Re: Anyone willing to relay for me for a price?
Here is some helpful info;
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/index.html
http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/
WARNING! Blatant flame ahead! Danger Danger!
The real problem is that you are a second class Internet citizen because
you don't have a "business class" service, which means a T1, E1, or greater.
Angry? Good, you should be. I am.
I have similar problems with mail servers that do reverse DNS SMTP
session checking. Short of paying for a T1 at $800 USD a month, there
is no way that I can get an IP allocation with reverse DNS delegation so
that I can make my mail server's MX record match up with the PTR record.
I live in a major metropolitan area with over 1.3 million inhabitants
within the United States, and I can't get an ISP to give me an IP
allocation unless I blow major money for "business class" service. As
Jesse Jackson would say, "It's a grrrrrrave injustice!" =)
I am fortunate enough that my ISP's DHCP lease is very stable, the
netblock is not marked as a Dial-up/DSL/Cable net, and they do not
perform any port filtering. Unfortunately, my ISP's staffers are brain
dead and don't even know what reverse DNS delegation is. Hell, even
their own MX record does not match up with their PTR (orlandotelco.net).
They probably suffer from the same problem that I do. How funny and
yet maddening.
Reverse DNS checking for SMTP sessions is a good idea in theory, but in
practice, it just makes you a Bastard Operator From Hell (BOFH) and gets
you false positives for spam filtering.
Anyway, pardon my rant.
Chris Evans wrote:
What a horrible question?!
Situation: I have run a postfix/spamd-SA/RAV/ecartis based Email list
service (confirmed opt in, never redistributed a spam in some years
now). It runs off a box at home through British Telecom broadband
and is low volume (the lists concern psychotherapy and psychotherapy
research: my day job, and are run for some charities). Since
22.vi.03 AOL have started refusing my smtp traffic (with a 4.0.0
message so I didn't find out for some days). Netscape are doing
same.
Turns out when I finally get a British Telecom supervisor on the
phone to complain that I get no response to my complaints to them by
Email, that AOL are moderately well justified in doing this because
it seems that BT ran open relay for some time (he says not since last
November which sounds untrue but even that seems unbelievably
stupid). Since mine is a BT IP address I'm blocked and I would be if
I relayed through BT's server. (Though they'd like to charge me more
for the priviledge of doing that now they've understood relaying and
clamped it down -- rightly -- 'cos they do it by domain name as well
as IP address and ... aargh .... you get the picture).
So I'm looking for a Debian (since I like Debian!) ISP, ideally in
the UK, who would be willing for me to relay for psyctc.org,
atprn.org, atprn.org.uk (all on 217.34.100.194, coming out through
198). I've got a shorewall firewall, RAV scanning for virii (but
probably ditching that something else now they've joined M$!) and
spamd-SA-razor doing antispam and loads of other antispam from
postfix. Total traffic is 682k messages out in just under a year
according to mailgraph, it says max ever was 1012 mssgs/min and mean
1.6 msgs/min. Most are very small, basic Email list traffic. My own
traffic contains occasional large (16Mb record I think) stats and
presentation files.
Not a lot of money for this as I do it as a gesture for the charities
but I am willing to pay something if anyone is willing and will quote
me. I can either relay everything or just aol & netscape for now. I
will take relaying out if things settle down.
Anyone willing to offer, please contact me off list:
chris@psyctc.org.
TIA,
Chris
PSYCTC: Psychotherapy, Psychology, Psychiatry, Counselling
and Therapeutic Communities; practice, research,
teaching and consultancy.
Chris Evans & Jo-anne Carlyle
http://psyctc.org/ Email: chris@psyctc.org
--
# Jesse Molina
# Mail = jesse@opendreams.net
# Page = page-jesse@opendreams.net
# Cell = 1.407.970.0280
# Web = http://www.opendreams.net/jesse/
Reply to: