Mr. List Mail User, your efforts in this respect are ridiculous, now
your are resurrecting long dead bodies. I can't believe that you read this
document and still believe it could have any relevance to this. Wow.
1. this is what rfc-editor.org says about 954:
RFC0954
NICNAME/WHOIS K.
...
On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken:
No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken.
snip
And this is not the
List Mail User wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 23:02:21 -0700 (PDT):
DeNIC does not follow this protocol;
1. there's nothing which backs your claim, *nothing*.
2. example is an example and nothing else. You should know that. There are
also special
words in RFCs which clearly define mandatory
On Friday 26 May 2006 15:53, List Mail User took the opportunity to write:
Kai,
There doesn't seem to be any language barrier, so either you refuse
to read and follow the RFC trail yourself, or you require spoon-feeding.
What about RFC1032, page 5
VERIFICATION OF DATA
List Mail User wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 06:53:36 -0700 (PDT):
What about RFC1032, page 5
RFC 1032 is not authoritative in any way. It never was a standard, it doesn't
define anything about the whois protocol. If you think so it's wishful thinking.
This RFC is not obsolete, and make quite
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:31:16PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100:
After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed,
still broken:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3912.txt
And *where exactly* does this
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100:
After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed,
still broken:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3912.txt
And *where exactly* does this RFC say that the whois input and
...
From: Kai Schaetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:52:39 +0100:
After some research, I came to the conclusion that .de is, indeed,
still broken:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3912.txt
And *where exactly* does this RFC say that the whois
Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700:
Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even though I
like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, these two
create too many false positives.
You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org lists,
On Thursday 25 May 2006 17:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write:
Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700:
Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even
though I like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level,
these two create
Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf. Even
though I
like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level, these
two
create too many false positives.
You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org lists, they list whole TLDs
just
because they don't like
On 25 May 2006, at 16:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Mike Jackson wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:44:17 -0700:
Personally, I have those two rules zero-scored in my local.cf.
Even though I
like RFCI, and use their bogusmx and dsn lists at the MTA level,
these two
create too many false positives.
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken:
No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken.
whois something.de
[Querying whois.denic.de]
[whois.denic.de]
% Copyright (c)2004 by DENIC
% Version:
Magnus Holmgren wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:01:19 +0200:
[...], however 'entire TLD'-based domains return a different result code in
the A record (127.0.0.7 versus 127.0.0.5) so as to allow sites to
differentiate between them.
That is not of interest at all. The problem is they list TLDs
You cannot trust any of the rfc-ignorant.org lists, they list whole TLDs just
because they don't like something about them. These lists go by personal
taste than any other.
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=something.de
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-whois.php
On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to write:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally broken:
No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken.
snip
And this is not the
On 25 May 2006, at 20:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally
broken:
No, *your* whois client is outdated and broken.
Agreed, it works in a later version.
snip
And this is
On 25 May 2006, at 21:54, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Thursday 25 May 2006 21:31, Kai Schaetzl took the opportunity to
write:
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:07 +0100:
.de does not have a working WHOIS server, that's fundamentally
broken:
No, *your* whois client is
Jamie L. Penman-Smithson wrote:
(RFC)
open TCP (SYN) --
(SYN+ACK) -
send query SmithCRLF
get answer Info about SmithCRLF -
More info about
On May 24, 2006, at 3:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster
address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get
trigerred for these tests
0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
I believe the requirement is not just that the
.
-Sietse
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 24-May-06 12:01
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster
address, why do mails from
Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster
address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get
trigerred for these tests
0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
Because it's listed on both of those lists at rfc-ignorant.org:
mail server
admins even block mail coming from there by default.
-Sietse
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 24-May-06 12:01
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: false scoring for DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
Event though hotmail.com
that info was indeed good!
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Mike Jackson wrote:
Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster
address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get
trigerred for these tests
0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
Because it's listed on both
Event though hotmail.com domain has a abuse address and a postmaster
address, why do mails from hotmail.com domain get
trigerred for these tests
0.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
1.4 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
Regards
Padma
ERNET Helpdesk
25 matches
Mail list logo
