Thanks for that useful information Scott. I will watch out.
Chris
On 1 May 2004, at 07:04, Scott Gomez wrote:
>
> SpamCop explicitly does *not* report viruses, I'm sorry to say. It is
> sometimes useful to submit the headers to it anyway, since that can aid
> in determining the source.
>
> This situation is all too usual lately. Comcast doesn't give a damn
> about the fact that its network is virtual cheesecloth. They've done
> nothing visible in some 6 months now about reducing the ability of
> their
> client's machines to initiate smtp sessions, even though such practice
> is prohibited in their terms of service. I've read through hundreds of
> messages on SpamCop's newsgroups and elsewhere about just this issue.
>
> Late last week and early this week, Comcast had actually managed to get
> a large number of its addresses on the block list at SpamCop--nearly
> unprecedented for SpamCop to have done. I'm aware of many, many network
> admins who already block the entire Comcast IP range, and only
> *unblock*
> for specific addresses or senders.
>
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|