On 14 May 2000, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> I've switched providers and now get incoming bsmtp that looks like:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> HELO mail.inka.de
> MAIL FROM:<gcc-bugs-return-@???>
> RCPT TO:<aj@???>
> DATA
> >From gcc-bugs-return-@??? Sun May 14 17:27:17 2000
> Envelope-to: aj@???
> Received: from sourceware.cygnus.com (sourceware.cygnus.com [205.180.83.71])
> by mail.inka.de with smtp
> id 12r0IW-0002cx-00; Sun, 14 May 2000 17:27:16 +0200
If you cannot get your provider to mend their broken software, have a
look at ignore_fromline_hosts.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Received: from proven.weird.com ([204.92.254.15] ident=postfix)
by exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 12rQRb-0005Fh-00
for exim-users@???; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:22:24 +0100
Received: by proven.weird.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 90FA0DE; Mon, 15 May 2000 15:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: woods@??? (Greg A. Woods)
To: exim-users@???
Subject: Re: [Exim] www.orbs.org uncontactable?
In-Reply-To: <20000515103830.A50@???>
References: <idc@???>
<E12rLcB-00013C-00@???>
<20000515103830.A50@???>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.6.1
Reply-To: woods@??? (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: Planix, Inc.; Toronto, Ontario; Canada
Message-Id: <20000515192214.90FA0DE@???>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: exim-users-admin@???
Errors-To: exim-users-admin@???
X-BeenThere: exim-users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: A user list for the exim MTA <exim-users.exim.org>
[ On Monday, May 15, 2000 at 10:38:30 (-0400), Peter Radcliffe wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] www.orbs.org uncontactable?
>
> I personally, and a lot of other admins I've discussed this with, have
> serious problems with ORBS' policies and actions, and have blocked
> incoming mail from them. I think eventually ORBS will fall into
> disuse and vanish out of uselessness. Or at least, I hope so.
Most of the people I've encountered who have problems with ORBS are the
very people who I want to use ORBS to block -- i.e. folks who are
unaccountable in one way or another for whatever reason.
ORBS will only fall into disuse when a significant portion (>90%?) of
the mailers on the net are secure by default.
> RSS, DUL and traditional RBL seem a lot more useful.
RSS is a bit of a joke for anyone using ORBS -- it could be useful for
those who don't like ORBS, but it still misses far too much and it isn't
anywhere near responsive enough to be effective.
DUL is indeed incredibly useful.
The original "MAPS RBL" is only minimally useful these days. Perhaps
when all mailers are secure by default then the spammers will be forced
to be accountable and *then* it will be useful again.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@???> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
Received: from 00-c0-df-64-11-c6.bconnected.net ([209.53.58.165] ident=exim)
by exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 12rVWL-0005f2-00
for exim-users@???; Tue, 16 May 2000 01:47:37 +0100
Received: from news by 00-c0-df-64-11-c6.bconnected.net with local (Exim 2.02 #2)
id 12rVWH-0005rR-00
for exim-users@???; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:47:33 -0700
To: exim-users@???
Path: not-for-mail
From: jhenders@??? (John Henders)
Newsgroups: local.exim-users
Subject: Re: [Exim] Prohibition message
Date: 16 May 2000 00:47:33 GMT
Organization: Bogon Research
Lines: 16
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <8fq5r5$m03$1@???>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0003141526200.28116-100000@???>
Reply-To: 8ar$9ro$ri9@??? (John Henders)
NNTP-Posting-Host: stdismas-priv.bogon.com
Sender: exim-users-admin@???
Errors-To: exim-users-admin@???
X-BeenThere: exim-users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: A user list for the exim MTA <exim-users.exim.org>
In <Pine.SOL.4.21.0003141526200.28116-100000@???> ph10@??? (Philip Hazel) writes:
>I think you may be missing the point here. People aren't blocking hosts
>without DNS directly; they are getting blocked because people want to
>block hosts using wild card names. For example
>host_reject_recipients = *.well.known.spammer.domain
Wasn't +allow_unknown added for just the reason people are asking here?
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
