AOL blocking Cox IPs

[Frank Mandato]

  I can still send mail from my cox account to my wifes AOL account as
of less than an hour ago.
  
  FrankM

On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 11:22, Tom Achtenberg wrote:
> This came out a few weeks ago.  AOL is calling it an anti spam effort.  It probably won't change unless enough of their customers drop AOL and tell them the restricted email service is the reason.  Simplified, if someone now has an AOL email address it can no longer be considered a normal world wide address but needs to be looked at as an AOL only address.  If I were you I would be telling your AOL people to complain to AOL about the loss of email service.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thanasis Kinias [mailto:tkinias@asu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:59 AM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: AOL blocking Cox IPs
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Just to keep things interesting, this morning AOL has begun rejecting e-mail
> from Cox broadband IP addresses.  Here's the message:
> 
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after initial connection:
>     host mailin-03.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.120]: 554- The IP address you are using
> +to connect to AOL is a dynamic (residential)
>     554- IP address.  AOL will not accept future e-mail transactions from this  
> +IP
>     554- address until your ISP removes this IP address from its list of dynamic
>     554- (residential) IP addresses.  For additional information, please visit
>     554  http://postmaster.info.aol.com.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not in the position simply to say to hell with AOL, as I
> need to correspond with people who won't give up their AOL addresses.
> 
> Of course, the URL that they give `for additional information' is dead.
> 
> So... I think I need to come up with some way to get Exim to relay e-mail.  I
> assume that however the Windows world does e-mail (getting the MUA to hand off
> mail to an offsite SMTP server) will still get through AOL's blocking, but
> can't figure out how to configure Exim to do that instead of delivering
> directly.
> 
> Has anyone gotten together a workaround for this yet?