Grokbase › Groups › CentOS › centos › January 2012
FAQ
I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question with
my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file
"image# 1" is looking for.

This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.

Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 01/09/2012 10:43 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 01/09/2012 10:13 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
<snip>
Who here is *not* using a work email? Who here posts from their own
hosting site? Has this ever happened to you?
I own my own domain/server/subnet. My WISP customers can only send mail
So, you're your own hosting, as well as personal, provider.
via my server, with all the prevention's I could think of. I have
never been hit with this (but I do have small customer base), but I have
had regular domains (like one local Bank!!!) blocked to deliver to my
server because they do not have proper FQDN.

Please - I can't email some of my Congresscritters or Senators, here in
the US, because the idiot who's in charge of the Congress' webservers
hasn't discovered that top-level country codes exist and are valid.
As I noted in another email, I don't have a commercial site. Buying a
static IP from Verizon, to run a server from home, is a *lot* more
expensive than just a 'Net connection and an inexpensive hosting
provider.
It is OK. You asked who, and I answered, that is all. If I was not on
the semi-reliable 150Km Wireless link, I would be able to provide
quality service.

I appreciate your response. There's also a slight distance... and I figure
that the CIA and the FBI would have the successor to Carnivore staring at
my every email if I used you as a hosting provider. <g>
Believe it or not, I am one of the *very* *very* rare hosting providers
in Serbia (local mostly) that provide SSL POP3/SMTP connection via port
995 and 465. There is maybe one or two providers on 7 million citizens.
And yes, I forgot to write about reverse DNS, I have that too.
You're doing a really professional job. There's way too many over here who
don't have a clue, other than "I'll get rich!!!"

mark

Search Discussions

  • Craig White at Jan 9, 2012 at 5:29 pm ⇧

    On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:05 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:

    I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question with
    my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file
    "image# 1" is looking for.

    This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.
    ----
    quite simply, it's obviously the methodology that you use to send e-mail and that may very well include 3rd parties.

    you can choose to fix it or continue to suffer the vagaries that are apparent in your methods to get an e-mail to the intended target - it's your choice. Of course this is not the first time you've complained on the same topic and the cause is still the same.

    Craig
  • Mark Roth at Jan 9, 2012 at 5:39 pm ⇧

    Craig White wrote:
    On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:05 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:

    I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question
    with my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file
    "image# 1" is looking for.

    This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.
    ----
    quite simply, it's obviously the methodology that you use to send e-mail
    and that may very well include 3rd parties.
    What third parties? 5-cent.us is hosted, as I said, and you seem to
    ignore, on hostmonster. The same company is also bluehost - they are one
    and the same: I assume there was a merger a few years back. They funnel
    all their email through a few mailhosts for the entire hosting provider.
    *THAT* is what's being blocked.

    I've argued before that blocks should be by source - actual source, the
    oldest "Received-From", not from the last mailer. I think that would a)
    get the hosts/virtual hosts send out the spam, not the last email host,
    *and* would block the crap sent out that fraudulently puts in "Reply-to:
    with other folks' email (I'm really not sending all that spam to addresses
    in the Netherlands or Italy).
    you can choose to fix it or continue to suffer the vagaries that are
    apparent in your methods to get an e-mail to the intended target - it's
    your choice. Of course this is not the first time you've complained on the
    same topic and the cause is still the same.
    Yeah. And I've said all along that I don't like dnsorbs, due to what I
    consider a bad methodology. I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers
    every time this happens.

    Unless, of course, you have a good-sized hosting provider in the US who
    charges inexpensive rates for domain hosting that has *NEVER* been
    blocked.

    mark
  • Craig White at Jan 9, 2012 at 5:49 pm ⇧

    On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:39 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:

    I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers
    every time this happens.
    ----
    fine, you've made your choice - you should spare us the grief of your own choices.

    --
    Craig White ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ craig.white at ttiltd.com
    1.800.869.6908 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.ttiassessments.com

    Need help communicating between generations at work to achieve your desired success? Let us help!
  • Les Mikesell at Jan 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm ⇧

    On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Craig White wrote:
    I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers
    every time this happens.
    ----
    fine, you've made your choice - you should spare us the grief of your own choices.
    It's pretty hard to beat a free gmail account for mail lists and
    similar things where you can't possibly claim to care about archived
    copies or who might someday see them.

    --
    Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com
  • John R Pierce at Jan 9, 2012 at 6:14 pm ⇧

    On 01/09/12 2:39 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
    I've argued before that blocks should be by source - actual source, the
    oldest "Received-From", not from the last mailer.
    Those are far too easily forged, and in fact a majority of spam has
    forged Recieved headers, you can only trust the one YOUR mail server
    puts on or a chain from the latest back as far as you see trusted
    servers. Also, by the time you've read the header, its too late to
    reject the connection.




    --
    john r pierce N 37, W 122
    santa cruz ca mid-left coast

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcentos @
categoriescentos
postedJan 9, '12 at 5:05p
activeJan 9, '12 at 6:14p
posts6
users4
websitecentos.org
irc#centos

4 users in discussion

Mark Roth: 2 posts Craig White: 2 posts Les Mikesell: 1 post John R Pierce: 1 post

Content

People

Support

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase