Unsuspicious subject header

[Andrew Brown]

> More relevant? My point was that if the mailserver of his ISP is  
> blocked by Spamhaus, it's probably for a good reason (Spamhause is  
> not like SpamCop or SORBS), and that there are a lot of reputable,  
> free and globally available email providers to choose from that  
> wouldn't have any problem with RBL.

There was a time when the late and unlamented Wanadoo had a virtual  
monopoly in France and I and many others have been blocked a few  
times by Spamhaus because we were sending mail via Wanadoo, then  
notorious as a spammers' nest. I found this rather annoying and was  
unkind to the people at Spamhaus.

> I agree that any sensible email provider would use SMTP AUTH. Why  
> it's not universally adopted yet is a mystery to me.

Some reservations, which may or may not be founded, are expressed at  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP-AUTH

I'm with Pair, who have their own firm ideas about how to things.  
After talking to them about remedies I simply send all mail that they  
flag as spam to /dev/null and too bad if I miss winning a couple of  
billion in a lottery or have to make do with less than 14".

The Spamhaus site provides an interesting gallery of criminals. If  
anyone here knows Putin they could do worse than to point him in the  
right direction...

AB