Not a chance.
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
On 2/7/11 1:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36
-0500 Michael Scheidellmichael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote: because
HELO doesn't match RDNS. On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
On 2/7/11 1:28 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidellmichael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
It's also
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
On 01.02.11 09:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
It's also violation of all SMTP RFCs (former and current),
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 Danita Zanre,
Am 2011-02-01 07:30:19, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Thats interesting, because my Courier-MTA does it to and it does not
bounce a singel message from this list
Hello Giles Coochey,
Am 2011-02-01 15:46:05, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Personally, rejecting a message on the basis of a single criteria is
pretty harsh. You don't need to be the RFC-police to catch nearly
all spam and I'm sure that rejecting on a single issue or dubious
fact will
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,
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Default Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address: 193.79.237.39
hermes.apache.org
Server: cache0201.ns.eu.uu.net
Address:
* Danita Zanre dan...@caledonia.net:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Enforce how exactly?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre dan...@caledonia.net wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:30:19 -0700
Danita Zanre dan...@caledonia.net wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
The irony is that you think that's a good idea.
-- David.
Not sure. If our mail servers
On 01/02/2011 15:43, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Personally, rejecting a message on the basis of a single criteria is
pretty harsh. You don't need to be the
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
because HELO
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell rramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
We add a
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdell rramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
Microsoft Windows is very common, but that doesn't make it
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdellrramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should reject your email if you
On 01/02/2011 15:49, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:34 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 01/02/2011 15:30, Danita Zanre wrote:
Messages from this list have been bouncing since I started enforcing
Reverse DNS lookups on my server.
Danita
Why???
Received: from mail.apache.org
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:49:36 -0500
Michael Scheidell michael.scheid...@secnap.com wrote:
because HELO doesn't match RDNS.
Rejecting on that basis would also cause tons of false-positives.
Regards,
David.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 2/1/11 9:49 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:43:40 -0500
Randy Ramsdellrramsd...@activedg.com wrote:
Not sure. If our mail servers did not have reverse, we would be
rejected all over the place. Seems like a common setting. Or is it?
so we should
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
At 03:21 PM 9/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
J, I think the unfortunate
Thomas Cameron wrote:
I dunno, I thought the mention of the Army Corps of Engineers and
pumping in the same message as a lose weight message was pretty funny
as well...
Hmm.. Mil-spec liposuction? Ouch.
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
... and on top of that, they spammed our abuse address.
(Links to spammer site deleted.)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:45:40 +0500
From: Nadia Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: abuse
Subject:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bart Schaefer writes:
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
...
At 03:21 PM 9/11/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
The choice of anti-bayes-filler below is unfortunate on so many levels
nasty. but unsurprising -- I've always thought that news/current events
would make the best bayes poison -- certainly beats 19th century
prose
J, I think the unfortunate
System Attendant wrote:
Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
Place = ; mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com;
users@spamassassin.apache.org; ; mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Sender = Kris Deugau
Subject = [Mimedefang] Re: Frustration...
Delivery Time = November
35 matches
Mail list logo
