On 05/12/13 19:25, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 05/12/13 18:19, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>>> Actually, Manitu, also known as NIXSpam, is quite a good list. I've been
>>> using only this one and Spamhaus for years. Very good FP:Spam ratio.
>>>
>>> I, too, had an issue with the list lately and contacted the maintainer
>>> of the project who gave me a good explanation of why Facebook servers may
>>> be listed on it (they don't stop sending to discontinued users that have
>>> been bouncing for at least half a year).
>>>
>>> If the mailserver of your provider sends spam it's absolutely fine to
>>> put it on the list. Or, in other words, that's what the list is for in the
>>> first place. If Hostmonster feels that there is only few spam running
>>> over their servers and they cannot get this down to zero (which is
>>> reasonable) then they can contact them and ask to be put on the whitelist.
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "My hosting provider works with those
>>> jerks at manitu". Does your hosting provider use them to block you? Or
> does he
>>> work with them to resolve the issue?
>
> They do work with them, and they don't like manitu, either. Btw, I was
> told a few months ago that there's some fee involved for removing a
> mailhost.
>>>
>>>> selfip.biz
>>>
>>> I don't see the relevance. You should provide the URL, so one could
>>> actually check the headers of the mail (it doesn't list the content) and
>>> decide if it could have been spam. If it indeed was spam (either by
>>> content or by definition) I don't see what's wrong with putting it on
>>> the list according to list policy.
>
> Right, but given what whois reports, for all I know, it's somebody with a
> home business that can't/won't even afford their own static IP reporting
> this. This suggests that it could be one person getting a bunch of spam,
> and blocking everyone else by reporting it a few times.
>
>>> selfip.biz is actually a domain they use for their spamtraps. So, this
>
> Ok, thanks for that info.
> <snip>
>> The problem here is that Mark is using a shared hostmonster smtp server
>> to relay outbound mail, and from time to time they relay spam and get
>> blacklisted for it. We've experienced a similar thing from time to time
>> where we have a server hosted with hostmonster that sends out
>> notification emails which are relayed via shared hostmonster mail
>> servers, and occasionally we get bounce notifications where
>> hostmonster's outbound relays are blacklisted (I have mostly noticed
>> them being blacklisted by SpamCop).
>
> Perfect description.
>>
>> If it's important I'd suggest not using shared resources for your
>> outbound mail. If you use a dedicated server (with it's own IP) for
>> outbound mail you will know it's clean and hopefully not get
>> blacklisted. You get what you pay for.
>
> Right, and since I'm NOT running a business - I broke down and got the
> domain when I was about to relocate for the THIRD TIME in < 10 years
> halfway across the US, so that I could tell everyone an email address that
> wouldn't change again. I dunno that they have a rate that includes a
> non-shared mailserver without going to business rates, 10-20 times what
> I'm paying now.
> <snip>
>> As you've found out, twice now, it's highly effective and gets people's
>
> No, this is a dozen or two dozen times over the last four years, or more.
>
>> attention. As it's got your attention twice now, I'd suggest you either
>> get used to it or move your outbound mail to a clean host. It's been
>> going on long enough now that it's pretty obvious hostmonster don't care
>> (if it's on my radar, it must have caught their attention - after all,
>> it's their servers). They are happy to keep taking your money.
>
> I assume you missed the last time I gave a long rant. Allow me to repeat
> the relevant part: about a dozen years ago, cogeco, in Canada, was
> blocking me from emailing an old friend, and even with him complaining,
> this went on and off and on till he simply stopped using them, and used
> his professional account.
>
> The reason was that they were blocking roadrunner Chicago. Roadrunner, at
> the time, provided a major portion of the city of Chicago with 'Net access
> - that's hundreds of thousands of home and businesses, and they'd gobbled
> up most of the independent ISPs. We really didn't have much in the way of
> other options. What could anyone in the city do?
>
> So instead of blocking domains, they block hosting providers' mailservers.
> 18 and 20 years ago, when there were lots of independent ISPs, it could
> make sense. In these days with most of them eaten, it does *not*.
>
You are still completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what YOU
think makes sense. It's totally irrelevant. I run a mail server. My
server, my rules. If I want to use a black list that's my choice. You
get blocked, tough, you are collateral damage. It doesn't matter what
you think - it doesn't even matter if you are right (or wrong, or whatever).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
