http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

[Jonathan Larmour]

It says at http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks that there have 
been no false positives, and so "undoubtedly" there's a problem with the 
mail server. With RBLs like spamcop, I don't think that's necessarily true.

Also the bounce apparently says, e.g.:
 >Connected to 193.74.208.146 but sender was rejected.
 > Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Spam Rejected - see http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml


Could there also be a mention of http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html ?

Ta,

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:23:38PM +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>It says at http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks that there have 
>been no false positives, and so "undoubtedly" there's a problem with the 
>mail server. With RBLs like spamcop, I don't think that's necessarily true.
>
>Also the bounce apparently says, e.g.:
>>Connected to 193.74.208.146 but sender was rejected.
>> Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Spam Rejected - see 
>http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml

This is not a sources.redhat.com bounce.

>Could there also be a mention of http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html ?

I don't see why it's appropriate to add a pointer to all of our mailing lists
in a section on how the mailing list spam blocking works.

However, as always, if you'd care to contribute a patch with the wording
you had in mind, it would go a long way towards understanding what you
are aiming for.

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:06:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Also the bounce apparently says, e.g.:
>>>Connected to 193.74.208.146 but sender was rejected.
>>> Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Spam Rejected - see 
>>http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml
>
>This is not a sources.redhat.com bounce.

And, now that I've read the postmaster mailing list, I see where your
confusion is coming from.  sources.redhat.com was blocked by spamcop for
a while.  That happens periodically, especially after an ip address
change.  Some idiot decides that because they received spam from one of
our mailing lists, we must be spammers, and they report us to spamcop.
sources.redaht.com was previously in a "do not block" list but that must
have evaporated when we switched IP addresses a while ago.  It was
fixed a couple of weeks ago.

ezmlm is sending out a bunch of "we couldn't send email to you" messages
so people will be confused by the fact that they are using spamcop and
sources.redhat.com was blocking us from sending mailing list traffic.

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

[Jonathan Larmour]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:06:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>>>Also the bounce apparently says, e.g.:
>>>
>>>>Connected to 193.74.208.146 but sender was rejected.
>>>>Remote host said: 553 5.3.0 Spam Rejected - see 
>>>
>>>http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml
>>
>>This is not a sources.redhat.com bounce.
> 
> 
> And, now that I've read the postmaster mailing list, I see where your
> confusion is coming from.  sources.redhat.com was blocked by spamcop for
> a while.  That happens periodically, especially after an ip address
> change.  Some idiot decides that because they received spam from one of
> our mailing lists, we must be spammers, and they report us to spamcop.
> sources.redaht.com was previously in a "do not block" list but that must
> have evaporated when we switched IP addresses a while ago.  It was
> fixed a couple of weeks ago.

Sorry, yes, I just instinctively thought that it couldn't be that way 
round because I "knew", because it had come up before, that s.r.c was in 
the "do not block" list.

My mistake, sorry for timewasting :-).

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:21:32PM +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>My mistake, sorry for timewasting :-).

No problem at all.  It took me a few minutes to figure out what was
going on and I had already figured out the problem a couple of weeks
ago.