Craig White wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:05 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
