In message <30BAC6E1-AE5C-4BEC-9CA7-8D44B9124647@blacknight.ie>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2011, at 14:46, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
We are a hosting company.
Are you under the impression that this fact gives you some sort of special dispensation to send me spam?
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't know how you have the gall to make that kind of throwaway remark.
Sorry. It was in response to your throw-away remark "We are a hosting company", as if that had some relevance to, or bearing on the fact that I received spam from your domain. (In the context where it appeared, your comment certainly seemed to have been offered as some sort of excuse or justification for the spam.)
(Some other hosting companies who care about their reputations and about not polluting the Internet have arranged for all outbound port 25 connects from end-luser frequently-compromosed machines to be either blocked or else transparently redirected to a machine, or set of machines, where outbound filtering takes place... you know... in order to fully suppress the inevi table and easily forseeable Nigerian 419 spam outflow from the inevitable and
easily forseeable compromised end-luser machine.)
Read our terms of service. http://www.blacknight.com/acceptable-usage.html
OK. I skimmed it. That tells me what _legal_ steps you have taken, contract-wise, to try to minimize spam outflow. What I had intended to ask (which I admit may not have been perfectly clear) is "What steps you have taken _technically_ to minimize your spam outflow?" Of course, your network, your rules. You can do (or not do) whatever you want on YOUR network. Conversely and likewise, I can do what I want on my network, and on my network the domain name blacknight.ie is in the local blacklist. And as I have explained, it did not get there by sheer random chance. So I think this horse is dead now, and we can both stop beating it. Your network, your rules. My network my rules. Nothing more to say really, now is there? Regards, rfg