[EE] [OT]Hotmail spammer control
Funny NYPD
Hotmail got very strict spam control.For most of emails from personal hosted email server, it will reject immediately as spammer no matter what it is.
Sending emails to Yahoo user is ok.
Funny NYPD
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerhard Fiedler <li...@connectionbrazil.com>
To: pic...@mit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:50:12 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]you can build & host your own web at home, with basically no cost;
Dr Skip wrote:
> I have an XP home system hosting SMTP, POP, IMAP,
What IMAP server are you using?
Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Harold Hallikainen
> Can you send emails to hotmail users?
> Hotmail got very strict spam control.For most of emails from personal
> hosted email server, it will reject immediately as spammer no matter what
> it is.
> Sending emails to Yahoo user is ok.
>
> Funny NYPD
>
Hotmail probably recognizes the IP address of the SMTP server as a DSL or
cable modem, therefore reject the message. I've configured sendmail on my
mail server to relay stuff through the SMTP server of my DSL provider.
That works well.
Harold
--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
Funny NYPD
Interesting, can you post more detail.
Funny NYPD
Harold
____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
Harold Hallikainen
> Harold,
> Interesting, can you post more detail.
>
> Funny NYPD
>
Here's a few lines out of my /etc/mail/sendmail.mc file that sets that up.
Harold
dnl # Uncomment and edit the following line if your outgoing mail needs to
dnl # be sent out through an external mail server:
dnl #
dnl define(`SMART_HOST',`smtp.your.provider')
define(`SMART_HOST',`mail.cyberonic.com')
Herbert Graf
> Harold,
> Interesting, can you post more detail.
The way it works is blacklist providers.
Blacklist providers have email address that they monitor for spam.
Whenever they see spam, they look at the IP that sent the message.
Based on their own rules, eventually an IP having sent too much spam
gets blacklisted. This lists are sent to other email servers, which use
them to block any emails from IPs on the black list.
Since most consumer ISP IPs are dynamic, all it takes is one prior
"owner" of you IP to have sent spam on it to result in "your" current IP
to be blacklisted.
As a result of this, most major email providers have ended up blocking
most of the IPs consumers receive from their major ISPs. They aren't
targeting consumer's IPs directly, it's just a result of the process.
TTYL
Tony Smith
>
> Blacklist providers have email address that they monitor for spam.
> Whenever they see spam, they look at the IP that sent the message.
>
> Based on their own rules, eventually an IP having sent too
> much spam gets blacklisted. This lists are sent to other
> email servers, which use them to block any emails from IPs on
> the black list.
>
> Since most consumer ISP IPs are dynamic, all it takes is one
> prior "owner" of you IP to have sent spam on it to result in
> "your" current IP to be blacklisted.
>
> As a result of this, most major email providers have ended up
> blocking most of the IPs consumers receive from their major
> ISPs. They aren't targeting consumer's IPs directly, it's
> just a result of the process.
PicList does that. It checks with SpamCop for a list a naughty IPs, and
won't let you post if you're using one.
I wonder if spammers bother to check if the IP they're using is blacklisted.
Given relatively few systems would use SpamCop & friends, the odds of the
message arriving are pretty high. (I'm really tempted to find a wife thru
www.kgbbrides.com (don't bother clicking, just a search portal). Former spy
for a wife? Sold!)
I'm not sure how long it takes for IPs to expire on SpamCop, if spammers did
switch IPs once blacklisted (say by forcing a system reboot or stuffing up
the router) it wouldn't take long for an ISPs entire range to become
blacklisted.
Tony
Alan B. Pearce
>naughty IPs, and won't let you post if you're using one.
Does Piclist actually use the IP? I know Yahoo uses Spamcop or a similar
service, and that uses the email address, as when Yahoo stops sending me
mail and I look at my account, it shows a Spamcop blacklist against my email
address that has been used from a totally different IP address.
Tony Smith
> >and won't let you post if you're using one.
>
> Does Piclist actually use the IP? I know Yahoo uses Spamcop
> or a similar service, and that uses the email address, as
> when Yahoo stops sending me mail and I look at my account, it
> shows a Spamcop blacklist against my email address that has
> been used from a totally different IP address.
I don't post via piclist.com, but use email. I got a bounce back one day
that stated:
554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [203.88.224.198] blocked using
bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?203.88.224.198"
Refreshing the IP address fixed it. That was about a month ago, looks like
that IP has been unblocked. Maybe if I had gone to piclist.com it would
have told me to sod off. :)
I guess if I was to get one of the IPs on the current naughty list -
<http://www.senderbase.org/senderbase_queries/detailip?search_string=203.88.
224.198> I'd get bounces again.
Tony
Xiaofan Chen
>
> I don't post via piclist.com, but use email. I got a bounce back one day
> that stated:
>
Hmm, are there anyone other than James uses piclist.com to reply?
Alan B. Pearce
> that stated:
OK, the last yahoo bounce I had stated "Remote host said: 550 5.7.1
<A.B.Pearce (at) rl.ac.uk>... Rejected: 66.94.237.52 listed at
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org [RCPT_TO]
I use email as well, and it all originates from the same IP as this email,
i.e. 130.246.xx.yy, so Yahoo do it on the email address.
Howard Winter
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:18:28 +1000, Tony Smith wrote:
>...
> I don't post via piclist.com, but use email. I got a bounce back one day
> that stated:
>
> 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [203.88.224.198] blocked using
> bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see
> http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?203.88.224.198"
>
> Refreshing the IP address fixed it.
You're lucky - not all ISPs issue new IPs on any sort of disconnect/reconnect, even when it's nominally dynamic. My girlfriend's Earthlink line has had the same IP
address for about three years!
I have static IPs, so I don't even have that option, but I've found that when I've been blacklisted it's usually been by domain name, when someone's spoofed one of
mine. Although on one occasion I was blacklisted from sending to Glitchbuster because my ISP's email server was blacklisted, so I couldn't send via my ADSL even
using email addresses that were from a different ISP!
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
Dr Skip
intelligent) to block whole domains. They do this when the level of spam from a
domain reaches some % of traffic. Earthlink has done it to Verizon, AOL to the
ARRL, etc. It usually takes a bunch of complaints, resulting in calls between
ISPs to unblock. It's probably automatic, and the smaller guys (I know a few)
are quite paranoid about ever getting their traffic to that % (I think it might
be as low as 5% in some cases). While a call from a Verizon bigwig gets through
quickly at AOL let's say, the little ISP in Backwater, Miss., isn't going to
have a good time trying....
I have also experienced this myself between two of my own accounts at Verizon
and another ISP. Second level tech support and I tried all sorts of tracing,
then when he heard what ISP I was sending to (a big name), there was a pause,
mumbles to someone, then he said I might have better success sending to another
domain for a while... Anywhere else worked, except to that domain for a while,
and I couldn't get him past a canned, sanitized statement after that.