|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author:
Date: Apr 30, 2007 23:34
On 2007-05-01, Etaoin Shrdlu gmail.com> wrote:>> All available evidence appears to suggest that the 'contents' are a
>> hard vacuum.
>
> I would tend to think towards the lines of an aqueous solution of
> stupidity?
I don't think stupid is solvable in water. Try nitric acid.
--
"Find spammers. Bash skulls."
- Mission Statement of the Anti-Spam Taskforce
"If it spams, clobber it until it stops spamming."
- The Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: nobody >nobody >
Date: Apr 30, 2007 21:42
Brian wrote:
> And on the eigth day Jamie did cause the electrons
> to come together and form the following words:
>
>> Funny I have gotten them to boot spammers in the past
>> yes they are very hard to get them to boot spammers
>> but not totally impossible.
>
> Stop taking credit for other peole's work. Just because you sent a message
> to them and they subsequently terminated the spammer doesn't mean that you
> got them shut down.
You are telling him to quit pissing in the sink, but he'll just keep
doing it anyway.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: AriesAries
Date: Apr 30, 2007 21:10
grendal wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:10 pm, Aries spammersarecriminals.com>
> wrote:>> ...
>
>
> Depends on what you want.
>
> Note that your 6 meg pipe isn't 6 meg bi-directional.
> You may get up to 6 meg down but you get 385K up, with no guarantee on
> QoS.
>
> Cable internet providers can and do charge more for business QoS.
I am well aware that I am not getting a 6 meg pipe that is
bi-directional. They don't want people running servers that will really
eat their bandwidth.
--
Aries
Spam Free Email: http://sendspammers.2hell.com
|
| Show full article (0.72Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: James W AndersonJames W Anderson
Date: Apr 30, 2007 20:44
Found some more info, because this all came from the same registration
data (all had same WHOIS) does anyone else have a clue to what this
might be from? Data from afilias:
Registrant:
Marsell Letan
Address:
France
Paris, Paris 123
FR
First Registered:
April 25, 2007
Last Updated:
April 27, 2007
Administrative Contact:
Marsell Letan (DI_3749021) marsell_letan@ yahoo.com
France
Paris, Paris 123
FR
|
| Show full article (0.81Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Apr 30, 2007 20:08
Le 29 Apr 2007, Patricia A. Shaffer pemtel.net> a
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Apr 30, 2007 20:05
Le 28 Apr 2007, Patricia A. Shaffer pemtel.net> a
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ChrisChris
Date: Apr 30, 2007 20:04
Embarq is my DSL provider, they used to use Earthlink as a mail provider until
9 April. Now they are using Synacor. Since the change over, each mail my
system sends out whether its output from a cronjob, test message to myself, a
post to NANAS or a myrid of other types of outgoing mails 99%% of these are
marked up as spam. For instance on all of my NANAS reports tonight the
subject is changed to read:
Subject: [Possible SPAM] [email]
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 10.41
X-Spam-Level: **********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=10.41 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6
tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_99=3.5, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135, INTERRUPTUS=0.182,
RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046, SUBJECT_FUZZY_PENIS=2.532]
I've been working with someone at Embarq for about two weeks on this problem
but I don't see any headway being made. FWIW, Synacor is the actual entity
that is handling the email and doing the spam markup. Email to Synacor goes
unanswered on these issues. I'm looking for any suggestions that may get
Synacors attention. They are under the impression that everyone wants full
spam filtering, unlike Earthlink that gave you a choice.
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
