Hi! I guess everyone saw the previous message, and I'm sorry for that. I was trying to find the sender in the users list and couldn't even find anything. If someone is more familiar with those types of problems I would really appreciate a bit of help. thanks. Fred
There is a notification above the message for unsusbcribe the email. I'll already click it. :-) 2013/7/4 Frederic Muller - DFF <fred@digitalfreedomfoundation.org>
Hi!
I guess everyone saw the previous message, and I'm sorry for that. I was trying to find the sender in the users list and couldn't even find anything.
If someone is more familiar with those types of problems I would really appreciate a bit of help.
thanks.
Fred
_______________________________________________ SFD-discuss mailing list SFD-discuss@sf-day.org http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/sfd-discuss
-- Rodrigo Rodríguez http://mundonomada.info __ Prohibido prohibir. La libertad empieza con una prohibición. __ GPG key ID: 525B5B37 50A0 C0E4 3F79 424A 584F 046A 576B 0990 525B 5B37
Hi, Reference:
From: Frederic Muller - DFF <fred@digitalfreedomfoundation.org> Reply-to: Open discussions about SFD <sfd-discuss@sf-day.org> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 21:32:45 +0800
Frederic Muller - DFF wrote:
Hi!
I guess everyone saw the previous message, and I'm sorry for that. I was trying to find the sender in the users list and couldn't even find anything.
If someone is more familiar with those types of problems I would really appreciate a bit of help.
thanks.
Fred
Ignoring the spanish text as I don't speak that, Looking at the header, Assuming we trust canonical (major sponsor of SFD), as It was sent to canonical from 159.253.181.142 nslookup 159.253.181.142 cluster2081.monopost.com cluster2081.monopost.com Name: cluster2081.monopost.com Address: 69.195.228.181 Name: cluster2081.monopost.com Address: 159.253.181.142 69.195.228.181 cluster2081.monopost.com 159.253.181.142 cluster2081.monopost.com If it were me (I use sendmail not one of its competitors) I might be generous (1) & maybe toss it abuse@monopost.com but (2) more likely I'd just dump them: cd /etc/mail ; echo "159.253.181.142 REJECT" >> access ; make access.db Instead of REJECT you could put DISCARD, see below & if I first wasted my time on (1) (rather than going straight to (2)) if that abuse@ or postmaster@ address bounced I would start using nslookup ever more viciously, & blocking ever more of monopost.com IP numbers, & I'd also use whois monopost.com Domain Administrator Badoo Media Limited 332 Agiou Andreou street Patrician Chambers Limassol 3035 CY dmn@monopost.com +44.2070999939 Fax: Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Domain Administrator Badoo Media Limited 332 Agiou Andreou street Patrician Chambers Limassol 3035 CY dmn@monopost.com +44.2070999939 That +44 is a UK of GB number, so unless they have call forwarding to Cyprus, I would susepect theyre a bunch oy shysters, so I'd opt more for (2) than (1) & opt for Discard than Reject. PS in UK spamming is illegal, so anyone with a flat rate call for UK could also phone dmn@ I suppose (I dont think its a hight rate per minute line & hopefully not a mobile/cell, but I dont know). # REJECT Reject the sender or recipient with a general # purpose message. # DISCARD Discard the message completely using the # $#discard mailer. For sender addresses it # indicates that you should discard anything # received from the indicated domain. If it # is used for recipients, it affects only # the designated recipients, not the whole # message. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, like a play script. Indent old text with "> ". Send plain text. No quoted-printable, HTML, base64, multipart/alternative.
participants (3)
-
Frederic Muller - DFF
-
Julian H. Stacey
-
Rodrigo Rodriguez