|
Ping: Doug Miller
I had a major computer crash and lost my HD. Unfortunately my
controller was going when I made my backups so they're worthless. I tried sending to your auto-responder to get the latest troll update, but didn't get a response. Have you stopped the dat file updates? Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
I had a major computer crash and lost my HD. Unfortunately my controller was going when I made my backups so they're worthless. I tried sending to your auto-responder to get the latest troll update, but didn't get a response. Have you stopped the dat file updates? Not intentionally, at any rate... I just tested it, and I got a response - and the autoresponder's inbox doesn't show that it has received anything from you. Try again, making sure you have the correct address filterinfo at milmac dot com If you still have a problem, email me at alphageek at milmac dot com and I'll see if I can figure out what's going on. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote:
Not intentionally, at any rate... I just tested it, and I got a response - and the autoresponder's inbox doesn't show that it has received anything from you. Try again, making sure you have the correct address filterinfo at milmac dot com If you still have a problem, email me at alphageek at milmac dot com and I'll see if I can figure out what's going on. Those are the addys that I used, I sent a note to your alpha addy as well. I don't know why they didn't go through. I'll try again in a couple of minutes. Thanks, Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: Not intentionally, at any rate... I just tested it, and I got a response - and the autoresponder's inbox doesn't show that it has received anything from you. Try again, making sure you have the correct address filterinfo at milmac dot com If you still have a problem, email me at alphageek at milmac dot com and I'll see if I can figure out what's going on. Those are the addys that I used, I sent a note to your alpha addy as well. I don't know why they didn't go through. I'll try again in a couple of minutes. I didn't get that one either. I am receiving mail from other sources, so I suspect the problem may be at your end. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote:
I didn't get that one either. I am receiving mail from other sources, so I suspect the problem may be at your end. How odd. I can send/receive with the other people withougt any problems. I just sent it from the webmail facility on ATt rather than from my browser's e-mail. Let's see if that works. If it doesn't I'll try from a different ISP. Thanks for helping me work this out. Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: I didn't get that one either. I am receiving mail from other sources, so I suspect the problem may be at your end. How odd. I can send/receive with the other people withougt any problems. I just sent it from the webmail facility on ATt rather than from my browser's e-mail. Let's see if that works. If it doesn't I'll try from a different ISP. Thanks for helping me work this out. Ahhh, now I see the trouble... Your ISP is rejecting the autoresponse, because it thinks that *my* ISP is a spammer. I got the following in my inbox: ============================= This message is from the mail server at host adamant.cnchost.com. Your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It is attached below. YourRealEmailAddr: host gateway2.att.net[12.102.240.23] said: 550-207.155.248.19 blocked by blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net. 550 Blocked for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending mail service. (in reply to MAIL FROM command) ============================= I'll follow up with my ISP to see if they can shed some light on this. I sent you an email from my regular account, and haven't received a rejection notice yet - let me know if it comes through. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote: Doug Miller wrote: I didn't get that one either. I am receiving mail from other sources, so I suspect the problem may be at your end. How odd. I can send/receive with the other people withougt any problems. I just sent it from the webmail facility on ATt rather than from my browser's e-mail. Let's see if that works. If it doesn't I'll try from a different ISP. Thanks for helping me work this out. Ahhh, now I see the trouble... Your ISP is rejecting the autoresponse, because it thinks that *my* ISP is a spammer. I got the following in my inbox: ============================= This message is from the mail server at host adamant.cnchost.com. Your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It is attached below. YourRealEmailAddr: host gateway2.att.net[12.102.240.23] said: 550-207.155.248.19 blocked by blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net. 550 Blocked for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending mail service. (in reply to MAIL FROM command) ============================= I'll follow up with my ISP to see if they can shed some light on this. I sent you an email from my regular account, and haven't received a rejection notice yet - let me know if it comes through. Now why would they thing that YOU are a spammer?? Would it be the shifty eyes?? Or the questionable moral character?? Or.............?? ;) |
Doug Miller wrote:
Ahhh, now I see the trouble... Your ISP is rejecting the autoresponse, because it thinks that *my* ISP is a spammer. I got the following in my inbox: ============================= This message is from the mail server at host adamant.cnchost.com. Your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It is attached below. YourRealEmailAddr: host gateway2.att.net[12.102.240.23] said: 550-207.155.248.19 blocked by blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net. 550 Blocked for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending mail service. (in reply to MAIL FROM command) ============================= I'll follow up with my ISP to see if they can shed some light on this. I sent you an email from my regular account, and haven't received a rejection notice yet - let me know if it comes through. Wild. It didn't show up in my Spam filter on the host or I would have marked it as "not spam" I'll see if there's any way that I can get it unmarked through my options on the host. The test DID get through. Other auto-responders have gotten through. I wonder why it hicupped on yours. Think you can send me the dat file manually while we work this out? Thanks, Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
Wild. It didn't show up in my Spam filter on the host or I would have marked it as "not spam" I'll see if there's any way that I can get it unmarked through my options on the host. Doubtful - it looks to me like one of the mail servers at my hosting domain has been blacklisted, and your ISP is rejecting it as soon as it appears. The test DID get through. Odd. I guess that may have come from a different server at my ISP. Other auto-responders have gotten through. I wonder why it hicupped on yours. This isn't the first time this has happened - maybe the third time in 5 years that I've had mail rejected by some servers because the entire domain (xo.com) that hosts mine (milmac.com) got put on somebody's blacklist. Not sure how or why that happens. XO is pretty good about squashing spam. Think you can send me the dat file manually while we work this out? Sure thing. Check your inbox. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Lee Michaels wrote:
snip of slurs %-) I thought that it was ironic that the "spam" the were blocking was a dat file to fight spam. I've written the tech suppt people about it and am expecting a "rapid response". How come this has Waco written all over it. I get twitchy wwhen authority figures promise me a rapid response. It's prolly me. Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
Doug Miller wrote:
Doubtful - it looks to me like one of the mail servers at my hosting domain has been blacklisted, and your ISP is rejecting it as soon as it appears. This isn't the first time this has happened - maybe the third time in 5 years that I've had mail rejected by some servers because the entire domain (xo.com) that hosts mine (milmac.com) got put on somebody's blacklist. Not sure how or why that happens. XO is pretty good about squashing spam. Sure thing. Check your inbox. Thanks, it came through and is installed. Apparently if a lot of spam comes through on IP it gets blocked, as you expected. I just got an autoresponder from ATT, more irony, telling me that they got my message and will tell me more when they have it figured out. I won't hold my breath. Next time if it doesn't work immediately I'll try from a different ISP. Since they both run Brightmail as a blocker, it should be interesting to see if it gets blocked there also. Thanks again, Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article ,
Lee Michaels wrote: Now why would they thing that YOU are a spammer?? Would it be the shifty eyes?? Or the questionable moral character?? Or.............?? ;) Actually, there's a really _simple_ explanation Something about a _wrenching_ adjustment, and having a mumble thrown in thw works. Unfortunately, the other guy was a little hard of hearing. o |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: Doubtful - it looks to me like one of the mail servers at my hosting domain has been blacklisted, and your ISP is rejecting it as soon as it appears. This isn't the first time this has happened - maybe the third time in 5 years that I've had mail rejected by some servers because the entire domain (xo.com) that hosts mine (milmac.com) got put on somebody's blacklist. Not sure how or why that happens. XO is pretty good about squashing spam. Sure thing. Check your inbox. Thanks, it came through and is installed. Apparently if a lot of spam comes through on IP it gets blocked, as you expected. I just got an autoresponder from ATT, more irony, telling me that they got my message and will tell me more when they have it figured out. I won't hold my breath. Next time if it doesn't work immediately I'll try from a different ISP. Since they both run Brightmail as a blocker, it should be interesting to see if it gets blocked there also. You're welcome. FWIW, I just got this from my ISP a little while ago: The mailer-daemon information that you provided below shows that the email server at 207.155.248.34 is being blacklisted by att.net. This is a known issue and our Network Investigations Department is working with ATT to resolve this issue. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote:
You're welcome. FWIW, I just got this from my ISP a little while ago: The mailer-daemon information that you provided below shows that the email server at 207.155.248.34 is being blacklisted by att.net. This is a known issue and our Network Investigations Department is working with ATT to resolve this issue. Just as suspected. Hope they get it figured out soon. Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
In article , reply-to, disabled, 2, stop, spam wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: You're welcome. FWIW, I just got this from my ISP a little while ago: The mailer-daemon information that you provided below shows that the email server at 207.155.248.34 is being blacklisted by att.net. This is a known issue and our Network Investigations Department is working with ATT to resolve this issue. Just as suspected. Hope they get it figured out soon. I'll keep you posted. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote: ... This isn't the first time this has happened - maybe the third time in 5 years that I've had mail rejected by some servers because the entire domain (xo.com) that hosts mine (milmac.com) got put on somebody's blacklist. Not sure how or why that happens. XO is pretty good about squashing spam. Surely you jest. XO is currently hosting more than a dozen ROKSO spammers including Alan Ralsky and Eddy Marin. Check out the listings at http://www.spamhaus.org Click on the SBL tab, scroll down to United States, click on it then scroll down to XO and display it. A couple of months ago Vwerizon was just as bad, check it out now. The world's worst spammers are openly hosted by some of the world's best known ISPs. BTW, check out mci.com too. -- FF |
Dave in Fairfax wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: You're welcome. FWIW, I just got this from my ISP a little while ago: The mailer-daemon information that you provided below shows that the email server at 207.155.248.34 is being blacklisted by att.net. This is a known issue and our Network Investigations Department is working with ATT to resolve this issue. Just as suspected. Hope they get it figured out soon. Get it figured out? XO is hosting a bunch of spammers. That only took me 30 seconds to figure out. Of course another fifteen seconds spent checking out ATT shows they aren't much better. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. A pox on them all. -- FF |
Dave in Fairfax wrote: wrote: Get it figured out? XO is hosting a bunch of spammers. That only took me 30 seconds to figure out. Of course another fifteen seconds spent checking out ATT shows they aren't much better. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. A pox on them all. Couldn't agree more, but what to do? Much like voting Republican or Democrat, big business contributes money to both and owns them as a result. Voting Independent (any party) only works as long as business thinks they're powerless and doesn't bother to buy them. Sorry it's that time of the year today and the choices are terrible. As usual. I can find a better ISP when it comes to non-spamming, but then they can't be reached nationally. While I am not a fan of AOL they have been consistently among the best in the industry at keeping spammers from directly using their hosting. Because of rather poor technical expertise spammers often relay through AOL servers. I'm no microsoft fan either but Hotmail nukes spammers fast, again, their abuse staff isn't very bright but clearly the company does not have a policy of openly supporting spammers. Juno and United online have a good, consistant anti-spam record. All of the ISPs that are also major telecoms have at one time or another hosted scores of spammers. They seem to take turns wearing the black hat, or in this case, the pink hat. MCI is currently the worst and in recent years (when they were Worldcom) has even hosted a DDOS against Spamhaus for several months. If the truly white hat ISPs shunned (refused to peer with) the spam supporting ISPS altogether it would only take about a week to clean up most of the spam problem. That would mean inconveniencing their users for about a week, and it would seem that AOL and such are not willing to do that. -- FF |
wrote:
While I am not a fan of AOL they have been consistently among the best in the industry at keeping spammers from directly using their hosting. Because of rather poor technical expertise spammers often relay through AOL servers. I'm no microsoft fan either but Hotmail nukes spammers fast, again, their abuse staff isn't very bright but clearly the company does not have a policy of openly supporting spammers. Juno and United online have a good, consistant anti-spam record. All of the ISPs that are also major telecoms have at one time or another hosted scores of spammers. They seem to take turns wearing the black hat, or in this case, the pink hat. MCI is currently the worst and in recent years (when they were Worldcom) has even hosted a DDOS against Spamhaus for several months. If the truly white hat ISPs shunned (refused to peer with) the spam supporting ISPS altogether it would only take about a week to clean up most of the spam problem. That would mean inconveniencing their users for about a week, and it would seem that AOL and such are not willing to do that. I've tried most of the major ISPs, as well as AOHell, at one time or another. Most have hosted problem children at times, but AOL has a yearly renewal clause in their opt-out, unless they've changed it, wherein if you don't remmber to opt-out in time they go back to selling your name to the spammers. If they stopped that and handing out free accts, they *might* get their act cleaned up somewhat. I'd be willing to have my net and web services disrupted for a week if it meant cleaning the trash out of the attic. I'd be delighted if it really did the trick. As long as people are stupid enough to bite when spammers run a scam, I don't see it happening. And I never underestimate human stupidity. /rant off Dave in Fairfax -- reply-to doesn't work use: daveldr at att dot net American Association of Woodturners http://www.woodturner.org Capital Area Woodturners http://www.capwoodturners.org/ PATINA http://www.patinatools.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter