Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
The advise I've seen (iirc it was in rfc-ignorant lists) was not to allow
send the mail to abuse and non-abuse mailboxes together, e.g. when it's sent
to abuse mailbox, reject rcpt to:non-abuse mailboxes with temporary error
and vice versa.
This is what we're
Olivier Nicole wrote:
meant there
is no dns list for organizations. something like
# lookup_company_by_ip 192.0.2.1
Reverse DNS on the contacting mail gateway?
that only gives the domain name. but a single organization may have
multiple domains, and in many cases it is hard to
Olivier Nicole wrote:
The attitude goes by organisation, not by country.
On 06.11.07 08:37, mouss wrote:
we know almost all countries. I don't even know a small part of the
organizations in my own town. and there is no DNS equivalent of whois.
actually, there are DNS lists (and I don't call
But hey, that is a too big cut from Internet, so in some way it is
cultural imperialism.
Bests,
Olivier
Oliver
uu, by default, all organizations get to specifically (or not) define
network policies on their own networks.
Like it or not that is the way it is.
I don't know of too
Olivier Nicole wrote:
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the rule of law in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I
On 05.11.07 09:20, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
The advise I've seen (iirc it was in rfc-ignorant lists) was not to allow
send the mail to abuse and non-abuse mailboxes together, e.g. when it's sent
to abuse mailbox, reject rcpt to:non-abuse mailboxes with temporary error
and vice versa. The result should be,
On 06.11.07 07:57, Philip Prindeville wrote:
However, you don't want to mail to the abuse mailbox to see if it gets
delivered, and then if it bounced, mail to the OrgTech mailbox
instead... because that's too much wasted time... So you To: the abuse
mailbox on the odd chance that it
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Olivier Nicole wrote:
The attitude goes by organisation, not by country.
On 06.11.07 08:37, mouss wrote:
we know almost all countries. I don't even know a small part of the
organizations in my own town. and there is no DNS equivalent of whois.
actually, there are DNS lists (and I don't call them blacklists) who list
countries. I've seen some people reporting that they use them to block spam
from those countries...
True, GeoIP does that for example.
Olivier
uu, by default, all organizations get to specifically (or not) define
network policies on their own networks.
Exactly. Only I expected subscribers to SA list to be a bit wiser than
lambda policy designer.
Crackers go after easier targets to abuse and the rich ruleth over the poor
and so
meant there
is no dns list for organizations. something like
# lookup_company_by_ip 192.0.2.1
Reverse DNS on the contacting mail gateway?
Bests,
olivier
Do the math. 50% of the spam (if that is indeed the case) is very low,
considering that the US generates a much larger percentage of the total
Internet traffic than just half.
The 50% figure was given recently, was that by someone of ICANN or
APNIC, I don't remember.
In any case, you
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score positively...)
Sigh.
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score
Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox?
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign
ignorance to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Well, Yahoo is a waste of time for other reasons, right? They
tell you that it doesn't come from their site...
I generally don't get spam from Yahoo MTAs; most of my reporting is
of fraud spams with yahoo contact addresses.
--
John Hardin
Hi,
Between the truly clueless administrator, and those that feign ignorance
to cover up their implicit approval of spammers...
What do you do in the case where someone is filtering deliveries to
their abuse mailbox? (Like 99% of mail sent there isn't going to
score positively...)
If
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mailon45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected to
Hi,
adding to the list, I recently came across domain contacts like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(not sure about the exact domain name)
This service also refuses some mails, particularly those that are sent via
one of the mail servers of german telecom and it is operated by verisign
Wolfgang Hamann
Olivier Nicole wrote:
And not to point fingers, how to react with a narrow minded sysadmin
that ban per IP?
From my legitimate mail server in Thailand, that has never been
blacklisted as far as I know:
mailon45: telnet mail.redfish-solutions.com 25
Trying 66.232.79.143...
Connected
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the rule of law in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I doubt you ever got any spam
Olivier Nicole wrote:
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the rule of law in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I
25 matches
Mail list logo
