Renaud Allard writes:
> Indeed, but it could cause you to get blacklisted by some automated
After reading your original message, I looked around the first 20-odd
relay checkers and lists of open relays google could find for me
(search string: "mail relay test"). Some these sites in turn link to
extensive lists of publicly available lists of open relays, but I
never found any indication that any of our servers (all spamd
protected) were on any of them.
I take this as an indication that at least the more commonly used ones
do not behave as you suspect. If other, less common ones or or pay to
use lists are more trigger happy and as a consequence offer less
accurate data than the free ones, that is of course unfortunate.
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/
"First, we kill all the spammers" The Usenet Bard, "Twice-forwarded tales"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
| Theodore Tso | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [malware-list] [RFC 0/5] [TALPA] Intro to a linux interface for on access scan... |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH] [0/45] x86 2.6.24 patches review I |
git: | |
| Wenji Wu | RE: A Linux TCP SACK Question |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
