I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question with my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file "image# 1" is looking for.
This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 01/09/2012 10:43 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 01/09/2012 10:13 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
<snip> >> Who here is *not* using a work email? Who here posts from their own
hosting site? Has this ever happened to you?
I own my own domain/server/subnet. My WISP customers can only send mail
So, you're your own hosting, as well as personal, provider.
via my server, with all the prevention's I could think of. I have
never been hit with this (but I do have small customer base), but I have had regular domains (like one local Bank!!!) blocked to deliver to my server because they do not have proper FQDN.
Please - I can't email some of my Congresscritters or Senators, here in the US, because the idiot who's in charge of the Congress' webservers hasn't discovered that top-level country codes exist and are valid.
As I noted in another email, I don't have a commercial site. Buying a
static IP from Verizon, to run a server from home, is a *lot* more expensive than just a 'Net connection and an inexpensive hosting provider.
It is OK. You asked who, and I answered, that is all. If I was not on
the semi-reliable 150Km Wireless link, I would be able to provide quality service.
I appreciate your response. There's also a slight distance... and I figure that the CIA and the FBI would have the successor to Carnivore staring at my every email if I used you as a hosting provider. <g>
Believe it or not, I am one of the *very* *very* rare hosting providers
in Serbia (local mostly) that provide SSL POP3/SMTP connection via port 995 and 465. There is maybe one or two providers on 7 million citizens.
And yes, I forgot to write about reverse DNS, I have that too.
You're doing a really professional job. There's way too many over here who don't have a clue, other than "I'll get rich!!!"
mark
On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:05 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question with my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file "image# 1" is looking for.
This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.
---- quite simply, it's obviously the methodology that you use to send e-mail and that may very well include 3rd parties.
you can choose to fix it or continue to suffer the vagaries that are apparent in your methods to get an e-mail to the intended target - it's your choice. Of course this is not the first time you've complained on the same topic and the cause is still the same.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:05 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I've changed the subject line. It has nothing to do with my question with my original post, that no one seems to have any answer to, what file "image# 1" is looking for.
This bloody email has now been blocked *twice*.
quite simply, it's obviously the methodology that you use to send e-mail and that may very well include 3rd parties.
What third parties? 5-cent.us is hosted, as I said, and you seem to ignore, on hostmonster. The same company is also bluehost - they are one and the same: I assume there was a merger a few years back. They funnel all their email through a few mailhosts for the entire hosting provider. *THAT* is what's being blocked.
I've argued before that blocks should be by source - actual source, the oldest "Received-From", not from the last mailer. I think that would a) get the hosts/virtual hosts send out the spam, not the last email host, *and* would block the crap sent out that fraudulently puts in "Reply-to: with other folks' email (I'm really not sending all that spam to addresses in the Netherlands or Italy).
you can choose to fix it or continue to suffer the vagaries that are apparent in your methods to get an e-mail to the intended target - it's your choice. Of course this is not the first time you've complained on the same topic and the cause is still the same.
Yeah. And I've said all along that I don't like dnsorbs, due to what I consider a bad methodology. I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers every time this happens.
Unless, of course, you have a good-sized hosting provider in the US who charges inexpensive rates for domain hosting that has *NEVER* been blocked.
mark
On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:39 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers every time this happens.
---- fine, you've made your choice - you should spare us the grief of your own choices.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Craig White craig.white@ttiltd.com wrote:
I am *NOT* going to jump hosting providers every time this happens.
fine, you've made your choice - you should spare us the grief of your own choices.
It's pretty hard to beat a free gmail account for mail lists and similar things where you can't possibly claim to care about archived copies or who might someday see them.
On 01/09/12 2:39 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I've argued before that blocks should be by source - actual source, the oldest "Received-From", not from the last mailer.
Those are far too easily forged, and in fact a majority of spam has forged Recieved headers, you can only trust the one YOUR mail server puts on or a chain from the latest back as far as you see trusted servers. Also, by the time you've read the header, its too late to reject the connection.
-
Craig White -
John R Pierce -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us