James Freer jessejazza@yahoo.co.uk wrote: [...]
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.
It could be a "joe job" which is what I think you're describing, but it seemed more like AOL disliked the server rather than the domain. If greyhoundhomer.org is on a typical hosting server and its owner isn't sharp at keeping spammer signup attempts tied down, then that could be the problem.
AOL are very poor at spam, but in a way different to yahoo or gmail. AOL send misleading error messages and hard-to-reach postmasters. Yahoo do anti-social things to mailservers they don't "like". Googlemail do a bit of both, but less aggressively AFAICT.
I've not heard of problems with the British Gmail (not Google's). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354954.stm
When i had an email with my isp, BT back in 2002 i had such a problem
Much of BT's email is now through Yahoo, so just as unreliable.
AOL, yahoo and gmail seem fairly good for controlling spam and viruses from what i can gather.
Excuse my surprise, but where did you gather that and how much are AOL, yahoo and gmail paying them?
[...]
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?
If you host the IMAP yourself, yes. If you have the IMAP at your hosting provider, then it has some advantages:
- only download email when you choose - delete spam without downloading most of it;
- offline/disconnected working and synchronisation is possible;
and one big disadvantage:
- less widely supported and tested than POP or SMTP.
Sorry i'm not as computer literate as i should be but i'm slowly learning about all these things.
Aren't we all?