Craig McLean wrote on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:30:03 +:
craig.dnsalias.com is a dynamic DNS domain provided by dyndns.com.
Ok, I see. There's no good reason to reject such a domain by it's name.
In my case, my IP is supposedly dynamic, in that it's in a dynamic
range, but in reality hasn't
Craig McLean wrote on Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:51:46 +:
I *subscribed* with a dyndns-style address in
a dynamic space, then couldn't *unsubscribe* it because the list bounced
everything. This was even when using my ISPs SMTP relay smarthost-style.
I don't know what a dyndns-style address is.
Jim C. Nasby wrote on Sun, 25 Dec 2005 21:21:23 -0600:
Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be
extremely fast so that MTAs could use it while an email is inbound. That
would allow (for example) hitting a number of RBLs and scoring them,
instead of using a single
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Craig McLean wrote on Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:51:46 +:
I *subscribed* with a dyndns-style address in
a dynamic space, then couldn't *unsubscribe* it because the list bounced
everything. This was even when using my ISPs SMTP
Jim C. Nasby a écrit :
Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be
extremely fast so that MTAs could use it while an email is inbound. That
would allow (for example) hitting a number of RBLs and scoring them,
instead of using a single RBL as a go/no-go decision.
look
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +:
I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get
a dynamic address unsubscribed
You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP
From: Craig McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +:
I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get
a dynamic address unsubscribed
You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP space?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:32:57PM +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Well, ressource-wise it makes a difference if you run a million mails thru
SA or if you can unload 90% at MTA level and run only the remaining 100.000
thru SA.
Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be
Hence my suggestion for a version/option on SA that was meant to be
extremely fast so that MTAs could use it while an email is inbound. That
would allow (for example) hitting a number of RBLs and scoring them,
instead of using a single RBL as a go/no-go decision.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database
Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +:
I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get
a dynamic address unsubscribed
You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP space?
Honestly, and not meant to be offensive, but if you do that
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
Craig McLean wrote on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:02:47 +:
I'll disagree with you here, I have had to contact the list-owner to get
a dynamic address unsubscribed
You mean an address for which you sent email from dynamic IP space?
Honestly, and not meant to be
You are all speculating. No one knows why or if the original poster can't
unsubscribe. And, frankly, it was the first posting of this kind I've ever
seen. It's not a problem at all.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
You are all speculating. No one knows why or if the original poster can't
unsubscribe.
I'll agree with that, to a point.
And, frankly, it was the first posting of this kind I've ever
seen. It's not a problem at all.
I'll
-Original Message-
From: Craig McLean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 December 2005 16:03
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
You
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Hepworth wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Craig McLean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 December 2005 16:03
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: I'm afraid I might have to report this list as a spam source
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see, it does not allow me to unsubscribe.
It's ezmlm, so you can just reject all messages from the list and it will
unsubscribe you :-)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:55:21PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see, it does not allow me to unsubscribe.
Some goofball running the SA list (or a server front-end for the
list) decided to 100% block on incoming email to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim C. Nasby writes:
BTW, this email is a great example of why it's a horrible idea to filter
mail based on an RBL. It's surprising to me that the SA lists aren't
just run through SA. Spam making it past that is a good indication of
where SA
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:58:24AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
However, as an Apache project, we're hosting our lists at apache.org, and
they get *insane* quantities of spam, viruses, and blowback -- far too
many for the hardware to cope with, without upfront DNSBL use, apparently.
It's not
Selon Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, as an Apache project, we're hosting our lists at apache.org, and
they get *insane* quantities of spam, viruses, and blowback -- far too
many for the hardware to cope with, without upfront DNSBL use, apparently.
sure, but:
- [philosopical]
You see, it does not allow me to unsubscribe.
Some goofball running the SA list (or a server front-end for the list)
decided to 100% block on incoming email to the list with the SORBS dynamic
IP list (which is high false positives).
Now, the problem is, and what makes this list now a spam
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:59:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you sign up to a list that won't let you unsubscribe, isn't that one of
the key indicators of spam? I know that will get you a block at most all
major ISP systems these days real quick, which would probably be hard to
get
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 06:59:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you sign up to a list that won't let you unsubscribe, isn't that one of
the key indicators of spam? I know that will get you a block at most all
major ISP systems these days real quick, which would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here is my dilemma. I can't unsubscribe from the other account
(this list has it blocked as I described), and there is no alternate
method presented in the emails from the list (such as a weblink to
opt-out).
From the headers:
list-unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, here is my dilemma. I can't unsubscribe from the other account
(this list has it blocked as I described), and there is no alternate
method presented in the emails from the list (such as a weblink to
opt-out).
From the headers:
Matt Kettler wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the headers:
list-unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you're saying mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is blocked for all IP addresses in SORBS?
If they're using the SORBS RBL at the MTA layer, yes.
Most MTA layer RBL checks don't even
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see, it does not allow me to unsubscribe.
Some goofball running the SA list (or a server front-end for the
list) decided to 100% block on incoming email to the list with the
SORBS dynamic IP list (which is high false positives).
I hardly think that a list that you have to go through a three-step process
to be put on would qualify as spam, even if you've had difficulty getting
removed (and by difficulty, I mean you made one weak attempt at
unsubscription, then came in here to throw a public childish fit without
asking the
28 matches
Mail list logo
