Mike Kenny wrote:
On 11/9/06, *Jim Maul* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This
is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution.
Is it even a solution? I guess that depends o nwhat the
On 9-nov-2006, at 16:17, Randal, Phil wrote:
As someone has probably already pointed out... admins use these
lists because they trust their accuracy. If they receive too
many complaints (as we did with a particular DNSBL) you stop
blocking on that list and move to only scoring.
No, you move
Chris Santerre wrote:
This isn't the best idea for a large ISP, but for companies I see no
problem
rejecting on RBLs when you have a trained administrator.
I agree! Not that I use spamcop as a blacklist, maybe it's better now but
I've seen them blocking mailservers from aol, hotmail and
Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you received an advertisement.
You obviously don't handle a lot of mail volume. If I had to scan every
D.J. wrote:
Blocking mail base soley on the IP address (whether because it is a
dynamic address or has at some time in the past sent a mail to a
spamtrap) is akin to shooting the postman because yesterday you
received an advertisement.
You obviously don't handle a lot of mail
As someone has probably already pointed out... admins use these
lists because they trust their accuracy. If they receive too
many complaints (as we did with a particular DNSBL) you stop
blocking on that list and move to only scoring.
No, you move on to greylisting based on the less
Jim Maul wrote:
I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs. This
is not the point. The point is, its not a very good solution.
Why I have to use RBL's at the MTA level is because many providers still
allow direct SMTP.
So all the botnets can send their garbage
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:55 -0800, Derek Harding wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to block outright on the spamcop BL deserves whatever
they don't get.
Sorry for the delay. I need to apologise for the short temperedness of
my response. I should have tempered my response and been more helpful.
My
On 11/9/06, Jim Maul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think pretty much everyone understand WHY people use these BLs.Thisis not the point.The point is, its not a very good solution.Is it even a solution? I guess that depends o nwhat the problem is. If the problem is the volume of mail passing through
On 11/7/06, Derek Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary W. Smith wrote: Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month?I just now received this for messages from October 26th.Who cares?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 209.209.82.24 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable;
Gary W. Smith writes:
Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received this
for messages from October 26th.
Yes. Turn off use of bl.spamcop.net, it's FP'ing on about 25%
of mail last time I checked, including ASF mail.
--j.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
209.209.82.24 does not like
out.
-=B
From: Mike Kenny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:15 AMTo:
users@spamassassin.apache.orgSubject: Re: mail bounce warning for the
list
On 11/7/06, Derek
Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Gary
W. Smith wrote: Was the SA group listed by spamcop last
Rose, Bobby wrote:
So what you're saying is that the rule that people running listservers
should maintain valid recipients who want to receive messages from the
list shouldn't be followed just because it's a list about an antispam
product? The last time I checked, the most common reason for
Title: RE: mail bounce warning for the list
Alright, I'll reply to this.
I outright block using RBLs, and spamcop is one of them. Here's the deal:
Senders get a response of the messege being blocked! It is also logged.
The amount of legit mail anually blocked can be counted on two
@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Don't use bl.spamcop.net (Re: mail bounce warning for the
list)
Gary W. Smith writes:
Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received
this
for messages from October 26th.
Yes. Turn off use of bl.spamcop.net, it's FP'ing on about 25%
of mail
Rose, Bobby wrote:
I believe the correct process here is that the moderators of the SA
listserver investigate why the listserver got listed on Spamcop. If it
is a case where there are addresses to spamtraps in the list, then maybe
the list needs to send out opt-in verification messages to
Mike Kenny wrote:
On 11/7/06, Derek Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary W. Smith wrote:
Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received
this for messages from October 26th.
Who cares?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
209.209.82.24 does not like recipient.
Remote host said:
Gary W. Smith wrote:
Was the SA group listed by spamcop last month? I just now received
this for messages from October 26th.
Who cares?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
209.209.82.24 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host
[140.211.11.2] blocked using
18 matches
Mail list logo
