Re: email server
On Sun December 13 2009, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I've received spam to my inbox from all the ranges below. Liquid Web
> has 8 ranges assigned by ARIN, and I've received spam from four of them.
> I don't f*ck around when it comes to spam coming from no-name web
> hosting companies. I usually smtp block their entire set of ranges post
> haste. They're _web_ hosting companies. Any email they emit is going
> to be from hobbyists (you) or, most often, spammers. I insta-block VPS
> companies and the like after the first spam I receive from their IP
> space. Why leave the door open for such outfits? No legit email is
> ever going to come from them, just spam and network level attacks.
except mine?
> Just
> about every OP on the spam-l list has perma blocked the Amazon EC2 cloud
> due to spam. Same for the RackSpace cloud services, although I think
> they've started to clean that up.
I don't know what I singed up for, but my email amount of S P A M has gone
through the ROOF in the last few weeks!
I used to send 5-10 emails A DAY to smapcop, but then I got to thinking that
maybe MY emails out would classify ME as a spammer, so I stopped.
>
> Colo a server with a reputable ISP. That's the best way to host your
> own mail. If that's to expensive for your taste, host it at home on a
> business class dsl line. You usually get a static IP or 5 depending on
> the provider, and the better ones allow you custom PTRs for your IPs. A
> matching PTR/hostname goes a _LONG_ in preventing rejections. I'm
> currently hosting my Lenny/Postfix MX server on a residential adsl line
> with a static IP, and I have a generic PTR. So far I'm not seeing any
> deliverability issues--I've been lucky. ;)
my ISP is Atlantic Nexus, atnex.net , NOT AT&T/Comcast, or roadrunner.
They also can give me a static IP if I ask for one. Atlanta is the nearest
place that does colo, and that is 1 1/2 hours & 80 miles from me, not real
convenient. I'd rather just do it from home.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Reply to: