From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 581 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2004 15:16:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 572 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2004 15:16:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (209.128.65.135) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 11 Jun 2004 15:16:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 24706 invoked by uid 10); 11 Jun 2004 15:16:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 11025 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jun 2004 15:16:09 -0000 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: CVS checkout aborted References: <20040611140643.GA3710@coe.casa.cgf.cx> <20040611141604.GD14465@white> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040611141604.GD14465@white> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 By the way, Bob, I sure hope you read the gdb list, because my e-mail to you was blocked with this error: : 216.40.250.211 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 554 Service unavailable; Client host [209.128.65.135] blocked using l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net; ! [1] ReliaHost, see http://spews.org/ask.cgi?S3046 Giving up on 216.40.250.211. I looked into this a bit. The spews evidence file has this in it: 1, 209.128.64.0/23, bayarea.net (promohost.org) 2, 209.128.64.0/18, bayarea.net via yipes.com feed (promohost.org) This is absurd, since my e-mail server, at 209.128.65.135, is in a co-location site shared by many different organizations. It wouldn't shock me if some of the other systems at that co-lo generate spam, but blocking the entire range is moronic. According to the spews FAQ, there is no way to contact them to correct the situation. They recommend that I contact my ISP to get them to change their acceptable use policy, or that I change ISPs. I will do that, but blocking my e-mail because my e-mail server happens to be close to one which generates spam is like blowing up a city block because somebody on it happens to be criminal. Damaging innocent parties is immoral; you can't excuse it by explaining that you really mean to damage somebody else. In this, of course, you are being damaged as well as me. I strongly recommend that you stop using spews. Ian