Alan, this is going too far, don't you think?
My server is in the tested/good list w/ orbs. Aren't you following your own advice
about properly setting up your MTA to allow good guys and stop bad guys in accord
with ORBS DNS?
You keep going on about spam and how you don't care if a few messages get dropped,
but let this continue and the percentage is going to climb into heavy hitting
against legitimate traffic. ORBS is very heavy handed and the netblocks they are
generically blacklisting is growing, yesterday it was a /24, today it's a /20,
tomorrow it'll be a /16, next month a /8.
I occupy a /24 and a /26 and all are 100% tested and certified clean by ORBS. You
preach to others to properly set up their MTAs to allow the ORBS approved. Don't
you think you should follow what you recommend?
This must have just been entered into your access list, because I've been under the
ORBS blacklist for a few weeks now and this is the first reject I've seen w/ the
below message.
-d
Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote:
> The original message was received at Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:12:32 -0700
> from linux4all@sc-24-130-146-71.socal.rr.com [24.130.146.71]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> (reason: 550-Pajo networks. Spam source and haven netblock.)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to lightning.swansea.uk.linux.org.:
> >>> RCPT To:<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> <<< 550-Pajo networks. Spam source and haven netblock.
> <<< 550 rejected: administrative prohibition
> 550 5.1.1 <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>... User unknown
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reporting-MTA: dns; james.kalifornia.com
> Received-From-MTA: DNS; sc-24-130-146-71.socal.rr.com
> Arrival-Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:12:32 -0700
>
> Final-Recipient: RFC822; alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.1.1
> Remote-MTA: DNS; lightning.swansea.uk.linux.org
> Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550-Pajo networks. Spam source and haven netblock.
> Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:13:08 -0700
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Linux 2.2 - BSD/OS 4.1 ARP incompatibility
> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 01:12:24 -0700
> From: David Ford <david@kalifornia.com>
> Reply-To: david+validemail@kalifornia.com
> Organization: Talon Technology, Intl.
> To: Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl>
> CC: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
> David Luyer <david_luyer@pacific.net.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> References: <200009040732.JAA18938@cave.bitwizard.nl>
>
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Doesn't the spec say something about that you should preferrably
> > use the "closest" IP number that you can find to communicate with a
> > host?
> >
> > Yes, adding a route to "a.b.c.1 gw d.e.f.1" on the BSD box should
> > work.
> >
> > But having a multi-homed host with a.b.c.1 on one side and d.e.f.1 on
> > the other, then I'd expecit it to use d.e.f.1 to communicate with
> > d.e.f.2, even if both are physically on the same ethernet.
>
> Then as we say, set up routing properly. Specify the correct source to be used
> on a route rather than the implicit primary interface address.
>
> ip r a d.e.f.0 dev int0 src d.e.f.1, and assuming the .0 represents the network,
> all traffic destined to this network not having an explicit source will get
> assigned the route source and appear as d.e.f.1 on the wire.
>
> -d
>
> --
> "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an
> eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was
> 'committed'."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David Ford <david@kalifornia.com>
> Blue Labs Developer
> [Image]
>
> David Ford
> Blue Labs Developer <david@kalifornia.com>
> [Image] HTML Mail
> Conference Software Address
> Additional Information:
> Last Name Ford
> First Name David
> Version 2.1
-- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST