Re: [Exim] Re: Re: unexpected disconnection

> > It might be public in the sense that anyone can connect (er, as long
> > as I didn't blacklist the IP), but as far as it's usage, it isn't
> > public. It's for sending email to me, not to everyone on the
> > internet.
> Umm - I thought that's what I was saying. In case you're not familar it
> the term "public house" is an old UK term for a pub/bar/generally open
> boozing place :-)

I don't live in the UK so I wouldn't have known this. (Besides, I'm not a
"drinker")

> > If you're using mindspring for instance and you helo as
> > aol.com, no, I will not allow it. To me, that's not the right way
> > (and unless I read the rfc wrong, you're supposed to HELO of your
> > system's name, not someone elses).
> Don't think you get any arguments from me or anyone else on the list
> about that. Whatever tools are available to catch out-and-out lies by
> spammers I use also. Perhaps you can share some of your ideas with the
> Exim FAQ maintainers?

I have provided my ACL for this. At work, it's in a file and IMO seems a
tad abusive of acls, but it works.

> > IMO, your server, your rules.
> In as much as what you do inside your 'house' is your prerogative. At
> your 'front door' you need to abide by conventions laid down for the
> purpose of facilitating communications between systems. Otherwise you
> might just find yourself blacklisted somewhere.

Well, my bouncer decides if they can come through or not =) But then again,
why would I get blacklisted? I'm not relaying spam. I know there's
rfc-ignorant.org which I don't use since there's a higher possibility of
dropping legitimate spam. er email.

One thing that pisses me off is the fact that some broken mailservers don't
accept MAIL FROM:<>

> >> You mean 'bounces off' Korea don't you? On its way out from the US.
> >
> > Yes. When I said comes from korea, I meant comes from a korean IP
> > (relayed, or whatever).
> Yes I know you were meaning that - but you didn't get my little sideways
> dig at the *source* of most of the spam in the world, the old US of A. I

Unfortunately, too much is from the USA.

> think the best solution is to dry up spam at the source rather than

If you can do it, be my guest =)

> slicing off whole sections of the (innocent) world from email. I think it

When it comes to korea, I see nothing 'innocent' about ignorance. I've
emailed abuse addresses many times that are in korea, never a responce and
never a stop in spam. China is also one of the ones who look the other way
when people complain about spam. I've sent hundreds of complaints to china
telecom, never a responce. I have blocked china telecom as a whole.

> is utterly amazing looking at the whole anti-spam "industry" being built
> up because one group of people are not being controlled in their country

I haven't looked at the whole anti-spam industry as you say. It's just
experience. Just because I get a spam or 2 from a country, doesn't mean
I'll block them, but just because I get nothing but spam from a country and
none of the admins seem to give a damn, yes, I'll block them. I've done the
same with ISPs like ntl.com. I've seen hundreds of blocked spam because of
that. Never a legit message. (this was at work, ntl.com is not blocked at
home). At work, unless you've annoyed me enough, there's a special address
the user can email. I stated this to the other guy, however, it's not
postmaster.

> of origin. It must be because there is not enough money in it yet for
> American lawyers, otherwise spam would have stopped years ago.

I remember virginia passed the strictist anti-spam law. But if you're in
virginia, how do you do anything about it. I have yet to see that one.
(Unfortunately, I work in virginia)

> > I know someone else on this list blocks not only korea, but also
> > taiwan. I haven't blocked taiwan yet, but I might. Well, wait, that
> > might not be RFC compliant either.
> Now, now - don't get nasty ;-)

ehhehehe. I haven't seen enough spam from taiwan to do that yet..

> > This is why I said I wasn't fully compliant. The RFCs apparently
> > didn't take spammers into consideration whereas I do.
> They didn't conceive the inventiveness of naked greed - that's where we
> come in to dream up ways to stop these guys... *without* breaking the
> system. Until such time as they are stopped properly and officially.

If spam is stopped entirely, my ACLs will get smaller. I don't see spam
getting stopped in the near future unfortunately.

--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals