[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: What's this 'Antispam UOL'



On Thursday 09 March 2006 13:05, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:41, Yang Xiao wrote:
>>On 3/8/06, jludwig <wralphie comcast net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 07 March 2006 22:52, Parameshwara Bhat wrote:
>>> > Dear List,
>>> >
>>> > Nowadays I regularly recive replies to my postings from 'AntiSpam
>>> > UOL <petsupermarket sspam uol com br>'.Though there appears to be
>>>
>>> discussions
>>>
>>> > on this on the list,having not followed from the beginning,I
>>> > could not make any sense of it.
>>> >
>>> > If the full header is listed,message seems to go from one shadow5
>>> > to uol.com.br whose antispam returns the message.Produced below.
>>> >
>>> >       Received:       from shadow5 (unknown [172.26.5.186]) by
>>>
>>> sauron6.uol.com.br
>>>
>>> > (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECC26C2261 for <peebhat gmail com>; Tue,
>>> > 7 Mar 2006 04:46:39 -0300 (BRT)
>>> >
>>> > Who is this shadow5 (172.26.5.185)?How my message went to this
>>> > server? From gmail SMTP or fedora-list server? or from my ISP on
>>> > the way?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks a lot.
>>
>>I don't understand this, why dcoesn't the list owner blacklist the
>> site on their server instead of telling subscriber to do it
>> themselves?
>
>Because, as has been explained here several times, the list owner has
> no way to find out which of the many users is useing the mail relay
> that actually hits uol and generates the C/R.  And, as far as he
> knows, there are no subscribers to these lists from uol.com.br. 
> uol.com.br sells this service as a value added feature and ignores
> all the hoopla it creates, apparently not considering how much of an
> imposition it is on those to whom uol.com.br is just another spammer.
>  Which AFAIAC is one of the more civilized terms I apply to those
> jerks...

And procmail is working quite well folks.  I reset .procmailrc to file 
it instead of /dev/null it, sent the above message, and got a 6691 byte 
long piece of html crap back in just 10 seconds or so, at which point I 
changed it back to /dev/null.  That C/R response was far costlier in 
terms of net bandwidth wasted than my useless reply above.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]