Re: Possible anti-spam reject host
On Fri, 31 May 2002 14:00:44 -0700, Walter Reed wrote:
>On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:19:54PM +0000, Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I have a Debian GNU/Linux potato server with exim configured.
>> I received a strange message. What can be wrong?
>> TIA, Paulo Henrique.
>>
>> > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>> >
>> > A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>> > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>> >
>> > marcos@easybr.cjb.net
>> > SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<user@mydomain.net>:
>> > host mail.otherdomain.net [otherip.otherip.otherip.otherip]: 550 5.7.1 Mail from myip.myip.myip.myip
>> refused by blackhole site dnsbl.njabl.org
>
>see http://www.njabl.org/enduser.html
/documentclass(rant)
/begin(document)
These blacklists may be more trouble than they're worth if they are used
indiscriminately. My own ISP checks negative on 31 BLs, positive on 3,
and inconclusive on 2. njabl.org, ref'd above, tests negative.
dsbl.org tests positive. I went to dsbl.org and found that they tested
positive for multi-hop and unconfirmed for single-hop. On the
multi-hop, some company in OK, a dsl customer of swbell.net, was the
actual open relayer. Obviously, swbell is going to relay his mail, no?
So why all the background info? Using this list as an example, I prefer
to send a simple compliment, thanks, or maybe an OT personal observation
directly rather than to the whole list. (If it were my thread, then a
public thank-you would be in order.) If I think someone has erred, I'd
rather comment directly in case I'm the doofus (saves embarrassment), or
to give the guy a chance to edit his own remarks without being shown up.
There are members of the list, though, that automatically bounce or
maybe just toss into the bit bucket anything and everything listed by
these BLs. I was going to say that any ISP the size of swbell.net would
have a lot of innocents, but a search of the last 4200 posts just finds
me 8-P
I have a whole sh*t pot full of filter defs. Most are pure kill
filters. Those that catch globbed names, or IP blocks, I send to my
spam directory. It is easy enough to scan the directory and pick out
the white hats that get swept up with the usual suspects. I put the
good guys where they belong and flush the rest. This gives me the
chance to white-list or edit my filter if needed.
Don't get me wrong. Anything that will hurt the spammers is a GoodThing
(tm). Black lists and such are shotgun approaches and require human
intervention to operate nicely. (I wonder how many actual spams are
caught, and from which mail servers?) One list member snidely suggested
I change ISPs to one more vigilant. Well, if you're in Dallas and you
want broadband, there isn't much choice. I suspect that many others
also have limited choices to one degree or another.
This subject has knotted my shorts from time to time for quite a while
and this thread brought out the soap box. This may be less off topic
than "The Big Book of Brewing," but I appreciate your indulgence.
/end(document)
--
gt
Everything here could be wrong--Messiah's Handbook--Bach
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: