|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author:
Date: Apr 21, 2007 08:11
Patricia A. Shaffer pemtel.net>, wrote in
4ax.com>:
> I worship God, in whatever form or aspect God chooses to appear. I
> have made offerings to the Lares and Penates in my home. My wood
> cookstove is dedicated to Hestia; my computer is under the protection...
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Jan 26, 2007 21:17
On 2007-01-26, st7860@ gmail.com gmail.com> wrote:> i'm arguing with a meathead on another forum that his and/or a server
> he goes to is compromised. the multi rbl list points to this IP as
> being listed for trojans and/or proxies and/or spamware. would it be
> considered a security risk by browsing sites hosted on this server?
>
> the meathead in question denies anything being wrong however.
>
> http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=85.17.105.119
It seems to have been delisted, but it last listed for sending a bad
HELO string in outgoing mail transmissions. This is more likely to
have been some configuration error than an actual spam problem.
However, sending bad HELO strings is not a good thing and may cause
email to be blocked even without a CBL listing. (It would on my
mailserver, and from what I heard on many other mailservers too.)
As for the CBL's reputation, it is spotless AFAIK. The CBL data is
used as part of Spamhaus' XBL list, which in turn is part of the
composite lists SBL-XBL and ZEN. These are used world wide.
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Buss ErrorBuss Error
Date: Jan 20, 2007 05:47
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:28:57 +1100, Matthew Sullivan
sorbs.net> wrote:
>Buss Error wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:30:05 -0600, Buss Error yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It PISSES ME OFF that spammers can cause so much damage and so much
>> extra work with little or no consequence. 'Tisn't fair, McGee. Not
>> fair at all.
>>
>> Mat, I do owe you an apology. I hope you've seen it in UseNet.>
>Everyone gets p**sed from time to time.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Mat
You, sir, are a gentileman as I would like to be, but fail to be.
Thank you for accepting my apology.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Michael MoroneyMichael Moroney
Date: Jan 20, 2007 04:32
Mark Ferguson whew.com> writes:
>Got a bunch of spam that tracks directly back to these scumbag
>spammers.
>I will see them in court, after I send them my Lettor of Demand of
>course .
>Is Spamhaus still looking for spam from them?
Speaking of Spamhaus, E360Insight and courts, what's up with the lawsuite
where E360 is trying to sue UK's Spamhaus in an Illinois court? Last I
heard from several months back the next hearing was in January 2007, which
is now.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: dim_vieweddim_viewed
Date: Jan 20, 2007 04:12
Rev. Beergoggles wrote:
>> Regarding the flood on Saturday...
>
> Flood?
>
> (checks hamster)
>
> oh. never noticed
Correct... The only floods in this newsgroup originate from idiot
SPEWS FANATICS.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RaynerRayner
Date: Jan 19, 2007 16:15
In article calcite.rhyolite.com>,
Vernon Schryver calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote:>In article news.demon.co.uk>,
>Rayner wrote:
>>>The company I work for sends out occasional newsletters to a list of
>>subscribers. Of course, we get 'unsubscribe' requests, and we make sure
>>those requests are processed before the next mailing goes out.
>
>Most readers will assume that some of those subscribers never knowningly
>did anthing that a reasonable person would understand as asking for a
>subscription. But never mind the accuracy of those cynical/realistic
>assumptions, because they are irrelevant to the question.
I've been reading NANAE for a few years now, so I've grown a thick enough
skin to handle the cynicism. That said, the responses so far have been
civil and helpful.
|
| Show full article (3.84Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Jan 19, 2007 07:57
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:20:14 -0800, Mark Ferguson
whew.com> wrote:> On 18 Jan 2007 12:07:15 -0800, "Justin@Intellicontact"
> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We take spam very seriously and have removed your address from this
>> account. We will take action against the account in question. We are
>> an opt-in, permission based Email Service Provider. We encourage you to
>> continue sending any spam complaints to 'abuse@ broadwick.com' so we can
>> identify and resolve any abuse situations. Feel free to review our
>> anti-spam policy below for additional information: >
> What a conveluted piece of work your TOS is. I see no confirmation
> requirement and Seth is most likely NOT going to unsubscribe from your
> spam list.
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
