verizon.net as a
dynamic
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On Sat, February 21, 2009 12:32, mouss wrote:
rejecting because HELO does not match violates RFC. case open.
I said invalid. a bare IP is invalid in helo, and has been since
822.
just use all helo rules that postfix can do pr default is better
gives the answer on
Benny Pedersen a écrit :
On Sat, February 21, 2009 19:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Very well, but you're also using a RBL with a known high risk of
blocking nonspam email.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=verizon.net
your small isp should really have power enough to solve the
At 01:20 22-02-2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
you dont know it either ?
The term dynamic hostname is used in intermediate system routing.
Regards,
-sm
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Sat, February 21, 2009 19:11, Matt Kettler wrote:
Very well, but you're also using a RBL with a known high risk of
blocking nonspam email.
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=verizon.net
your small isp should really have power enough to solve
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
complain back to.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but
should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm rejecting mail from
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
If there were two rules checking for exactly the same thing, both scoring
2.5 (we'd wonder if they has different score, right?), their combination
would score 5.0, while meta rule matching both of them would get -2.5.
Can someone please try to do
meta
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
complain back
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 21.02.09 12:18, mouss wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
[snip]
Are
- iol.cz
- telenet.cz
- hotelulipy.cz
the same organisation?
if not, this is direct to MX junk.
...your presumption that the Received: header is the only one is false.
I didn't presume that. I was only looking at that one Received
On Sat, February 21, 2009 02:38, mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my
entire ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
probably a rule that considers vms173007pub.verizon.net as a
dynamic name...
why does a smtp
On Sat, February 21, 2009 12:32, mouss wrote:
rejecting because HELO does not match violates RFC. case open.
I said invalid. a bare IP is invalid in helo, and has been since
822.
just use all helo rules that postfix can do pr default is better
gives the answer on this one
if i remember
Hello,
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Received: from 88.102.6.114
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Received:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Received:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:11:42 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 20.02.09 08:56, Matt Kettler wrote:
Why is a bogous HELO being generated in the first place? i.e.: why
is an address literal used, but not the correct address literal?
I guess this happenns for hosts
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
Fix your own domain's over-zealous behaviors first.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just
Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've received e-mail that received score 4.9 just because of the same
problem - invalid HELO.
* 2.8 RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH Received: HELO and IP do not match, but should
* 2.1 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
probably a rule that considers vms173007pub.verizon.net as a dynamic
name...
Fix your own domain's over-zealous behaviors first.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:19:30 +0100
mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
$ host 88.102.6.114
114.6.102.88.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer 114.6.broadband7.iol.cz.
Are
- iol.cz
- telenet.cz
- hotelulipy.cz
the same organisation?
if not, this is direct to MX junk.
BTW. which
mouss wrote:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
probably a rule that considers vms173007pub.verizon.net as a dynamic
name...
No, rejecting anything listed
On 20.02.09 19:26, Matt Kettler wrote:
Since you're bouncing any off-list emails because you reject my entire
ISP, I'm going to drop out of aiding on this matter.
I'm not rejecting your ISP. I'm rejecting mail from addresses I could not
complain back to.
Fix your own domain's over-zealous
40 matches
Mail list logo
