Bei der Gruppe, für die Sie eine Mitteilung verfassen, handelt es sich um eine Usenet-Gruppe. Wenn Sie in dieser Gruppe Nachrichten posten, ist Ihre E-Mail-Adresse für jeden im Internet sichtbar
alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk wrote: > 81.86.23.41 appears to be blacklisted
> I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill > We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send > out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing > list and these mailshots are not sent often.
> Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
> Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when > this has been 'whitelisted;
> Thanks
> Alex Heer
Have you seen any bounces due to the listing? From the data presented so far very few if any servers use APEWS to block emails.
Also note, APEWS doesn't respond in NANAE or at least we (TINW) have not seen them respond. We only see persons posting in here asking for removals.
My only suggestion is to contact your provider and ask them to look into it.
Disclaimer: I am not APEWS nor do I know who they are.
>> I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill >> We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send >> out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing >> list and these mailshots are not sent often.
>> Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
>> Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when >> this has been 'whitelisted;
>> Thanks
>> Alex Heer
> Have you seen any bounces due to the listing? From the data presented so > far very few if any servers use APEWS to block emails.
> Also note, APEWS doesn't respond in NANAE or at least we (TINW) have not > seen them respond. We only see persons posting in here asking for > removals.
> My only suggestion is to contact your provider and ask them to look into > it.
> Disclaimer: I am not APEWS nor do I know who they are.
Reports about APEWS use for "simple blocking" are "*VERY* rare" here. Reports about "persistence" in using APEWS for "simple blocking" after "being informed" about APEWS "fame"/"policies" are even more rare (close to non existing for a few last years).
P.S. I have merely suggested using APEWS for selecting "more picky" use of other "classic" DNSBL and selecting picky RDNS checks.
-- [pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : a...@onet.eu : a...@xl.wp.pl A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work. -- Anatol Holt
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:43:52 -0800 (PST), alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk wrote: >81.86.23.41 appears to be blacklisted
>I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill >We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send >out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing >list and these mailshots are not sent often.
>Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
>Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when >this has been 'whitelisted;
>Thanks
>Alex Heer
(posted and mailed)
Alex -
1. You seem to be confused about what you're posting to. This is a newsgroup that occasionally discusses email spam issues. Nobody here runs APEWS; few here use APEWS; nobody here can get you off of APEWS. Posting here and asking someone to get back to you is considered rather rude. This is a discussion group.
2. To a first approximation, the number of serious email administrators using APEWS is zero. If you're being blocked the problem is almost certainly not APEWS, and if you investigate and find out the problem _is_ APEWS, we'd be fascinated to find out.
3. You can check for yourself at places like http://www.robtex.com/rbl/. I took a look, and can't see that you're blocked anywhere. If you've received a rejection message and would like to post it here, we could tell you what the issue is. My guess is that if you're sending email from 81.86.23.41 you're being blocked not because if APEWS but because you have no reverse DNS on that address. 81.86.23.41 points back to 81-86-23-41.dsl.pipex.com rather than higgsandsons.co.uk, and many big providers are blocking generic rDNS.
If you're still having problems, come back to the group and give us some more detail, and we'll do what we can to point you in the right direction.
Tim Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:43:52 -0800 (PST), alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk wrote:
>> 81.86.23.41 appears to be blacklisted
>> I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill >> We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send >> out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing >> list and these mailshots are not sent often.
>> Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
>> Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when >> this has been 'whitelisted;
>> Thanks
>> Alex Heer
> (posted and mailed)
> Alex -
> 1. You seem to be confused about what you're posting to. This is a newsgroup > that occasionally discusses email spam issues. Nobody here runs APEWS; few > here use APEWS; nobody here can get you off of APEWS. Posting here and asking > someone to get back to you is considered rather rude. This is a discussion > group.
> 2. To a first approximation, the number of serious email administrators using > APEWS is zero. If you're being blocked the problem is almost certainly not > APEWS, and if you investigate and find out the problem _is_ APEWS, we'd be > fascinated to find out.
> 3. You can check for yourself at places like http://www.robtex.com/rbl/. I > took a look, and can't see that you're blocked anywhere. If you've received a > rejection message and would like to post it here, we could tell you what the > issue is. My guess is that if you're sending email from 81.86.23.41 you're > being blocked not because if APEWS but because you have no reverse DNS on that > address. 81.86.23.41 points back to 81-86-23-41.dsl.pipex.com rather than > higgsandsons.co.uk, and many big providers are blocking generic rDNS.
> If you're still having problems, come back to the group and give us some more > detail, and we'll do what we can to point you in the right direction.
google coddler!
--
"Pot, thy colour is black, thy material make-up is primarily of iron and thy criminal record is that of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution." - Marc B.
You know, in the past dozen years, I've done that, oh, a few dozen times - known that the person had absolutely no idea where they were or what they were doing, and sent a nice email explaining what was going on.
I have never, ever received a reply. Not once. One of these days I'm going to quit trying and let them stay blocked. Or stay thinking that they're blocked.
On Feb 6, 4:04 pm, Tim Boyer <t...@denmantire.com> wrote:
> You know, in the past dozen years, I've done that, oh, a few dozen times - > known that the person had absolutely no idea where they were or what they were > doing, and sent a nice email explaining what was going on.
> I have never, ever received a reply. Not once. One of these days I'm going to > quit trying and let them stay blocked. Or stay thinking that they're blocked.
You know that's funny. I also sent a nice email to this poster explaining the situation, and I too have not had a reply. In fact, for all the times I've done this, I've also never had a reply. There must be some fundamental law of the universe at work here :-)
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:29:55 -0800 (PST), Thane <m...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Feb 6, 4:04 pm, Tim Boyer <t...@denmantire.com> wrote:
>> You know, in the past dozen years, I've done that, oh, a few dozen times - >> known that the person had absolutely no idea where they were or what they were >> doing, and sent a nice email explaining what was going on.
>> I have never, ever received a reply. Not once. One of these days I'm going to >> quit trying and let them stay blocked. Or stay thinking that they're blocked.
>You know that's funny. I also sent a nice email to this poster >explaining the situation, and I too have not had a reply. In fact, for >all the times I've done this, I've also never had a reply. There must >be some fundamental law of the universe at work here :-)
>Thane
I'm sure it's something along the lines of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. We've probably been added to some mailing list somewhere.
On Feb 6, 6:50 pm, Tim Boyer <t...@denmantire.com> wrote:
> I'm sure it's something along the lines of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. > We've probably been added to some mailing list somewhere.
> --
Could be. Although from the tone of the original poster it came across as a "mandate" to remove the listing and one which he was not expecting a reply. I therefore sent a private email to this address saying things much along the lines of your posting, as I did not expect he would check NANAE. There was no reply - nada. I did not expect it - business as usual.
We'll see about the junk mail flood. Time to beef up the firewall :-)
Thane wrote: > On Feb 6, 6:50 pm, Tim Boyer <t...@denmantire.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure it's something along the lines of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. >> We've probably been added to some mailing list somewhere.
>> -- > Could be. Although from the tone of the original poster it came across > as a "mandate" to remove the listing and one which he was not > expecting a reply. I therefore sent a private email to this address > saying things much along the lines of your posting, as I did not > expect he would check NANAE. There was no reply - nada. I did not > expect it - business as usual.
> We'll see about the junk mail flood. Time to beef up the firewall :-)
> Thane
More likely a drive by spammer.
--
"Pot, thy colour is black, thy material make-up is primarily of iron and thy criminal record is that of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution." - Marc B.
Tim Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:29:55 -0800 (PST), Thane <m...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 4:04 pm, Tim Boyer <t...@denmantire.com> wrote:
>>> You know, in the past dozen years, I've done that, oh, a few dozen times - >>> known that the person had absolutely no idea where they were or what they were >>> doing, and sent a nice email explaining what was going on.
>>> I have never, ever received a reply. Not once. One of these days I'm going to >>> quit trying and let them stay blocked. Or stay thinking that they're blocked.
>> You know that's funny. I also sent a nice email to this poster >> explaining the situation, and I too have not had a reply. In fact, for >> all the times I've done this, I've also never had a reply. There must >> be some fundamental law of the universe at work here :-)
>> Thane
> I'm sure it's something along the lines of 'no good deed goes unpunished'. > We've probably been added to some mailing list somewhere.
The only time I ever received a reply was if it was a spammer or someone needing admonishment that they get and they reply to prove they've been butt hurt. Other than that no replies.
--
"APEWS is an organization based in a suburb of Toronto, Canada and their staff regularly monitors and posts to this newsgroup. A "Jaime Baillie" (I think, I'm not too good at Spanish) is often around and might be able to provide some insight of his own. Or maybe not." - Yukio
|
