Re: LinuxFund

[Martin Schulze]

Matyas Sustik wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> My LinuxFund card is up for renewal.  Debian is listed as one of the 
> projects that LinuxFund supports.  I would like to get some info from 
> Debian whether they are happy with their relationship with LinuxFund.  
> (A note on the Debian website would be useful.)  Using LinuxFund as 

http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050813

Regards,

Joey

-- 
The only stupid question is the unasked one.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:34:35AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Since it's not Debian mail *to* uol.com.br that's the problem, but mail 
> *from* them, I'd just habe blacklisted all @uol.com.br sender addresses and 
> their IP space for incoming mail instead.  But I'm not listmaster.

The challenge-response spam from uol.com.br isn't passing through the 
Debian mail servers.  It's sent directly to posters.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

LinuxFund

[Matyas Sustik]

Hi All,

My LinuxFund card is up for renewal.  Debian is listed as one of the 
projects that LinuxFund supports.  I would like to get some info from 
Debian whether they are happy with their relationship with LinuxFund.  
(A note on the Debian website would be useful.)  Using LinuxFund as 
opposed to funding some selected projects has the advantage that some 
small/new OSS projects will get a chance for funding.   Besides this I 
also financially support(ed) Debian and Firefox (I and my girlfriend 
were in the NY times ad).


I have used Debian for many years and I am very happy with it.  (My 
girlfriend also has been using Debian for more than a year.)  I am 
grateful for the work this project has been doing along with the Linux 
kernel, the GNU toolset, Firefox, etc.


Thanks for your comment in advance.
Matyas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Monday 13 March 2006 21:08, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam
> > > addresses and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been
> > > unceremoniously unsubscribed[1].
> >
> > Just curious: how many accounts where these?  I have blocked quite a
> > bit of .com.br in my own filters already, and "uol" rings a bell, I
> > suspect I've already seen it in spam a few times...
>
> Do you really agree that unsubscribe every uol.com.br address was a good
> thing?

Since it's not Debian mail *to* uol.com.br that's the problem, but mail 
*from* them, I'd just habe blacklisted all @uol.com.br sender addresses and 
their IP space for incoming mail instead.  But I'm not listmaster.

The general idea is: if uol.com.br is not able to react to repeated requests 
on postmaster and abuse addresses, let's separate their part of the 
Internet from our part of the Internet.  With that idea, I agree.

-- vbi

-- 
May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.


pgpN8aO5DuKwh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Guilherme de S. Pastore]

Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 01:57 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> Banning UOL moves some cost onto
> Debian contributors who are UOL customers. Share and Enjoy.

What part of "the listmasters have always known it would not work, it
did not work and petsupermarket is still subscribed, just as annoying as
ever before" did you not understand?

-- 
Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Guilherme de S. Pastore]

Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu:
> uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
> we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
> course of last year) to determine where the problem is.

I have offered help with dealing with them several times on
#debian-lists and yet nobody cared to provide me with any information so
that I could do anything.

> I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking
> similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to
> bring this problem to their attention.

The best time for such a thing for me would have been previously to
being unsubscribed from all Debian lists I followed and posted to. After
having all my work messed up with, why should I care?

Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
thing on their users seem right? You are punishing people which have
nothing to do with the problem. You have messed with people's work for
no practical reason. You have dropped a nuclear bomb to kill a
cockroach, and the cockroach is still alive.

-- 
Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Guilherme de S. Pastore]

Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 00:30 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> 6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.

Yeah, sure, and also cost Debian contributors time and money. This
measure hasn't punished UOL to any extent, and hasn't helped in any way
to fix the problem. It is simply frustrating and demanding time from
Debian contributors and generally interested people.

-- 
Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[MJ Ray]

"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 =C3=A0s 01:57 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > Banning UOL moves some cost onto
> > Debian contributors who are UOL customers. Share and Enjoy.
> 
> What part of "the listmasters have always known it would not work, it
> did not work and petsupermarket is still subscribed, just as annoying as
> ever before" did you not understand?

Mmm, flame-grilled before breakfast(!) I understood it all.
I just think you're wrong about how it's intended to "work". From
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/03/msg00139.html
it seems like a direct fix wasn't expected, but other fix may be.

If you are a UOL customer, have you complained to UOL too?
Please, help us to fix this problem with UOL which has been
costing Debian contributors for ages.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> > > debian-user.
> > >
> >
> > I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
> > worked as the listmasters
> > thought. I would like to suggest that they unsubscribe the original
> > email address that is
> > forwarding the messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and blacklist
>
> Err... Did it ever occur to you that listmasters were not able to
> find out which subscriber is forwarding mails to petsupermarket?

Not really until Anand explained it to me.

> Please provide a means to determine this particular address.

I think i'm helping the listmasters with this step right now.

The others can stop the insults (it isn't with you Joey), i would like
to see your reaction in d-d-a after a listmaster unsubscribe you from
a Debian ML. "for those who care" seems to be the default approach, no
?

Closing, i'm just a Brazilian DD, i'm not a UOL customer and i'm
trying to help. I replied the listmasters here because they sent the
announcement in -project. I give my opinion about how it was handled
and heard feedback, i've contacted folks and we will see if it can be
solved in a better way.

If you are replying here or is planning to do just to be rude with
others and make a new flamewar, stop! Feel free to inform your opinion
but keep in mind that we're not retards.

--

Thanks,
-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[MJ Ray]

"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 =C3=A0s 00:30 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > 6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.
> 
> Yeah, sure, and also cost Debian contributors time and money. This

Debian contributors are being cost time and money dealing
with UOL's crap anyway.  Banning UOL moves some cost onto
Debian contributors who are UOL customers. Share and Enjoy.
http://foldoc.org/?share+and+enjoy
http://www.zootle.net/afda/share-and-enjoy.shtml

> measure hasn't punished UOL to any extent, and hasn't helped in any way
> to fix the problem.

This problem for UOL customers seems primarily caused by
UOL's bad postmastering and could be fixed easily by them.
If you are a UOL customer, have you complained to them?
You can help to fix this problem!

This move punishes UOL's customers as a proxy for UOL.
After all, without customers, UOL wouldn't be a problem.
It's also punishing UOL by depleting goodwill, albeit in
a minor way so far, and also depleting Debian's in some eyes.

> It is simply frustrating and demanding time from
> Debian contributors and generally interested people.

How do you think non-UOL users feel about UOL demanding
time from Debian contributors? Very frustrated!

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PR work

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:


Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
 


Don't forget that we have debian-news *and* debian-announce, while

only high-priority announcements are sent to debian-announce.
   



Why do we have that distinction? Both lists are very low-traffic, with
approximately one mail per week.
 

I think you're confusing debian-announce with debian-devel-announce. By 
my count, debian-announce has had three (3) messages since the release 
of sarge. (Sarge released, security changes and sarge updated)


HTH,
Benjamin


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:


   I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

   manoj
 

How many Joe/Jane users do you think can handle the complexity and 
different paradigm required by mutt? These mailers are easy to use, and 
are well integrated into the desktop environment. Most importantly, they 
offer GUI/Point-and-Click interfaces so that they are easy to use.


(I want to set up mutt eventually, but I don't have the time to relearn 
mail at the mmomment. Perhaps this summer).



David Weinehall wrote:



There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
instance); you can also do a little prefs hackery:

Again, how many Joe users are going to install extensions or mess around 
with their prefs.js to set up arbitrary headers ("headers? what are 
those")? This sort of thing has to work out of the box for everyone.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[MJ Ray]

"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> > > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no  general problem with that domain,
> > > right? [...]
> >
> > The Challenge-Response system appears to be a uol.com.br service
> > and there seems no way to detect externally which users are using
> > it.  I don't know what proportion of @uol.com.br use it. Do you?
> 
> Yes, it's their service and the C-R thing sucks. I'm not using
> @uol.com.br but that's not the point, see below.
[...]
> Good research really, but do you see that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> isn't subscribed in our MLs ? It's other address that is forwarding to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] The mass-unsubscribe side effect here is
> that we're hurting users when [EMAIL PROTECTED] is still free
> to mail our lists. What's the rationale ? Force uol users after
> unsubcribe them to ask their ISP send a reply for Debian ?

I can't see whether or not [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
subscribed - I am not a listmaster. I just correct your
statement: this spamming of Debian contributors *is* UOL's
fault and a general problem with the domain uol.com.br. It is
hosting a spamming anti-spam system without due care.

It sucks that listmasters get to play detective because UOL
deploy spamware and apparently won't do simple traces on their
incoming mail to help close down the spam sources.

I can see a rationale for an ever-increasing boycott of UOL,
although I don't know if these are the listmasters' reasons:

1. I assume UOL is paid for its services and has paid staff.
2. Debian is run by volunteer effort and resources.
3. UOL's inadequate tech support is making Debian contributors
waste effort and resources.
4. Effectively, some Debian resources are being used instead
of UOL paying the full cost of its anti-spam spamware.
5. This is unethical, effectively using the public-interest
Debian project's resources to make the private-interest UOL
company more profitable. It is taking away from the commons.
6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.
7. One way is to start making UOL users complain or transfer
their business away from UOL.

As you can see from the bug log, I have mixed feelings about
the ban, but for now I ask: Debian-supporting customers of
UOL, Folhapar and Portugal Telecom, please complain to them
instead of/as well as listmasters and consider taking your
business to better-behaved firms. Personal boycotts can help.
Every little hurts: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/boycotts

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Anand Kumria]

Hi Guilherme,

Unfortunately we are caught between a rock and a hard place here.

uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
course of last year) to determine where the problem is.

The only people uol.com.br might listen to is paying customers who
complain about limited access to various mailing lists (such as Debian).

While I'd love to be in Brazil, I'm unfortunately not. And that means I'm
not a paying customer of uol.com.br -- which means there is no incentive
for them to listen to me.

I'm aware of a number of other groups who are on the verge of taking
similiar action. So, if you are a customer now would be the best time to
bring this problem to their attention.

Thanks,
Anand

-- 
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Anand Kumria]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:23:04AM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > > > unsubscribed[1].
> > > 
> > > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> > > debian-user.
> > 
> > Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
> > candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
> > uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
> > immediately.
> 
> You're assuming that it's someone subscribed with the same address to
> debian-devel and debian-user.

True - I don't think it is an unreasonable starting point though. I'd
certainly be surprised if there was more than one account forwarding to
petsupermarket.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:31:26AM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> 
> And you're also assuming it's someone who's subscribed rather than
> someone reading the list through a gateway.
 
I'd already begun a dialog with some of those gateways to see what we
can do about uol.com.br together.

Anand

-- 
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Pascal Hakim]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 10:23 +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > > > unsubscribed[1].
> > > 
> > > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> > > debian-user.
> > 
> > Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
> > candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
> > uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
> > immediately.
> 
> You're assuming that it's someone subscribed with the same address to
> debian-devel and debian-user.
> 

And you're also assuming it's someone who's subscribed rather than
someone reading the list through a gateway.

Cheers,

Pasc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Pascal Hakim]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > > unsubscribed[1].
> > 
> > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> > debian-user.
> 
> Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
> candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
> uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
> immediately.

You're assuming that it's someone subscribed with the same address to
debian-devel and debian-user.

Cheers,

Pasc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Martin Schulze]

Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> > debian-user.
> >
> 
> I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
> worked as the listmasters
> thought. I would like to suggest that they unsubscribe the original
> email address that is
> forwarding the messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and blacklist

Err... Did it ever occur to you that listmasters were not able to
find out which subscriber is forwarding mails to petsupermarket?

Please provide a means to determine this particular address.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
The only stupid question is the unasked one.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > > > unsubscribed[1].
> > >
> > > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> > > debian-user.
> >
> > Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
> > candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
> > uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
> > immediately.
>
> Just 475? How come?
>

weird number, maybe they've left only 475 candidates from the -user
(last probe) ?

-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

I've just mailed a person in UOL, but i still need a better technical
contact that probably i'll obtain through a nic.br person until the
end of this week. If the listmasters or somebody else has a good
summary that was already sent for UOL, please forward it to me.

Thanks,
-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > > unsubscribed[1].
> > 
> > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> > debian-user.
> 
> Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
> candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
> uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
> immediately.

Just 475? How come?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> have been unsubscribed. In December the Debian listmasters sent a mail
> to every subscriber to see if that would help track down the offender,
> but it seems not. Rumor also has it that the ISP has not been helpful in
> identifying culprit.

No, UOL wasn't helpful so far.  Someone, somewhere, is subscribing repeater
addresses that mailbomb petsupermarket, and for all we know they might be
doing it through NNTP feeds like gmane.  Without UOL's help, we cannot track
down the criminal and disable him, and it doesn't look like UOL cares (or if
it would care, the necessary stimuli is not making it through their thick
dinossaur ISP skin deep enough for someone with a clue to notice).

*IF* there is any interest into pursuing this through legal channels in
Brazil (which is an input channel UOL cannot help but take notice of), it
should be possible for SPI to do so.  I have doubts it would produce good
results, though, and it would not be cheap.

> (For the record, I think unsubscribing all uol.com.br subscribers was
> not a helpful thing to do.)

It appears not to have helped with the mailbombing, so yes, it was useless.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 14:12 -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
> I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> debian-user.

I should recommend not blacklisting the entire .+uol.com.br addresses.
This is one of the biggest ISP in Brasil, it can cause a lot of harm to
just blacklist it. This "anti-spam feature" is optional. Only some
lo^H^Husers uses it.

I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
him from receiving messages until he remove this crap.

daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Guilherme de S. Pastore]

[ Breaking the thread as I have been one of the unceremoniuously
unsubscribed ]

Do not be surprised (as someone has already been) if this is of no use:
the listmasters already knew the offender was not using his uol.com.br
e-mail address to subscribe to the lists. Hence, this whole mess simply
did not help in any way, and rather made some people go even farther
away from the project.

Just when I did not need anything else to be frustrated about...

--
Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Matthias Julius]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones
>  asking for a favour. If they want  a special treatment, different
>  from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour
>  request in a manner I am going to respond to, or they do not get a
>  CC. As simple as that.

And there is nothing wrong with that.  There is no policy that
requires you to honor this request.  It is your decision.

>
> My MUA shall respect MFT headers, so people shall get CC's if
>  they set it. If they say something in the body, since it is not
>  automated, it depends on whether I notice it, and am inclined to do
>  them the favour or not. It's a crap shoot.

I agree a note in the body is not reliable.  But, MFT isn't neither.
At least my MUA makes it very easy to follow the request for CC.

Anyway, how big is the problem?  In the last two weeks I havn't
noticed any post to the Debian lists I read that requested a private
CC.

If you'd like so much for MFT to become widely accepted you should
lobby for it to become formal standard.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Anand Kumria]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
> 
> I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
> debian-user.

Thanks for the information Matthew, that narrows it down to 475
candidate addresses.  However we never anticipated that unsubscribing
uol.com.br subscribers would rectify the problem -- esepecially
immediately.

Thanks,
Anand

-- 
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

Hi listmasters,

Can you send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and me explaining the problem ? If you already
did, please forward to me the original message.

Thanks in advance,
-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
>
> Just curious: how many accounts where these?  I have blocked quite a bit
> of .com.br in my own filters already, and "uol" rings a bell, I suspect
> I've already seen it in spam a few times...
>

Do you really agree that unsubscribe every uol.com.br address was a good thing?


-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:

> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].

Just curious: how many accounts where these?  I have blocked quite a bit 
of .com.br in my own filters already, and "uol" rings a bell, I suspect 
I've already seen it in spam a few times...

cheers & keep up the work, listmasters!
-- vbi

-- 
Available for key signing in Zürich and Basel, Switzerland
(what's this? Look at http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)


pgpMH1XQ4E2Mb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hi Anand,
>
> Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project.
>
> > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no  general problem with that domain,
> > right? [...]
>
> The Challenge-Response system appears to be a uol.com.br service
> and there seems no way to detect externally which users are using
> it.  I don't know what proportion of @uol.com.br use it. Do you?

Yes, it's their service and the C-R thing sucks. I'm not using
@uol.com.br but that's not the point, see below.

> See also:
>  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=355684
>  Bug report that triggered the unsubscribe, but apparently
>   not the first time @uol.com.br users have been C-R spamming.
>
>  http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html
>  Challenge Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful
>
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg00338.html
>  Earlier version posted to debian-user

Good research really, but do you see that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
isn't subscribed in our MLs ? It's other address that is forwarding to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The mass-unsubscribe side effect here is
that we're hurting users when [EMAIL PROTECTED] is still free
to mail our lists. What's the rationale ? Force uol users after
unsubcribe them to ask their ISP send a reply for Debian ?

--

-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ma, 2006-03-13 kello 17:53 -0300, Daniel Ruoso kirjoitti:
> > I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
> > stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
> > him from receiving messages until he remove this crap.
>
> The problem is, and has been all the time, that it has not been possible
> to identify who the subscriber is. If it were, only that address would
> have been unsubscribed. In December the Debian listmasters sent a mail
> to every subscriber to see if that would help track down the offender,
> but it seems not. Rumor also has it that the ISP has not been helpful in
> identifying culprit.
>
> (For the record, I think unsubscribing all uol.com.br subscribers was
> not a helpful thing to do.)

Exactly, and it just changed things for worse, removing from our lists
Guilherme Pastore (for example) that is a Debian and GNOME
contributor.

Btw, i'm trying to contact a UOL sysadmin (i'm from other ISP in
Brazil) but it won't be that easy as you already know.

--
-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Lars Wirzenius]

ma, 2006-03-13 kello 17:53 -0300, Daniel Ruoso kirjoitti:
> I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
> stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
> him from receiving messages until he remove this crap.

The problem is, and has been all the time, that it has not been possible
to identify who the subscriber is. If it were, only that address would
have been unsubscribed. In December the Debian listmasters sent a mail
to every subscriber to see if that would help track down the offender,
but it seems not. Rumor also has it that the ISP has not been helpful in
identifying culprit.

(For the record, I think unsubscribing all uol.com.br subscribers was
not a helpful thing to do.)

-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Matthew R. Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
>
> I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> debian-user.
>

I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
worked as the listmasters
thought. I would like to suggest that they unsubscribe the original
email address that is
forwarding the messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and blacklist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] only. After that, subscribing again the
others @uol.com.br address will not hurt anyone.

Thanks,
-- stratus

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[MJ Ray]

"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Anand,

Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project.

> Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no  general problem with that domain,
> right? [...]

The Challenge-Response system appears to be a uol.com.br service
and there seems no way to detect externally which users are using
it.  I don't know what proportion of @uol.com.br use it. Do you?

See also:
 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=355684
 Bug report that triggered the unsubscribe, but apparently
  not the first time @uol.com.br users have been C-R spamming.

 http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html
 Challenge Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful

 http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg00338.html
 Earlier version posted to debian-user

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].

I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to 
debian-user.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket

[Gustavo Franco]

On 3/13/06, Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (...)
> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].
>
> Perhaps this action will prompt some kind of response from the powers
> that be at uol.com.br; but the listmasters are not holding their breath.
>

Hi Anand,

Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no  general problem with that domain,
right ? Unfortunately, you've unceremoniously unsubscribed at least a
Debian and GNOME contributor. It's clear for me that he can subscribe
with other address but this blacklist approach for uol.com.br users
makes no sense, IMHO. Can you consider this again ?

Thanks in advance,
-- stratus

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Margarita Manterola]

On 3/13/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:
> > Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> > arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.
> I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

Thunderbird is a very respected MUA.  There's a big group of people
who don't feel comfortable writing mails from mutt (or the like), and
I don't think it's such a good idea to take into account only people
who can use a console-client to be able to receive a reply on a
mailing-list.

We are not talking about developers, we are talking about anyone who
needs to send a mail to a mailing-list and get a reply.

Also, it's not like we are discussing about mailers for a propietary
OS, but it's a free mailer that works inside Debian.

I think that we need to take a bit more consideration for people who
are not so technically-able but that might still have something to
say, or rather, something to get answers to.

Also, the list policy says that you don't send CCs by default, but
that you'll send a CC if asked to, so I'd say it's pretty much our job
to make sure that the mail goes where it should.

--
Besos,
Marga

Re: Private copies of list replies

[David Weinehall]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 12:11:01PM -0500, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 
> >
> >I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if they
> >want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside, most other
> >lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email on a per-header
> >basis; there's no drawback to setting it.
> > 
> >
> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set 
> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.

There are plugins for Thunderbird that solves that (mnehy, for
instance); you can also do a little prefs hackery:

http://www.semergence.com/archives/2004/12/09/09/07/


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 12 Mar 2006, MJ Ray told this:

> Apply your expectations to yourself. Don't push the work to handle
> your mail client's exceptional support for a non-standard buggy
> header onto everyone who requests a CC. It's unacceptable.


It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones
 asking for a favour. If they want  a special treatment, different
 from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour
 request in a manner I am going to respond to, or they do not get a
 CC. As simple as that.

My MUA shall respect MFT headers, so people shall get CC's if
 they set it. If they say something in the body, since it is not
 automated, it depends on whether I notice it, and am inclined to do
 them the favour or not. It's a crap shoot.

manoj
-- 
"Rage is a wind that blows out the candle of reason." Author Unknown
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private copies of list replies

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 11 Mar 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg stated:

> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm also failing to see any reasons people would *not* set M-F-T if
>> they want CCs (or if they specifically don't; Debian lists aside,
>> most other lists have no such policy).  I'm not charged for email
>> on a per-header basis; there's no drawback to setting it.
>>
>>
> Thunderbird, as well as many other MUAs doesn't allow you to set
> arbitrary headers, including M-F-T.


I guess it is time to move to a more capable MUA, no?

manoj
-- 
X-rated movies are all alike ... the only thing they leave to the
imagination is the plot.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PR work

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

Martin Schulze wrote:
>> Couldn't we just put something nice there? Like news that actually show
>> how alive Debian is, reporting about new, shiny software packages in
>> testing, with xxxtra-bling! Seriously, good press work isn't when you
>> send out a "hrm, still not dead" notice every three of four months.
>
> Yes.  Real news should be announced.  However, what you wrote as
> examples doesn't even sound suitable for debian-news to me.

I just did a quick review of this year's DWN issues and these are subjects
of hypothetical press releases interesting to users:

"Next Debian release will integrate the Kolab groupware"
"Next Debian release will have a graphical installer"
"New Debian Live Initiative will provide official Debian Live CDs"
"Debian Developer's Room at FOSDEM conference"
"Debian Booth at CeBIT"
"Debian has reorganized it's Technical Committee"
"Debian considers GNU FDL with invariant sections non-free"
"Next Debian release will have full Xen integration"

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PR work

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060308 09:09]:
>> >> I know that some non-Debian people actually ask questions like "I
>> >> heard Debian has split and is dead, what will happen in the future?"
>> >> From time to time, just because Debian's PR work sucks so much.
>> > Any hints, ideas and feedback what we could improve in our PR work?
>> 
>> More information about the status of the next release, for example.
>> Looking at the archives of debian-announce, I see that since 2000, the
>> number of messages per year has gone down constantly. 
>> Nowadays, the only messages we see there are announcing a new point
>> release or a notice about big *problems* in the project ("Debian
>> Security Support in Place", "Some Debian Project machines have been
>> compromised").
>
> Don't forget that we have debian-news *and* debian-announce, while
> only high-priority announcements are sent to debian-announce.

Why do we have that distinction? Both lists are very low-traffic, with
approximately one mail per week.

>> Couldn't we just put something nice there? Like news that actually show
>> how alive Debian is, reporting about new, shiny software packages in
>> testing, with xxxtra-bling! Seriously, good press work isn't when you
>> send out a "hrm, still not dead" notice every three of four months.
> Yes.  Real news should be announced.  However, what you wrote as
> examples doesn't even sound suitable for debian-news to me.

Well, it was early and I was nearly asleep. But a summary of the release
updates which are directed to -devel-announce would be nice, for
example, giving an overview what has been done for the next release and
what still needs to be done. That would also, and that's an important
point IMO, give users an impression what improvements will be included
in the next Debian release. At the moment, you can only find something
out about that if you use resources mainly provided for developers.

Marc
-- 
Cabal theories right: https://launchpad.net/distros/debian/+members
Security is for wimps: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/34606/
Film at 11!


pgp5PfE2pAaoq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PR work

[Martin Schulze]

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060308 09:09]:
> >> I know that some non-Debian people actually ask questions like "I
> >> heard Debian has split and is dead, what will happen in the future?"
> >> From time to time, just because Debian's PR work sucks so much.
> > Any hints, ideas and feedback what we could improve in our PR work?
> 
> More information about the status of the next release, for example.
> Looking at the archives of debian-announce, I see that since 2000, the
> number of messages per year has gone down constantly. 
> Nowadays, the only messages we see there are announcing a new point
> release or a notice about big *problems* in the project ("Debian
> Security Support in Place", "Some Debian Project machines have been
> compromised").

Don't forget that we have debian-news *and* debian-announce, while
only high-priority announcements are sent to debian-announce.

> Couldn't we just put something nice there? Like news that actually show
> how alive Debian is, reporting about new, shiny software packages in
> testing, with xxxtra-bling! Seriously, good press work isn't when you
> send out a "hrm, still not dead" notice every three of four months.

Yes.  Real news should be announced.  However, what you wrote as
examples doesn't even sound suitable for debian-news to me.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
The only stupid question is the unasked one.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PR work

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060308 09:09]:
>> I know that some non-Debian people actually ask questions like "I
>> heard Debian has split and is dead, what will happen in the future?"
>> From time to time, just because Debian's PR work sucks so much.
> Any hints, ideas and feedback what we could improve in our PR work?

More information about the status of the next release, for example.
Looking at the archives of debian-announce, I see that since 2000, the
number of messages per year has gone down constantly. 
Nowadays, the only messages we see there are announcing a new point
release or a notice about big *problems* in the project ("Debian
Security Support in Place", "Some Debian Project machines have been
compromised").
Couldn't we just put something nice there? Like news that actually show
how alive Debian is, reporting about new, shiny software packages in
testing, with xxxtra-bling! Seriously, good press work isn't when you
send out a "hrm, still not dead" notice every three of four months.

Marc
-- 
Cabal theories right: https://launchpad.net/distros/debian/+members
Security is for wimps: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/34606/
Film at 11!


pgpqStadgJcNA.pgp
Description: PGP signature