John R Pierce wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 1:53 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Received: from [206.214.95.82] (port=57577
>> helo=03e6231b.buhlgymgagate.us)
>> by host290.hostmonster.com with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
>> (envelope-from<KohlsGiftCardSurvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
>> id 1VLfOH-0003sR-20
>> form.roth@xxxxxxxxx; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:27:25 -0600
>> Received: by 03e6231b.bw31almxu.buhlgymgagate.us
>> (amavisd-new, port 10268) with ESMTP id 03NGCCNSDRE623JKCXHVTJ1B;
>> for
>> <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:27:24 -0700
>> To:m.roth@xxxxxxxxx
>> List-Unsubscribe:
>> <mailto:unsub-2268-733-2332-11-65411647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe>,
>> <http://www.buhlgymgagate.us/unsubscribe/2268/733/2332/11/65411647/~~m.roth@xxxxxxxxx>
>> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> From: "Kohls Gift Card Survey"<KohlsGiftCardSurvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> So, it looks like mmm, (check whois) Jeff Martinez should be blocked at
>> buhlgymgagate.us. On the other hand, I look at the headers to one of my
>> posts, and I see that it's coming from, ta-da, 5-cent.us. If I were
>> sending out spam, then you'd be perfectly justified in blocking
>> 5-cent.us.
>
> assuming host290.hostmonster.com is considered a trustworthy server by
> you, that spam came from 206.214.95.82, which whois says is...
> Sendrillion CUST-NETBLK-PHX-206-214-95-64-27-2332 (NET-206-214-95-64-1)
> 206.214.95.64 - 206.214.95.95
>
> anything else in the headers is forgable. that said, the domain name
> used by that spam was registered yesterday. its a throwaway account.
Fine - so name a hosting provider, reasonably large, with reasonable
prices, that is NEVER blocked by Nixnet. In the US. That is not about to
be bought out. That has enough staff to catch all spam before it goes out.
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
