On 03/02/2011 22:51, Adam Moffett wrote:
That's an interesting point of view. It was suggested on this list
fairly recently to publish a fake secondary MX as a way to reduce
spam. The stated reason being that some spamming software hits the
backup MX first and if that doesn't work will
On 2/4/11 4:54 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
to use it for an IP address that is allocated and is controlled by you. O
I think the ip of your router might work. as long as
a) you never have an ip on it
b) you don't load 'hits' on it to dshield.
your dns server, the ip of your outbound nat (as long
Le 03/02/2011 22:51, Adam Moffett a écrit :
That's good. The only useful list (BogusMX) can be discovered without
querying rfc-ignorant anyway. Just get the MX records for the sending
domain (which are almost certainly in cache) and make sure they resolve
to real IP addresses.
We reject
On 2/2/2011 7:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
RFC Ignorant is deep into kook territory, as should be apparent if you
look at which RFCs they expect people to follow, and what their
definition of follow is.
abuse.net has been listed for years, since there is an autoresponder
on ab...@abuse.net, and
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:42:27 -1000
Warren Togami Jr. wtog...@gmail.com wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6526
We finally agreed that rfc-ignorant.org is useless, or slightly more
harmful than good. Spamassassin will be disabling these rules by
default sometime
That's good. The only useful list (BogusMX) can be discovered without
querying rfc-ignorant anyway. Just get the MX records for the sending
domain (which are almost certainly in cache) and make sure they resolve
to real IP addresses.
We reject domains that publish MX records in 127/8 or the
Ha! I tried posting some log lines and they
got rejected because of SURBL hits! :)
Here goes again... remove the capital X from domain names and IP addresses :)
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:51:15 -0500
Adam Moffett adamli...@plexicomm.net wrote:
That's an interesting point of view. It was
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
The battle raged for a while, but eventually we were delisted.
(We block mail from to postmas...@roaringpenguin.com because we never,
ever send mail from postmas...@roaringpenguin.com)
We do the same for postmas...@columbia.edu for the same
RFC Ignorant is deep into kook territory, as should be apparent if you
look at which RFCs they expect people to follow, and what their
definition of follow is.
abuse.net has been listed for years, since there is an autoresponder
on ab...@abuse.net, and I've never noticed any delivery problems.
Hello David F. Skoll,
Am 2011-02-01 10:02:50, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
The battle raged for a while, but eventually we were delisted.
(We block mail from to postmas...@roaringpenguin.com because we never,
ever send mail from postmas...@roaringpenguin.com)
Hmmm, if you could know,
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:52:04 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
[204.89.241.253] mail from:
250 OK
rcpt to: ab...@caledonia.net
550 Missing, invalid or expired BATV signature
A long time ago, I was involved with an argument with the RFC-Ignorant
maintainer. The
11 matches
Mail list logo
