From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16309 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2004 20:21:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16299 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2004 20:21:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jifvik.dyndns.org) (81.104.194.28) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2004 20:21:39 -0000 Received: from eCosCentric.com (garibaldi.jifvik.org [172.31.1.2]) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034333748B; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:21:34 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FF875CC.4090807@eCosCentric.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:21:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher Faylor Cc: overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#rbl-sucks References: <3FF83E0A.9080604@eCosCentric.com> <20040104170613.GA7431@redhat.com> <20040104172130.GA7697@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040104172130.GA7697@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-q1/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 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