Keyserver spam example

Jerry gnupg.user at
Fri Jun 11 21:00:09 CEST 2010

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0500
John Clizbe <John at> articulated:

> Mark H. Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> >> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an
> >> RFC that clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP
> >> addresses. Therefore they can not be considered valid.
> > 
> > If there is such an RFC, it's rubbish; I run an MTA at home on my
> > dynamic address, and it works just fine, and is quite valid.
> EXACTLY what Mark said, "RUBBISH"
> MTA and keyserver here. My home ISP "blesses" me with a new address
> about once every six months. Router automagically updates my DNS
> provider and everything is good to go.
> Cite the RFC, please.

The Spamhaus PBL might very well list you. is listed in the PBL

Mailservers using this blocklist would probably block mail from you.
Obtaining a static IP is easily done so I don't know why someone would
want to risk using a dynamic IP. In any case, a very large percentage
of SPAM originates from dynamic IPs, which is why I routinely block

GNUPG.user at

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.

He's just a politician trying to save both his faces...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20100611/ef4c284b/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list