internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Gregory Woodbury <ggw AT wolves.homeip.net>
- To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
"It was written once upon a time (by David Minton):"
> On 6/12/03 2:31 PM, "Steven Champeon" <schampeo AT hesketh.com> wrote:
>
> > 4) sendmail rulesets - started bouncing all mail sent direct from a
> > dialup,
> > cable modem, or DSL line using 100+ different patterns.
>
> I've been considering doing this as well. What is everyone's opinion on
> blocking incoming mail from dynamic IP ranges? There are probably
> Internetworkers running mail servers at home off residential class broadband
> access. Is it reasonable to bounce your mail in an effort to reduce SPAM
> hitting my mailbox?
Well, that depends on you, of ccourse, but I'm getting pretty sick of
not being able to use direct-to-MX delivery from my machine. For most
of my email I have do use the ISP outgoing mail server, so now
everything is going through them.
Did anyone else see the "Thank Spammers" thread in
news.admin.net-abuse.email last month? Wm James gives a well
articulated rant about the changes that spammers have wrought in email
behaviour over the years. I can put it up on the web if folks want to
see it. MessageID=<7jes6vca30nrdanhs21s29n1ikti4qef6b AT 4ax.com>
--
Gregory G. "Wolfe" Woodbury `-_-' Owner/Admin: wolves.durham.nc.us
ggw at wolves.durham.nc.us U
"The Line Eater is a Hug your wolf.
Boojum Snark"
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
, (continued)
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
zman, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Beckett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, burnett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
zman, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
[internetworkers] spam headache,
Michael Best, 06/16/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] spam headache, Steven Champeon, 06/16/2003
- [internetworkers] oh great!, Shea Tisdale, 06/17/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] oh great!, K. Jo Garner, 06/17/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] oh great!, burnett, 06/17/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.