Re: Searching for Paul Johnson
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:58:18 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
<snip>
>
>Your system rejects mail from me. I hope it reached you by way of
>154837-done@bugs.
>
>Incidentally, following the link in the mail delivery error message, the
>open relay test on tungsten.btinternet.com was performed from a host on
>BT's own ADSL network! No wonder the test mail was accepted. You might
>want to check if this blackhole list is often polluted in this way.
I've had the same rejections. In my case it was a multi-hop relay
through an ADSL customer of swbell.net. This is a prime argument
against unattended bounce. If Paul (and others using BLs) were to
monitor the hits they get and determine that a significant number of
*real spammers* were using a particular relay path, then fine--bounce
away. My personal experience is that I've had only 1 or 2 come via
swbell in the last year. And, they were not spoofed open relay stuff.
(What can we do about these chain-letter-ponzi-scheme idiots? I really
hate to filter on the body.) I have no filters targeting swbell or its
IP block.
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=5.0
> tests=URI_IS_POUND,RCVD_IN_MULTIHOP_DSBL,
> X_RCVD_IN_UNCONFIRMED_DSBL,FUDGE_MULTIHOP_RELAY
> version=2.31
Unconfirmed (tester?) and multi hop hits should never be arbitrarily
bounced. It is a waste of bandwidth in most cases, and usually impolite
to boot.
--
gt kk5st@swbell.net
If someone tells you---
"I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny."
---they don't.
Reply to: