On Tuesday 07 December 2004 21:47, Mike Klinke wrote: >On Tuesday 07 December 2004 20:04, Rick Stevens wrote: >> > Another that bears blocking completely is 64.0.0.0/24 as its >> > 100% spam of the non-edible variety. First off, thats my output, not Ricks, somebodies quoting might be busted. >> Whoa, buddy. The entire 64.0.0.0/8 is NOT a spam source. We >> have a /19 in that space and we're not spammers. In my experience back when I was blocking by address only, I had so many hits from the 64.x.x.x block that I finally did block the whole thing. That may not be true now, but at one time I was depending on a smallish filter program for the amiga, and it automaticly added spam addresses to the host.deny file until just the 64.x.x.x addresses were over 50k and the filtering was getting slower and slower. You may not be a spammer, but the ISP's in that major block were apparently spammer friendly when I was doing filtering on the addreses. And in the above message, although I typed /24, I really did mean /8 at that time and place, admittedly now about 5 years out of date. Times and things change, hopefully for the better. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
