[ALUG] email bouncing ? |webmail how good?

[James Freer]

Mark Rogers wrote:
> James Freer wrote:
>   
>> ... while talking to greyhoundhomer.org.uk.:
>>  >>> >>> RCPT To:<sally at greyhoundhomer.org.uk>
>> <<< 550-Callback setup failed while verifying <jessejazza at aim.com>
>> <<< 550-Called:   64.12.138.120
>> <<< 550-Sent:     initial connection
>> <<< 550-Response: 554- (RTR:CH)  
>> <<< 550-554  Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114
>>   
>>     
>
> The server handling greyhoundhomer.org.uk is performing some tests 
> against your email address. I assume it testing whether or not your 
> address is valid (presumably jessejazza at aim.com is your address?) and so 
> looked up the mail server which handles your email and connected to it, 
> or rather tried to.
>
> That server (belonging to AOL) rejected the connection, and so the 
> assumption was made that your address was invalid and your email not 
> accepted.
>
> For whatever reason (based on 
> http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rtrch.html confirms) the 
> address in question (that of greyhoundhomer.org.uk) has been 
> blacklisted, perhaps because spam has been sent from that address in the 
> past.
>
> Now the IP address in question (Connecting IP: 65.98.59.114) belongs to 
> FortressITX in the US (according to "whois 65.98.59.114" , so I assume 
> this is some 3rd party email server, not one belonging to 
> greyhoundhomer.org.uk (unless its some cheap US hosting package). 
> According to MXToolbox (www.mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx) the IP is not 
> listed in any of the 120+ blacklists it checks. Therefore it may be that 
> the problem is resolved, unless AOL has its own lists.
>
> To cut a long story short: AOL (and similar free addresses) are not 
> reliable for anything these days; they are heavily targetted by spammers 
> (both for sending from and to), and the varied, changeable, and largely 
> random methods used to stop spam tend to cause at least as many problems 
> as they solve. I would not advise anyone use them for anything!
>
> PS: Also: What Ted said!
>   
Thanks Ted, Mark, MJ Ray for your help.

I wondered if this was one of those cases where a logger (think that's 
what they're called) gets onto the computer or website where 
greyhoundhomer.org is located and then sends spam using that address, 
and hence why aol.com picks it up. You have said that aol.com spam 
control is poor... but is it any different to yahoo or gmail.

When i had an email with my isp, BT back in 2002 i had such a problem 
and it was only after about a year that someone emailed me to ask if i 
was a spammer - i changed then to webmail. It seemed i couldn't have the 
same problem i thought... and i seemed to be free from viruses.

AOL, yahoo and gmail seem fairly good for controlling spam and viruses 
from what i can gather. This problem it would seem is the 
greyhoundhomer.org side. I've tested all three using test viruses and 
have to say that i've been quite impressed - aol were the first with 
server scanning i believe. Gmail claim to scan but i think they just put 
a block on any attachments other than photos extensions [but then i 
found that i didn't receive some that folk have sent me... hence i 
dropped gmail].

As i'm getting round to setting up a home server for a website should i 
consider imap - but the problem there is one's server has always got to 
be running? Sorry i'm not as computer literate as i should be but i'm 
slowly learning about all these things.

thanks
james

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.alug.org.uk/pipermail/main/attachments/20071214/9e0bb61b/attachment.htm