Why would someone (for example, mailto:nico.prenzel@pn-systeme.de ) signup to an eMail list ... and then require authentication?
Just curious ...
IMO, if you don't want eMail, don't signup to an active eMail list.
-------- Message With Full Headers -------- From: - Tue May 31 07:28:42 2005 X-UIDL: 1117523571.M110438P38333.mx6.oct X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 10000000 Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: mdiehl@nac.net Received: (qmail 38071 invoked by uid 0); 31 May 2005 07:12:36 -0000 Received: from 81.169.145.166 by mx6.oct (envelope-from <>, uid 0) with qmail-scanner-1.25 (clamuko: 0.72. Clear:RC:0(81.169.145.166):. Processed in 0.244881 secs); 31 May 2005 07:12:36 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: via mx6.oct X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25 (Clear:RC:0(81.169.145.166):. Processed in 0.244881 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO natnoddy.rzone.de) (81.169.145.166) by rbl-mx6.oct.nac.net with SMTP; 31 May 2005 07:12:35 -0000 Received: from szpn0002 (p213.54.179.94.tisdip.tiscali.de [213.54.179.94]) by post.webmailer.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4V7CXPC014589 for mdiehl@nac.net; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:12:34 +0200 (MEST) Received: by szpn0002 (Postfix) id 996CE474E0; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:05:26 +0200 (CEST) From: MAILER-DAEMON@szpn0002.pn-systeme.de (Mail Delivery System) Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: mdiehl@nac.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="04F23A26C6.1117523126/szpn0002" Message-Id: 20050531070526.996CE474E0@szpn0002 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on spamd2.oct X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-PrefsFile: nac.net/mdiehl X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.6 required=4.7 tests=RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100, RAZOR2_CHECK autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:05:26 +0200 (CEST) From: MAILER-DAEMON@szpn0002.pn-systeme.de (Mail Delivery System) To: mdiehl@nac.net
This is the Postfix program at host szpn0002.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
nico.prenzel@pn-systeme.de: host 192.168.101.1[192.168.101.1] said: 530 Authentication required (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
Reporting-MTA: dns; szpn0002 X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 04F23A26C6 X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; mdiehl@nac.net Arrival-Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 07:59:06 +0200 (CEST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; nico.prenzel@pn-systeme.de Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host 192.168.101.1[192.168.101.1] said: 530 Authentication required (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
Subject: Re: Blogger attacks SURBL From: "Martin G. Diehl" mdiehl@nac.net Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 02:02:20 -0400 To: Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org CC: SURBL Discuss discuss@lists.surbl.org, SpamAssassin Users users@spamassassin.apache.org
Jeff Chan wrote:
Pardon the dramatic title, but hopefully it got your attention.
This guy's domain got listed by Outblaze, we removed it, and as thanks this guy paints us as irresponsible. Please help us straighten him out, gently:
http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/comments/blacklisting_blogs/
I gave it my shot.
Jeff C.
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
The way I read his response is that he stands against SPAM and in favor of anti SPAM measures ...
*provided* he is not inconvenienced.