On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Drav Sloan wrote:
[candid comments snipped]
> The directors (who decide on the technical policy of the company),
> refuse to do much about it
So we can see, from the results they achieved:
http://spews.org/html/S3150.html
Unfortunately, their customers don't seem to be aware of what
"company" they are keeping, and are inclined to get quite sore with us
when we apply to Tiscali the same anti-abuse rules that we apply to
the rest of the Internet.
> All I can recommend is to have a very low trust level of mail sent
> via:
>
> mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com and
> mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com
>
> as we've pointed the webmail servers to use these two smarthosts
> solely.
That's very interesting, thanks. A check of the logs reveals that
almost all of the recently logged mail offerings from those two IP
addresses had sender address localparts which strongly suggested that
they were lottery scams - which fortunately were presenting envelope
sender addresses @handbag.com - an envelope-sender domain from which
we've never seen anything resembling productive mail, so that
envelope-sender domain is completely blacklisted here. (Well, I know
a man who claims to have seen a productive mail with that sender
domain, but we haven't seen any here, and if any were to come to
light I'd deal with it by some form of whitelisting.)
(I hope you don't live to regret being so candid with us about this.)
