ac on 19 Oct 2016 14:13:08 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] WAS: spamassassin help: create a rule to score by sender TLD Now: Email support

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:15:52 -0400
brent timothy saner <> wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 02:45 PM, ac wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:25:00 -0400
> > Greg Helledy <> wrote:
> >> All my users are employees of a single company and would not be
> >> sending spam.
> > right, these blacklists where your IP is listed do not share data,
> > so they are all wrong and you are right :)
> this is incorrect. many, but not all, share lists. most notably the
> not-for-profit ones.
They do not and you are wrong.

You can query them, but most of them do not share data, notably
spamcop, ascams, and even spamhaus.

For example, they make data available but they do NOT load each others

> > What could also happen is when your VPS provider assigns dynamic
> > IP numbers or the criminal/spammer that used that IP number before
> > you, trashed it's reputation
> > that probably does not bother you much either as it is someone
> > else's problem, which again, is fine.
> >  
> or it's a false positive, which happens all. the. time. (barracuda's
> blacklist is especially guilty of this due to end-user-submitted
> content.)
> VPS providers assigning dynamic IP addresses is a vastly unheard of
> thing these days. Greg's MX record, assuming he was using,
> points to Arvixe- who do not offer dynamic IP addresses. do research
> before making assumptions.

I said "What could happen" 

what assumptions are you talking about? And why should I have to do
research when I am saying "what could happen" ?

<snip lots of useless bits around here>
> do you know he's rewriting? how do you know? do you receive carbons of
> the bounce messages you're sending and regularly review them?

because I can read?

> i must say, i find your entire attitude in this thread unsavory,
> Andre. if you suspect someone's mail to be misconfigured, you should
> attempt to reach them offlist and provide log entries and the like,
> not calling them spammers- either by insinuation or directly.
Brent, you feel the need to interject and to call me 'unsavory' yet you
omit to include the bounce posted

And, technically, as this is not a guess or an accusation but an actual
fact, Greg's mail servers did re-write the email bounce.

No insinuation, no accusation, no suspicion, no "unsavory" behavior,
simple truth.

How do I know this?

Well, see, if you READ the thread, you will see that Greg posted his
actual bounce to the list.

I include it below so that you may consider apologizing for calling me

> > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
> > 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:
> >
> >     host []
> >     SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<>:
> >     550 Administrative prohibition
> > Reporting-MTA: dns;
> > Action: failed
> > Final-Recipient: rfc822;
> > Status: 5.0.0
> > Remote-MTA: dns;
> > Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Administrative prohibition

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --