On 05/12/13 19:25, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Ned Slider wrote: >> On 05/12/13 18:19, Kai Schaetzl wrote: >>> Actually, Manitu, also known as NIXSpam, is quite a good list. I've been >>> using only this one and Spamhaus for years. Very good FP:Spam ratio. >>> >>> I, too, had an issue with the list lately and contacted the maintainer >>> of the project who gave me a good explanation of why Facebook servers may >>> be listed on it (they don't stop sending to discontinued users that have >>> been bouncing for at least half a year). >>> >>> If the mailserver of your provider sends spam it's absolutely fine to >>> put it on the list. Or, in other words, that's what the list is for in the >>> first place. If Hostmonster feels that there is only few spam running >>> over their servers and they cannot get this down to zero (which is >>> reasonable) then they can contact them and ask to be put on the whitelist. >>> >>> I don't know what you mean by "My hosting provider works with those >>> jerks at manitu". Does your hosting provider use them to block you? Or > does he >>> work with them to resolve the issue? > > They do work with them, and they don't like manitu, either. Btw, I was > told a few months ago that there's some fee involved for removing a > mailhost. >>> >>>> selfip.biz >>> >>> I don't see the relevance. You should provide the URL, so one could >>> actually check the headers of the mail (it doesn't list the content) and >>> decide if it could have been spam. If it indeed was spam (either by >>> content or by definition) I don't see what's wrong with putting it on >>> the list according to list policy. > > Right, but given what whois reports, for all I know, it's somebody with a > home business that can't/won't even afford their own static IP reporting > this. This suggests that it could be one person getting a bunch of spam, > and blocking everyone else by reporting it a few times. > >>> selfip.biz is actually a domain they use for their spamtraps. So, this > > Ok, thanks for that info. > <snip> >> The problem here is that Mark is using a shared hostmonster smtp server >> to relay outbound mail, and from time to time they relay spam and get >> blacklisted for it. We've experienced a similar thing from time to time >> where we have a server hosted with hostmonster that sends out >> notification emails which are relayed via shared hostmonster mail >> servers, and occasionally we get bounce notifications where >> hostmonster's outbound relays are blacklisted (I have mostly noticed >> them being blacklisted by SpamCop). > > Perfect description. >> >> If it's important I'd suggest not using shared resources for your >> outbound mail. If you use a dedicated server (with it's own IP) for >> outbound mail you will know it's clean and hopefully not get >> blacklisted. You get what you pay for. > > Right, and since I'm NOT running a business - I broke down and got the > domain when I was about to relocate for the THIRD TIME in < 10 years > halfway across the US, so that I could tell everyone an email address that > wouldn't change again. I dunno that they have a rate that includes a > non-shared mailserver without going to business rates, 10-20 times what > I'm paying now. > <snip> >> As you've found out, twice now, it's highly effective and gets people's > > No, this is a dozen or two dozen times over the last four years, or more. > >> attention. As it's got your attention twice now, I'd suggest you either >> get used to it or move your outbound mail to a clean host. It's been >> going on long enough now that it's pretty obvious hostmonster don't care >> (if it's on my radar, it must have caught their attention - after all, >> it's their servers). They are happy to keep taking your money. > > I assume you missed the last time I gave a long rant. Allow me to repeat > the relevant part: about a dozen years ago, cogeco, in Canada, was > blocking me from emailing an old friend, and even with him complaining, > this went on and off and on till he simply stopped using them, and used > his professional account. > > The reason was that they were blocking roadrunner Chicago. Roadrunner, at > the time, provided a major portion of the city of Chicago with 'Net access > - that's hundreds of thousands of home and businesses, and they'd gobbled > up most of the independent ISPs. We really didn't have much in the way of > other options. What could anyone in the city do? > > So instead of blocking domains, they block hosting providers' mailservers. > 18 and 20 years ago, when there were lots of independent ISPs, it could > make sense. In these days with most of them eaten, it does *not*. > You are still completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what YOU think makes sense. It's totally irrelevant. I run a mail server. My server, my rules. If I want to use a black list that's my choice. You get blocked, tough, you are collateral damage. It doesn't matter what you think - it doesn't even matter if you are right (or wrong, or whatever).