Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Eric Crist wrote: On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do. Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly enough. I have heard this said elsewhere too. Yes don't rely solely on greylisting unless you're a lucky guy and don't get a lot of spam. I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers are from the first week of May 2007 to today: [snip] I'm not saying it doesn't work. As a matter of fact, we're making effective use of greylisting as well. With spamd you can see the sender address and the HELO for example, so you can make nice scripts of trapping forged e-mail addresses, incorrect HELO commands, empty sender addresses, stuff like that. Just the greylisting process itself is only working so-so in our environment. All I'm saying is that greylisting is a start and not a solution :) But like I said, YMMV. Jorn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Eric Crist wrote: I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers are from the first week of May 2007 to today: Greylisted/Rejected Messages: 187560 Spam Tagged Messages: 3806 Virus Tagged Messages: 0 Bounced Messages:7 Total Messages Sent: 761 Total Messages Delivered:25345 I'd second the recommendation, although my stats don't keep long-term track of the difference between something greylisted and something bounced due to policy-weightd. Over the past year, I've had: Rejected Messages: 1,624,353 Spam Tagged Messages: 39,633 Virus Tagged Messages: 2947 Bounced Messages: 7609 Total sent: 103,433 Total received: 122,614 About 93% of the incoming traffic gets rejected permanently (via policy-weightd) or temporarily via greylisting; of the remainder, about 40% is tagged as spam and about 3% is tagged as viral. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do. Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly enough. I have heard this said elsewhere too. Yes don't rely solely on greylisting unless you're a lucky guy and don't get a lot of spam. Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam mails a day at least. This setup was running amavis, spamassassin, postfix, postgrey, dcc and razor. Unfortunately, over time the bayes filter got incorrectly trained, and it sometimes rejected valid e-mails. If there's something you DON'T want to happen it's that. And also troubleshooting those kind of things can be quite hard ... What about CRM114 and dspam? I played with dspam at home but I didn't really got it running as I wanted to. I didn't invest an awful lot of time in it though, so I cannot properly judge it. I never heard of CRM114, so I cannot say anything from that. Have you ever tried statistical filtering instead of heuristics with spamassassin? We rebuilt the environment from scratch. Right now we are running OpenBSD spamd + OpenBSD Packetfilter. This functions as greylisting / greptrapping in combination with the PF firewall. We made a couple of scripts to trap invalid / forged e-mail addresses that are greylisted. Also we make use of the uatraps / nixspam traplists, and our own generated blacklist generated from spam being sent to the postmaster. We had some problems with blacklisted entries in the past, but we worked around that. It goes further then that, but I will spare you all the details. pf(4) has some amazing features that come in handy for spam control. I guess it forms a key component of any spam blocking architecture. And it works in concert with the other OpenBSD niceties you point out like populating the tables with blacklists and whitelists, greytrapping and using the pf(4) anchor mechanism to automate stuff. Indeed. PF is very powerful and uses very little resources. Hats off to the OpenBSD guys for this. And indeed, I can recommend every e-mail admin to use a pf and spamd combination. It's awesome and you can do a lot with it. Check out the OpenBSD website for more info. The probability and state tracking options in pf(4) are pretty interesting too if used creatively. Very much so, it opens a lot of new options for you to handle blacklisted entries. On the second line we run Postfix / ClamSMTP / Clamd / Spamassassin. We removed Amavis because it was annoying to upgrade and we wanted to get rid of it, as we had problems with it in the past. With SpamAssassin we use sa-update and sa-learn to keep the rules up-to-date and make sure bayes gets properly trained. So we are marking e-mail as spam and no longer block it. Why? Simple ... we no longer want to block false positives. Again, there is more to this, but I will spare you all the details. But if you don't update virus signatures wouldn't that cause worms and malware propagation? I know I am digressing but I thought signature updation was critical to malware control... Well of course, but with clamd I also ment using freshclam :) So we keep our signature database up-to-date as well. Right now we have 2500 happy users. Their local helpdesks helped them with getting an Outlook rule in place to automatically move tagged e-mails to a spam folder. Just like their gmail, hotmail or Yahoo account does at home. Wow, this is great. I am not surprised to hear this. ;) The environment we have is certainly not the easiest one, but we automated many things, leaving us with practically no work on it. All the updating of rulesets / blacklists / whitelists /whatever goes by itself. Downside of an environment like this is that you will need quite some knowledge of all the components and how they work together. But hey, I got it running at home as well (a bit simpler though) and didn't had a single spam mail in my mailbox the last 4 months. Sure, the ones I do get are getting tagged and moved to my spam folder automatically, which I do with maildrop (though procmail does the job nicely too). All in all it works like a charm. Using the X-foobar headers I suppose? I just check the Subject header to see if it starts with *SPAM*. So yes, using the mail headers :) Well a long story, but maybe it is of use for someone else. As always, YMMV. Yes, very enlightening, many thanks. Glad to hear. Jorn ___
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do. Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly enough. I have heard this said elsewhere too. Yes don't rely solely on greylisting unless you're a lucky guy and don't get a lot of spam. I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers are from the first week of May 2007 to today: Greylisted/Rejected Messages: 187560 Spam Tagged Messages: 3806 Virus Tagged Messages: 0 Bounced Messages:7 Total Messages Sent: 761 Total Messages Delivered:25345 So, out of 25,345 messages that have been delivered to mailboxes, 3,806 of them were tagged as Spam by Spamassassin. Guessing at false positives based on what I see in my inbox (I'm the heaviest mail user on my network), about 10% are probably false positives. 25345/187560 = .1351 = 13.51% of email gets past greylisting. ((3806*.90)/25345) = .1351 = 13.51% of that email is considered Spam, which is probably correct. Based on those numbers, 162,215 messages were probably Spam. I'm guess it's Spam, as none of our users have complained that there is legitimate email failing to get through to their inbox. That would be ~88.8% of email hitting my systems is Spam. I would consider greylisting in my case VERY successful. What this doesn't take into consideration, however, is that I truly hate the delay of receiving a message from someone that isn't in the database, and as such, we're working on improving our SA rulesets and getting rid of greylisting. If my math is wrong here, please feel free to correct me, I'm by no means any good at it. ;) - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger: Install the following: /usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight /usr/ports/mail/postgrey Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to keep SPAM out of our company pretty much completely. Both are best used to reject mails before they even have to be delivered (in Postfix, this is a sender or recipient restriction, see the websites of the two projects for more details on how to set them up), so as a added bonus, people don't have to scroll through endless lists of mails marked as ***SPAM***. Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do. Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly enough. Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam mails a day at least. This setup was running amavis, spamassassin, postfix, postgrey, dcc and razor. Unfortunately, over time the bayes filter got incorrectly trained, and it sometimes rejected valid e-mails. If there's something you DON'T want to happen it's that. And also troubleshooting those kind of things can be quite hard ... We rebuilt the environment from scratch. Right now we are running OpenBSD spamd + OpenBSD Packetfilter. This functions as greylisting / greptrapping in combination with the PF firewall. We made a couple of scripts to trap invalid / forged e-mail addresses that are greylisted. Also we make use of the uatraps / nixspam traplists, and our own generated blacklist generated from spam being sent to the postmaster. We had some problems with blacklisted entries in the past, but we worked around that. It goes further then that, but I will spare you all the details. On the second line we run Postfix / ClamSMTP / Clamd / Spamassassin. We removed Amavis because it was annoying to upgrade and we wanted to get rid of it, as we had problems with it in the past. With SpamAssassin we use sa-update and sa-learn to keep the rules up-to-date and make sure bayes gets properly trained. So we are marking e-mail as spam and no longer block it. Why? Simple ... we no longer want to block false positives. Again, there is more to this, but I will spare you all the details. Right now we have 2500 happy users. Their local helpdesks helped them with getting an Outlook rule in place to automatically move tagged e-mails to a spam folder. Just like their gmail, hotmail or Yahoo account does at home. The environment we have is certainly not the easiest one, but we automated many things, leaving us with practically no work on it. All the updating of rulesets / blacklists / whitelists /whatever goes by itself. Downside of an environment like this is that you will need quite some knowledge of all the components and how they work together. But hey, I got it running at home as well (a bit simpler though) and didn't had a single spam mail in my mailbox the last 4 months. Sure, the ones I do get are getting tagged and moved to my spam folder automatically, which I do with maildrop (though procmail does the job nicely too). All in all it works like a charm. Well a long story, but maybe it is of use for someone else. As always, YMMV. - Jorn I've had a setup with amavisd-new, spamassassin and clamav on another mail server (basically the same thing Chuck described), but for our current usage, these two are efficient enough not to warrant the upgrade to more powerful hardware (which would be required to run SpamAssassin properly). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it was very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and they follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail admins do. Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly enough. I have heard this said elsewhere too. Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam mails a day at least. This setup was running amavis, spamassassin, postfix, postgrey, dcc and razor. Unfortunately, over time the bayes filter got incorrectly trained, and it sometimes rejected valid e-mails. If there's something you DON'T want to happen it's that. And also troubleshooting those kind of things can be quite hard ... What about CRM114 and dspam? Have you ever tried statistical filtering instead of heuristics with spamassassin? We rebuilt the environment from scratch. Right now we are running OpenBSD spamd + OpenBSD Packetfilter. This functions as greylisting / greptrapping in combination with the PF firewall. We made a couple of scripts to trap invalid / forged e-mail addresses that are greylisted. Also we make use of the uatraps / nixspam traplists, and our own generated blacklist generated from spam being sent to the postmaster. We had some problems with blacklisted entries in the past, but we worked around that. It goes further then that, but I will spare you all the details. pf(4) has some amazing features that come in handy for spam control. I guess it forms a key component of any spam blocking architecture. And it works in concert with the other OpenBSD niceties you point out like populating the tables with blacklists and whitelists, greytrapping and using the pf(4) anchor mechanism to automate stuff. The probability and state tracking options in pf(4) are pretty interesting too if used creatively. On the second line we run Postfix / ClamSMTP / Clamd / Spamassassin. We removed Amavis because it was annoying to upgrade and we wanted to get rid of it, as we had problems with it in the past. With SpamAssassin we use sa-update and sa-learn to keep the rules up-to-date and make sure bayes gets properly trained. So we are marking e-mail as spam and no longer block it. Why? Simple ... we no longer want to block false positives. Again, there is more to this, but I will spare you all the details. But if you don't update virus signatures wouldn't that cause worms and malware propagation? I know I am digressing but I thought signature updation was critical to malware control... Right now we have 2500 happy users. Their local helpdesks helped them with getting an Outlook rule in place to automatically move tagged e-mails to a spam folder. Just like their gmail, hotmail or Yahoo account does at home. Wow, this is great. I am not surprised to hear this. ;) The environment we have is certainly not the easiest one, but we automated many things, leaving us with practically no work on it. All the updating of rulesets / blacklists / whitelists /whatever goes by itself. Downside of an environment like this is that you will need quite some knowledge of all the components and how they work together. But hey, I got it running at home as well (a bit simpler though) and didn't had a single spam mail in my mailbox the last 4 months. Sure, the ones I do get are getting tagged and moved to my spam folder automatically, which I do with maildrop (though procmail does the job nicely too). All in all it works like a charm. Using the X-foobar headers I suppose? Well a long story, but maybe it is of use for someone else. As always, YMMV. Yes, very enlightening, many thanks. -Girish ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 14:48:35 schrieb Jorn Argelo: snip Also I believe that rejecting e-mail is a big point of discussion. We had an internet e-mail environment built about 3 years ago, and there the users were terrorized by spam. We had some users getting 30 spam mails a day at least. This setup was running amavis, spamassassin, postfix, postgrey, dcc and razor. Unfortunately, over time the bayes filter got incorrectly trained, and it sometimes rejected valid e-mails. If there's something you DON'T want to happen it's that. And also troubleshooting those kind of things can be quite hard ... Neither of the two packages I recommended are anything close to bayesian filtering, as they don't actually take measure on the content of the mail (which isn't available anyway when the corresponding rules are effective in the Postfix restriction mechanism), but rather on the conditions the mail is received under. This is what makes them (much more) lightweight (than for example a full statistical or bayesian filter) in the first place. I've not had a single false positive which wasn't explained with incorrect or plain invalid mailserver configuration on the sender side so far with these two packages, and the possibility of a false negative in our current environment is something close to 1%, at least according to my mailbox (which gets publicized enough by posting to @freebsd.org addresses). -- Heiko Wundram Product Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
--On December 16, 2007 8:13:34 PM +0100 Heiko Wundram (Beenic) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neither of the two packages I recommended are anything close to bayesian filtering, as they don't actually take measure on the content of the mail (which isn't available anyway when the corresponding rules are effective in the Postfix restriction mechanism), but rather on the conditions the mail is received under. This is what makes them (much more) lightweight (than for example a full statistical or bayesian filter) in the first place. I've not had a single false positive which wasn't explained with incorrect or plain invalid mailserver configuration on the sender side so far with these two packages, and the possibility of a false negative in our current environment is something close to 1%, at least according to my mailbox (which gets publicized enough by posting to @freebsd.org addresses). I've been using policyd-weight for more than a year now, and I've had exactly one problem with it. It rejected legitimate mail because that particular ISP didn't have a clue about DNS. I tweaked the rules very slightly to cause a score for legitimate mail to fail just below the threshold for rejection, and I've not had a single false positive since. Policyd-weight rejects between 50% and 80% of the incoming mail (it varies by the day) before the mail server ever even processes it. I also use spamassassin, and I have set it up so that borderline mail that's rejected gets copied to a folder (/var/spool/spam) so I can review it. Occasionally I have to recover an email from that folder because it was falsely labeled as spam. Usually it's someone using incredimail or a similar service that loads up an email with all sorts of extra junk. Policyd-weight is the perfect complement to a tool like spamassassin. It gets rid of all the obvious spam (fake MXes, dailup mail servers, servers listed in multiple RBLs, etc.) before spamassassin has to make a decision about it. Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sten and the rest,
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would
reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem
is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling
reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue?
The things that are important to me is:
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance.
* Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be
filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software.
Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance
to me at this point.
I have a different approach. I refuse all connections from ip's which
reverse DNS points to costumers of providers.
This gives a huge reduction of botnets.
Below my helo_checks and client_checks. Ofcourse use it for your own risk!
Besides this method I also use rbls's, greylisting, clamsmtpd, clamav,
procmail and spamassasin
###
# helo_checks.pcre
###
/^[0-9.]+$/ REJECT Please use your ISP's outgoing mail server -
HA
/^\|/ REJECT Please use your ISP's outgoing mail
server - HB
/^[\d\.]+$/ REJECT Please use your ISP's outgoing mail
server - HC
# H1 adsl,dial,dhcp,cable,retail,dynamic in helo
/(adsl|dial|dhcp|cable|retail|dynamic)/i REJECT Please use your ISP's
outgoing mail server - H1
# H2 customer,static,kabel in helo
/(customer|static|kabel)/i REJECT Please use your
ISP's outgoing mail server - H2
# H3 12345
# /\d{5}/ REJECT
Please use your ISP's outgoing mail server - H3
# H4 123-123-123
/\d{1,3}-\d{1,3}-\d{1,3}/ REJECT Please use
your ISP's outgoing mail server - H4
# H5 123.123.123
# /\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}/ REJECT Please use your
ISP's outgoing mail server - H5
###
# client_checks.pcre
###
# C1 adsl,dial,dhcp,cable,retail,dynamic in hostname
/(adsl|dial|dhcp|cable|retail|dynamic)/i 554 Please use your ISP's
outgoing mail server - C1
# C2 customer,static,kabel in hostname
/(customer|static|kabel)/i 554 Please use your
ISP's outgoing mail server - C2
# C3 123456
/\d{6}/ 554 Please
use your ISP's outgoing mail server - C3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959
iD8DBQFHZYI8Ph5RwW/NzC4RAj1uAJ9saKRz9Q+daCcU7D/plXGRAdXflACfQ3KR
DpXkjMrMMITbqdSulZW8aBM=
=D4lA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
I have found spam assassin with nightly updates of the helpful (there are other people developing new regexs daily). 48 5 * * * /usr/local/bin/sa-update --channel updates.spamassassin.org /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd restart There are other channels you can subscribe to. Another super helpful bocker is to block all inbound connections from IPs without reverse DNS. Don't forget to virus check your email while you are at it -- there are several packages (clamav is one). And finally, a couple of RBLs added into the mix are helpful. Awesome, i didn't see the subscriptions on their website. This is exactly what i need. -- Sten Daniel Soersdal Something else I would recommend if you end up going the spamassassin route is to look at rules emporium and rules du jour http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm Rules Du Jour is a nice bash script that can automatically download and update the latest rules emporium rules for several different categories of spam. You just choose which rule lists you want to use (there are a lot of categories and then different levels of spam caught vs false positives within rule sets) and then set rules du jour as a nightly cron job to update your rule sets automatically. As some one else said, this lets you have other people keep your regexs up to date. I also added these lines to the top of the Rules Du Jour script to download a couple of other nice clamAV spam signatures: #update extra clam spam defs if [[ -d /var/lib/clamav/ ]]; then cd /var/lib/clamav/ wget --timestamping http://download.mirror.msrbl.com/MSRBL-SPAM.ndb cd /var/lib/clamav/ wget --timestamping http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/scamsigs/scam.ndb.gz gunzip -cdf scam.ndb.gz scam.ndb fi #end update extra clam spam defs I also use these smtpd restrictions in main.cf: smtpd_helo_required = yes smtpd_helo_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access, reject_non_fqdn_hostname, reject_invalid_hostname, permit smtpd_sender_restrictions = check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/client_restrictions, permit_sasl_authenticated, permit_mynetworks, reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, permit smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining, reject_non_fqdn_recipient, reject_unknown_recipient_domain, reject_unknown_sender_domain, check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/client_restrictions, permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated, reject_unauth_destination, reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org, reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net, reject_rbl_client dnsbl.njabl.org, permit Most of that came from here: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/focus_spam_postfix/ Greylisting is great, and usually doesn't delay mail more than 5 minutes, but in some rare cases it can lead to mail delays of sometimes up to 4 or 5 hours (which is within RFC specs for resending after a 302 message). For my personal server, that is no problem, so I have implemented postgrey (with the stuff above) and get almost no spam ever. For a few businesses I run mail servers for, they expect email to be instant (I know it doesn't have to be technically, but that is what a lot of people expect now a days). For them 20 extra spam a day by not doing grey listing is an okay trade off so that one contact from the new client shows up in time, instead of 3 hours too late. Anyway, I hope this helps. I am always trying to find new great spam solutions (using postfix), so I will continue watching this tread with great interest. Most of the companies I setup mail servers for would rather have 30 spam delivered per user per day than have even 1 false positive or 1 significantly delayed mail, so it is always a tricky line to walk (at least for me) to block as much spam as I can, without ever delaying or blocking a ham message, so I am always looking for new ideas and solutions. Preston ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Hi Sten, I ran /usr/ports/security/amavisd-new for a year or so. I must admit, I didn't update it so more and more spam made it's way through. A mate tipped me off on trying: /usr/ports/mail/mailscanner Much easier to install than amavisd-new. I found it easier to understand the config file too. If you really get keen, there is a book you can purchase and it has great online help. There is also a nice optional webpage stats port/package: /usr/ports/mail/mailscanner-mrtg Now I only have 1 spam getting through every 3 days or so out of 350+ daily spam emails. I now have it running on 4 different sites. Cheers, Paul Hamilton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sten Daniel Soersdal Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:12 AM To: freebsd-questions Subject: (postfix) SPAM filter? We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Rudy wrote: Steve Bertrand wrote: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll never happen, because fighting spam is an arms race, with new tactics needing to be adopted. Amen (or Ahem, or what BSDie would say). There will *ALWAYS* be maintenance. If you are not developing new regexs and/or solutions to fight the daily produced techniques that make up SPAM, then you are implementing them. I have found spam assassin with nightly updates of the helpful (there are other people developing new regexs daily). 48 5 * * * /usr/local/bin/sa-update --channel updates.spamassassin.org /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd restart There are other channels you can subscribe to. Another super helpful bocker is to block all inbound connections from IPs without reverse DNS. Don't forget to virus check your email while you are at it -- there are several packages (clamav is one). And finally, a couple of RBLs added into the mix are helpful. Awesome, i didn't see the subscriptions on their website. This is exactly what i need. -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(postfix) SPAM filter?
We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? -- Sten Daniel Soersdal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said: We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? SpamAssassin (in the ports tree). It's relatively easy to set up and can be used server wide or on an individual basis. Individuals can also override site-wide settings. Links to setting up with postfix can be found on the postfix site. Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote: We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? No additional maintenance (less user add/delete)?: http://www.postini.com Unfortunately, it's been years since I've used their services so I can't remember if they have the ability to mark and pass. It's a hands-off solution that works. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? SpamAssassin (in the ports tree). It's relatively easy to set up and can be used server wide or on an individual basis. Individuals can also override site-wide settings. Links to setting up with postfix can be found on the postfix site. I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings. I am probably wrong though. Another solution (which is also not a do-it-yourself), is http://barracuda.com. We switched from Postini to an internal Barracuda cluster and have never looked back. I might add that I personally run an ancient version of SpamAssassin on my personal box which still works, and I have an upgraded box coming down the pipe. I have no experience with having inexperienced users manage their own account with it though. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Sten Daniel Soersdal said: We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. I should also mention that SpamAssassin has exactly such an option and doesn't require any hands on except for an occasional update once set up. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? Beech -- --- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Dec 12, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Sten Daniel Soersdal wrote: We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Install the following: /usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight /usr/ports/mail/postgrey /usr/ports/mail/p5-Mail-SpamAssassin /usr/ports/security/amavisd-new /usr/ports/security/clamav policyd + postgrey provide rather good, very lightweight initial filtering of email without taking up a lot of memory or resources, and remove a lot of workload, so that the Amavisd+ClamAV+SA combination only has to do virus-scanning and SpamAssassin's expensive Bayesian word-mangling on emails which seem to be legit. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500 Steve Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings. I am probably wrong though. Postfix is running here on a FreeBSD server as a boarder filter server. All bayes and per-user SpamAssassin settings are stored within a MySQL database on our SQL server. The web mail interface is SquirrelMail installed on a different FreeBSD server and has the sasql plugin interfaced to the MySQL server so the customers have control over what they want to set their spam score, whitelist, blacklist, whether they want bayes filtering, whether they want bayes autolearn and so forth. It has been pretty low maintenance. I am in the process of evaluating the possibility of using amavis-new. -- _|_ (_| | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On Thursday 13 December 2007 03:35:00 Duane Hill wrote: It has been pretty low maintenance. I am in the process of evaluating the possibility of using amavis-new. I used amavis-new on a Linux system and lost the ability to have per-user settings. I had to go with a systemwide setting and I don't know if amavis allows per-user configuration. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Duane Hill wrote: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:55:45 -0500 Steve Bertrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was going to recommend that, but from my experience, there is no real *easy* way to allow users directly to modify their own settings. I am probably wrong though. Postfix is running here on a FreeBSD server as a boarder filter server. All bayes and per-user SpamAssassin settings are stored within a MySQL database on our SQL server. The web mail interface is SquirrelMail installed on a different FreeBSD server and has the sasql plugin interfaced to the MySQL server so the customers have control over what they want to set their spam score, whitelist, blacklist, whether they want bayes filtering, whether they want bayes autolearn and so forth. It has been pretty low maintenance. I am in the process of evaluating the possibility of using amavis-new. For myself, I've run a very similar environment with a lot of custom hacked software to integrate it all. The reason I haven't upgraded yet is because I've hacked so much of squirrelmail and other aspects of the setup since 2004 that there will be no way for me to carry things over (easily;) Depending on what way one looks at it, It may be good or bad that I don't really have time to follow what is happening with SPAM prevention in regards to Open Source anymore. I agree that SA/ClamAV/maildrop is an excellent setup, particularly running atop of Qmail with VPOPMail etc. I also have used Sendmail with milters and procmail to do the same thing...extensively. Realistically, it comes down to what the OP wants. I am but one operator in a 'small' ISP. I also manage it's support department. The truth is that once the OP stated that budget wasn't an issue, and he wanted essentially a turnkey solution, the easiest and most cost-effective method that I have learned is outsource it. If you can afford the bandwidth to filter in house, then you can also afford to have a 24*7*1hr support contract with a vendor so your support staff can do some of your work for you (or play games). If you can't afford bandwidth inbound, but still want your help-desk staff and yourself available, outsource to someone or some entity who specializes on only email security so they can filter before the mail touches your network. Otherwise, install/maintain yourself. Understand I am not trying to negate the use/feasibility of any software. I am running with the fact that cost for the OP is no issue. If that is truly the case, then why do it yourself when you can pay someone else who knows better to do it for you? The cost savings on headaches and lost time on downed equipment alone are more than worth it. ...I'm being too business-minded, and too obtuse. Back to figuring out why DBD::mysql won't compile on my legacy FreeBSD box I go... Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
On 12/12/07, Sten Daniel Soersdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a need for a relatively painless anti-spam solution that would reduce the amount of incoming spam (via postfix mail router). The problem is that i have little knowledge on what this actually means. Googling reveals a whole universe of interesting ways but what should i pursue? The things that are important to me is: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Neither performance, scalability, license nor cost is of much importance to me at this point. Any hints? Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll never happen, because fighting spam is an arms race, with new tactics needing to be adopted. As for the second goal, spamassassin along with one of several packages will do well for you - I use Maia Mailguard, but I've heard good things about MailZu with Amavisd-new as well. Others will talk about other packages. It's worth taking a look at each of them to figure out what works for you. Kurt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
* Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll never happen, because fighting spam is an arms race, with new tactics needing to be adopted. Amen (or Ahem, or what BSDie would say). There will *ALWAYS* be maintenance. If you are not developing new regexs and/or solutions to fight the daily produced techniques that make up SPAM, then you are implementing them. If there is anyone who disagrees, then you likely have not dealt with SPAM in an organization larger than a few thousand dispersed and non-educated users. If you have such, and you have no maintenance, then I beg your pardon. Others will talk about other packages. It's worth taking a look at each of them to figure out what works for you. ...agreed. It's also worth taking a look at ALL options, not just 'packages' to figure out what works for you. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Steve Bertrand wrote: * Once it is setup then it would require no additional maintenance. * Potential spam messages are marked with a special header that can be filtered on user discretion on their local mail client software. Yes, one recommendation for sure. Give up on your first goal. It'll never happen, because fighting spam is an arms race, with new tactics needing to be adopted. Amen (or Ahem, or what BSDie would say). There will *ALWAYS* be maintenance. If you are not developing new regexs and/or solutions to fight the daily produced techniques that make up SPAM, then you are implementing them. I have found spam assassin with nightly updates of the helpful (there are other people developing new regexs daily). 48 5 * * * /usr/local/bin/sa-update --channel updates.spamassassin.org /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sa-spamd restart There are other channels you can subscribe to. Another super helpful bocker is to block all inbound connections from IPs without reverse DNS. Don't forget to virus check your email while you are at it -- there are several packages (clamav is one). And finally, a couple of RBLs added into the mix are helpful. Rudy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (postfix) SPAM filter?
Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 03:12:53 schrieb Chuck Swiger: Install the following: /usr/ports/mail/postfix-policyd-weight /usr/ports/mail/postgrey Just as an added suggestion: these two (very!) lightweight packages suffice to keep SPAM out of our company pretty much completely. Both are best used to reject mails before they even have to be delivered (in Postfix, this is a sender or recipient restriction, see the websites of the two projects for more details on how to set them up), so as a added bonus, people don't have to scroll through endless lists of mails marked as ***SPAM***. I've had a setup with amavisd-new, spamassassin and clamav on another mail server (basically the same thing Chuck described), but for our current usage, these two are efficient enough not to warrant the upgrade to more powerful hardware (which would be required to run SpamAssassin properly). -- Heiko Wundram Product Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
Karl Vogel wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:03:06 +0200, Roland Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: R On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote: J I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for J mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for J primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV J scanning would be a plus too. R I've been using bogofilter for some years now, and it works very well once R you've trained it properly. I started collecting spam a few years ago, and I use a Bayesian filter called ifile to handle junk. I trained it using just over 117,000 crapmail messages, and I don't get a lot of spam these days... http://www.dnaco.net/~vogelke/Software/Internet/Servers/Mail/Spam/Ifile/ I highly recommend ASSP. It's by far the best spam filter I've ever used and my clients are constantly raving about it's effectiveness. It's also extremely easy to configure and maintain. Check it out at http://assp.sourceforge.net/ . Regards, Elvar ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:03:06 +0200, Roland Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: R On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote: J I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for J mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for J primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV J scanning would be a plus too. R I've been using bogofilter for some years now, and it works very well once R you've trained it properly. I started collecting spam a few years ago, and I use a Bayesian filter called ifile to handle junk. I trained it using just over 117,000 crapmail messages, and I don't get a lot of spam these days... http://www.dnaco.net/~vogelke/Software/Internet/Servers/Mail/Spam/Ifile/ -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company I will not charge admission to the bathroom. --written on blackboard by Bart Simpson ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 15:20 -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. I'd like to recommend to use SpamAssassin(mail/p5-Mail-SpamAssassin). That's enough. FYI, here is my local.cf: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/stuff/izb-spamassassin-local.cf.example Byung-Hee ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On October 01, 2007 at 01:21AM Martin Hepworth wrote: On 9/30/07, Pollywog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm I use mailscanner with sendmail which uses spamassasin with clamav. All from the ports. I used Mailscanner at one time, but it is not recommended for use with Postfix because mail can be lost. It never happened to me, but it has happened to others. I believe the Postfix website mentions these problems. Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the correct installation type. http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics -- Martin Please don't Top Post. It makes following the thread more difficult than it needs to be. As for 'Mailscanner', the only real problem is that it is not on Wietse's Christmas card list. Mailscanner is regularly lambasted on the Postfix forum. You might want to ask your question regarding its suitability for your particular configuration there, and possibly on the Mailscanner forum directly. Obviously, these two opposing groups disagree as to whom to attribute any problems that arise between the interaction of these two programs. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-( as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-) -- martin On 10/1/07, Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On October 01, 2007 at 01:21AM Martin Hepworth wrote: On 9/30/07, Pollywog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm I use mailscanner with sendmail which uses spamassasin with clamav. All from the ports. I used Mailscanner at one time, but it is not recommended for use with Postfix because mail can be lost. It never happened to me, but it has happened to others. I believe the Postfix website mentions these problems. Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the correct installation type. http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics -- Martin Please don't Top Post. It makes following the thread more difficult than it needs to be. As for 'Mailscanner', the only real problem is that it is not on Wietse's Christmas card list. Mailscanner is regularly lambasted on the Postfix forum. You might want to ask your question regarding its suitability for your particular configuration there, and possibly on the Mailscanner forum directly. Obviously, these two opposing groups disagree as to whom to attribute any problems that arise between the interaction of these two programs. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[4]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On October 01, 2007 at 06:39AM Martin Hepworth wrote: Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-( Actually, Outlook can be configured to place replies at the bottom of a replied to message. I am amazed though that you have not been able to figure out how to navigate to the bottom of a message before starting your reply. Doesn't ctrlend or some such combination work on GMail? If not, then why use a broken MUA anyway? Besides, how long can it take to position the cursor at the end of a message? Certainly less time than it took to write it. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On 9/30/07, Joe in MPLS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm Maia Mailguard. It's a fork (sorta) of amavisd-new, and integrates SpamAssassin and ClamAV. It can be set to quarantine emails that are suspected to be spam, and also those with attachments that you consider to be suspicious, and presents end-users with reminder emails and a good web interface for managing their emails. It Rocks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
Martin Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-( as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-) The Better Gmail plugin for Firefox includes an option to enable bottom posting. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4866 -Ryan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On 10/1/07, Ryan Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-( as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-) The Better Gmail plugin for Firefox includes an option to enable bottom posting. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4866 -Ryan Ryan hmm ta - got that, but still doesn't BP even with the option set, I'll experiment -- martin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
--On Monday, October 01, 2007 06:21:48 +0100 Martin Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the correct installation type. http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta: postfix:politics By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd-weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight Agreed. +1. Me too. :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote: By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd- weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight Agreed. +1. Me too. Seconded (or thirded :). policyd-weight is much smaller than amavisd-new or SpamAssassin (it tends to run a couple of ~7 MB RSIZE processes, rather than a bunch of 45 - 80MB RSIZE), and it's caching of RBL/DNSBL lookups means it can handle and offload a bunch of queries that the others would do. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote: On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote: By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd- weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight Agreed. +1. Me too. Seconded (or thirded :). policyd-weight is much smaller than amavisd-new or SpamAssassin (it tends to run a couple of ~7 MB RSIZE processes, rather than a bunch of 45 - 80MB RSIZE), and it's caching of RBL/DNSBL lookups means it can handle and offload a bunch of queries that the others would do. I didn't know about this one. Is the installation and use documented somewhere? (In case I can't find anything on Google). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Monday 01 October 2007 22:48:09 Pollywog wrote: On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote: On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote: By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd- weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight Agreed. +1. Me too. Seconded (or thirded :). policyd-weight is much smaller than amavisd-new or SpamAssassin (it tends to run a couple of ~7 MB RSIZE processes, rather than a bunch of 45 - 80MB RSIZE), and it's caching of RBL/DNSBL lookups means it can handle and offload a bunch of queries that the others would do. I didn't know about this one. Is the installation and use documented somewhere? (In case I can't find anything on Google). Found it: http://www.policyd-weight.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
I am using postfix+amavis (doing spamassassin)+postgrey and I rarely get any spam come through. I run a fairly light weight email server only doing a coulple of thousand emails a day. Mailgraph is a great port to integrate as well as it graphs how many emails have been blocked due to spam/virus etc. Cheers, Terry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pollywog Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2007 8:48 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix? On Monday 01 October 2007 22:18:00 Chuck Swiger wrote: On Oct 1, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote: By far the best anti-spam tool I've used with Postfix is policyd- weight. mail/postfix-policyd-weight Agreed. +1. Me too. Seconded (or thirded :). policyd-weight is much smaller than amavisd-new or SpamAssassin (it tends to run a couple of ~7 MB RSIZE processes, rather than a bunch of 45 - 80MB RSIZE), and it's caching of RBL/DNSBL lookups means it can handle and offload a bunch of queries that the others would do. I didn't know about this one. Is the installation and use documented somewhere? (In case I can't find anything on Google). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[4]: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On October 01, 2007 at 01:31PM Ryan Phillips wrote: Martin Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Top posting is gmail being broken - just like Outleek ;-( as for the whole mailscanner/postfix thing I'm very aware of the issues and the fact no-one who actually works WW with likes him ;-) The Better Gmail plugin for Firefox includes an option to enable bottom posting. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4866 Now GMail users will claim that they don't use Firefox and therefore are not able to use the addon, thereby effectively enabling them to continue to 'top post'. Heck, if they cannot scroll to the bottom of a page or use a simple shortcut combination, I would find it hard to believe that they could actually download and install a Firefox addon. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm I use mailscanner with sendmail which uses spamassasin with clamav. All from the ports. -Derek -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm I use mailscanner with sendmail which uses spamassasin with clamav. All from the ports. I used Mailscanner at one time, but it is not recommended for use with Postfix because mail can be lost. It never happened to me, but it has happened to others. I believe the Postfix website mentions these problems. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. I've been using bogofilter for some years now, and it works very well once you've trained it properly. I'm calling it from procmail just before the mail is delivered, but that's because my desktop has just a single local user. Bogofilter comes with a 'integrating-with-postfix' document that shows you how to call it from postfix directly. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgp9up46A8KoQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
On Sunday 30 September 2007 21:03:06 Roland Smith wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:20:58PM -0500, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. I've been using bogofilter for some years now, and it works very well once you've trained it properly. I'm calling it from procmail just before the mail is delivered, but that's because my desktop has just a single local user. Bogofilter comes with a 'integrating-with-postfix' document that shows you how to call it from postfix directly. I call Bogofilter from Procmail and I did not know it could be called directly from Postfix. I use Bogofilter and Spamassassin and very little spam gets through undetected. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: best spam filter port(s) for postfix?
Mailscanner and postfix is perfect combination...no problems with the correct installation type. http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics -- Martin On 9/30/07, Pollywog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:28:23 Derek Ragona wrote: At 03:20 PM 9/30/2007, Joe in MPLS wrote: I'm running 6.2-STABLE with postfix with cyrus-sasl, imap-uw horde for mail. I'd like to stop depending on clients(Thunderbird PDAs) for primary spam control (especially because our PDAs don't do any). AV scanning would be a plus too. ...jgm I use mailscanner with sendmail which uses spamassasin with clamav. All from the ports. I used Mailscanner at one time, but it is not recommended for use with Postfix because mail can be lost. It never happened to me, but it has happened to others. I believe the Postfix website mentions these problems. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM Filter
Thomas MailScanner calling spamassassin and clam-av (alternative and more flexible to amavis-new) -- martin On 11/1/05, Thomas Linton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam filter. Many thanky in advance. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPAM Filter
I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam filter. Many thanky in advance. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SPAM Filter
I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam filter. SpamAssassin (.org) Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SPAM Filter
Amavis calling Clam-AV and Spam-Assassin Brian E. Conklin, MCP+I, MCSE Director of Information Services Mason General Hospital http://www.masongeneral.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Linton Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:00 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: SPAM Filter I'm installing an old laptop with freeBSD 5.4. It's going to be my mail server (postfix) and a simple ftp Server. I need some suggestions for a spam filter. Many thanky in advance. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Mason General Hospital 901 Mt. View Drive PO Box 1668 Shelton, WA 98584 http://www.masongeneral.com (360) 426-1611 = This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee nor authorized to receive for the addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message. Replying to this message constitutes consent to electronic monitoring of this message. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spam Filter - Sieve
Hi All, I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is sieve. FYI I am FreeBSD newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions. Thanks in Advance. Ajit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam Filter - Sieve
IMGate, join the mailling list and ask for config files and docs. http://imgate.meiway.com/index.cfm - Original Message - From: Ajitesh K [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FreeBSD - Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FreeBSD - Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:26 AM Subject: Spam Filter - Sieve Hi All, I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is sieve. FYI I am FreeBSD newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions. Thanks in Advance. Ajit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam Filter - Sieve
I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is sieve. FYI I am FreeBSD newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions. http://spamassassin.org Steve Thanks in Advance. Ajit ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Steve Bertrand President/CTO, Northumberland Network Services t: 905.352.2688 w: www.northnetworks.ca ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam Filter - Sieve
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:47:58PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote: I am using Cyrus mail appn and its filter appn is sieve. FYI I am FreeBSD newbie want to learn to filter spam. Any suggetions. http://spamassassin.org You might wanna combine spamfiler (which is _realy_ good) with procmail. Spamassassin checks if a spam is spam and procmail is the filthering process. Both are in the port system. -- Alex P.S. Please CC me. Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spam filter combined with virus filter
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 04:23, Dragoncrest wrote: Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a good spam filter/virus filter combination? Should I stick with Spam Assassin or go with something else? I'm fishing for ideas, cause this is getting kind of old dealing with this stuff. exim with exiscan can link with spamassassin and works with virus checkers too, or http://mailscanner.info/ does very good spam and virus scanning but may be over the top for personal installations :) -- Simon Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Spam filter combined with virus filter
Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a good spam filter/virus filter combination? Should I stick with Spam Assassin or go with something else? I'm fishing for ideas, cause this is getting kind of old dealing with this stuff. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Spam filter combined with virus filter
I am using amavis-perl with the auto update and spamcop BL list with sendmail. Works awesome, maybe 1 spam gets thru a week and 50 or more rejected a day with about 10 users on the system. amavis is in the ports under security look to www.spamcop.net for the blocklist and how to add it to your mail system. - Original Message - From: Dragoncrest [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:23 PM Subject: Spam filter combined with virus filter Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a good spam filter/virus filter combination? Should I stick with Spam Assassin or go with something else? I'm fishing for ideas, cause this is getting kind of old dealing with this stuff. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Spam filter combined with virus filter
Dragoncrest schrieb: Looking for a good anti-virus to go with my spam filter. Currently using spam assassin with mixed results, but now I'm getting more and more of these stupid viruses coming into the mail server I'd rather deal without. Anybody got a good suggestion for a good spam filter/virus filter combination? Should I stick with Spam Assassin or go with something else? I'm fishing for ideas, cause this is getting kind of old dealing with this stuff. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message using sendmail with enabled rbl´s + networkwide access control + mailscanner (mcafee + f-prot) and spam assasin happyly. -- Best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Karl M. Joch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ctseuro.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Brett Glass wrote: At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda. It should remain his own. But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD. No, it's not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's written in C. GCC just happens to be the tool that comes in the package (which is a shame, IMHO; it's not a very good compiler). Any of you ever tried to write a compiler ? Yes -- for a living. But I've moved on to other pursuits, because GCC has sufficiently destroyed the market that it is not possible to make a living writing compilers. Quality doesn't matter; a mediocre GPLed product precludes the release of good commercial ones. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-chat in the body of the message GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:58, Mike Jeays wrote: Brett Glass wrote: At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda. It should remain his own. But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD. snipped Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread. Regards, Stacey To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread. 1. Don't bottom quote, it's terribly annoying. 2. Since you're a clueless negro who couldn't compile helloworld.c if his life depended on it, shut the fuck up. Sincerely, Paul -- Paul Saab [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, Stacey Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Dude, You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about. Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well. Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5? For your information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:58:59PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote: Brett Glass wrote: GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers! Windows is of great benefit to the world. It can't be all that mediocere if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality operating systems! :) That said, this is an arguement that regualrly appears in this list, has been beaten to death, and, most importantly, doesn't belong here. Take it to email or a talk, advocacy, or discussion list. (and please take the trolls who have latched on with you!). -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Oh come on, we can behave better than this...In normal conversation, there is no reason to use such potentially offensive language, when discussing FreeBSD. Which I might add what this list is supposed to be about. At least, I know that's why I signed up for it. On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, Stacey Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Dude, You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about. Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well. Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5? For your information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Daniel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 17:05:26 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote: On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, Stacey Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Dude, You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about. Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well. Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5? For your information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh come on, we can behave better than this...In normal conversation, there is no reason to use such potentially offensive language, when discussing FreeBSD. Which I might add what this list is supposed to be about. At least, I know that's why I signed up for it. In case anybody is in doubt, this message and the one ostensibly from Paul Saab are forgeries. We're trying to find ways of combatting the problem, but in the meantime, there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply to off-topic or offensive mail messages. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 13:58:59 -0500, Mike Jeays wrote: Brett Glass wrote: At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote: Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda. It should remain his own. But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD. No, it's not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's written in C. GCC just happens to be the tool that comes in the package (which is a shame, IMHO; it's not a very good compiler). Any of you ever tried to write a compiler ? Yes -- for a living. But I've moved on to other pursuits, because GCC has sufficiently destroyed the market that it is not possible to make a living writing compilers. Quality doesn't matter; a mediocre GPLed product precludes the release of good commercial ones. GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers! Mike, this message was originally posted to the FreeBSD-chat mailing list, where by definition it's on topic. It is definitely not on topic for FreeBSD-questions. Please don't forward this sort of thing to this list. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
At 2003-01-05T00:27:01Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply to off-topic or offensive mail messages. Actually, Greg, there are two things we can do. The second is to GPG-sign *and* GPG-verify email. I'm as guilty as the next person of not being diligent about this, but that may be changing. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Mike, this message was originally posted to the FreeBSD-chat mailing list, where by definition it's on topic. It is definitely not on topic for FreeBSD-questions. Please don't forward this sort of thing to this list. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers My apologies for posting inappropriate comments to questions. I forgot for the moment I am also subscribed to chat. Mea culpa... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-28 13:49:31 -0700: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. so you think you have a *right* to send me email? you must be joking. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
At 06:13 PM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote: I've been in contact with the port maintainer. His position: 1) This problem is out of scope for him, 2) He is away on holiday and can't easily access the FreeBSD cluster, 3) Other pressures will keep him from this problem for several weeks. He advised me to contact me Miss Hampton. I can't fault him. Contacting Ms. Hampton is probably the right thing to do. However, he can help by changing the procmail.rc file, which controls which blacklists the recipes will consult. Many FreeBSD ports come with customized configurations, so this is by no means outside his scope as a port maintainer. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Bystander shot by a spam filter.
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black-listed on a whim. Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? Harry Tabak QUAD TELECOM, INC. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Harry Tabak wrote: I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. More precisely, people who have chosen to run spambouncer are rejecting your mail based on the rules it uses. The procmail recipe does just what it says: blocks Inflow IP addresses. The IP address you use is owned by Inflow (you sub-let from another renter, your ISP). As the owner, the ultimate responsibility for that IP address is Inflow's. A quick groups.google.com search shows that Inflow does have spam-friendliness problems. None of this has anything to do with the FreeBSD port. I suggest you contact, in this order, your ISP, Inflow, and then the spambouncer authors. Success in getting Inflow to change its ways would help in getting them removed from the procmail recipe. You could also contact the intended recipients of your mail and have them whitelist your email address. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain. You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care. You complain to the people that actually wrote the software. Usually found in the source code and such. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. If people would stop sending spam or harden their computers connected to the Internet to keep from sending spam accidentally, there would be no need for this software either. Might as well wish for world peace though. Chuck On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Harry Tabak wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
From: Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is so crazy I had to respond. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. Are you one of those people, that blames a car owner for not having an alarm system when his car gets stolen, instead of blaming the car thief? It's simple. Inflow is blocked for a reason. You can whine all you want, but spam filters never add default blocks unless an ISP has spammed, and refused to anything about it. Therefore, Inflow had to do at least 2 things: 1. Spam 2. Refuse to stop spamming after being contacted about it. I, personally, fully support their decision. There really needs to be some accountability on the Internet. Here's what you _should_ do: 1. Contact Inflow and raise a stink about how their poor policies are hurting you. 2. Find another provider. 3. Send a letter to the BBB complaining about Inflow's policies Even if you don't agree with me, I'll say that you're unlikely to have the FreeBSD people do anything? Have you emailed all the Linux distros as well and told them that there's an RPM out there that they should boycott? Are you now going to email every ISP on the planet and suggest that they boycott all FreeNIXes because they can use this anti-spam software? You're driving the wrong way on a the other way street, if you really want to accomplish anything. Put the pressure on the people who are doing wrong, not on the people trying to stop it. You shouldn't even have to contact the anti-spam developers, Inflow should contact them once they've improved their policy and demand that they be removed! _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:19:32 -0600 (CST) From: Chuck Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain. You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care. I know only one user, that is how I discovered the problem. I have no way of identifying other users. That frightens me. You complain to the people that actually wrote the software. Usually found in the source code and such. Unfortunately, the author hasn't replied to my complaints yet. Possibly she has taken a holiday. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. There is a significant difference between this port and the others. My other ports at worst only harm the intended user when things go wrong. This port harms random and anonymous individuals. I don't believe that FreeBSD redistributes spamming software or list managers that don't provide the proper opt-in safeguards by default. I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting fire from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. I will be happy to fix it, the author may not like my philosophy. I believe in Free Speech and a working internet mail system. I would attempt to minimize false positives, and require testing. But as I said earlier, the author doesn't respond. Even if the software is adjusted, it will be impossible to recall all the older versions. If people would stop sending spam or harden their computers connected to the Internet to keep from sending spam accidentally, there would be no need for this software either. Might as well wish for world peace though. amen. Unfortuately, good people are making a bad situation even worse by hip-shooting. Chuck snip To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
This is not all that surprising The behavior you are talking about, blocking entire isp's and blocks of ips, is the same as the other service you mentioned earlier, SPEWS. SPEWS has blocked 2 entire c-classes at my isp, preventing my company from sending mail to many large email sites, like mail.com and others. When I enquired about having the block removed, or made more specific to block the spammers, but not block my /28, I was told to go to hell. I think you are in the same situation. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Tabak Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Harry Tabak Subject: Bystander shot by a spam filter. [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Someone, quite probably Harry Tabak, once wrote: From: Chuck Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain. You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care. I know only one user, that is how I discovered the problem. I have no way of identifying other users. That frightens me. What about this especially frightens you? Many people have many filters for various mail systems around the globe. This is just one that someone has bundled up. I'd also be very surprised if it's the only set of filters out there that block your IP address. If your provider has upset someone enough to get blocked then there has to be a fair chance that they've upset others similarly. Whilst getting spambouncer changed will solve this issue a long term solution would be to make sure your ISP doesn't do the kind of things that people blacklist over. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. There is a significant difference between this port and the others. My other ports at worst only harm the intended user when things go wrong. This port harms random and anonymous individuals. I don't believe that FreeBSD redistributes spamming software or list managers that don't provide the proper opt-in safeguards by default. Well technically FreeBSD (ports) provides only helper software to make other people's software easier to manage, and since Sendmail is part of the base system and it can be (mis-)configured to act as an open relay it could be used by spammers. But I understand what you're trying to say and I'm just being a little pedantic about the wording. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. I will be happy to fix it, the author may not like my philosophy. I believe in Free Speech and a working internet mail system. Surely part of a working Internet mail system means that I have the right to filter mail? Free Speech should also allow me the freedom to not listen after all. I would attempt to minimize false positives, and require testing. But as I said earlier, the author doesn't respond. Even if the software is adjusted, it will be impossible to recall all the older versions. Have you looked at the port itself? Maybe if your fixes are simple enough you could convince the maintainer to accept them in the port until such time as the author is able to respond? Kevin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black-listed on a whim. Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? Harry Tabak QUAD TELECOM, INC. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message msg13491/pgp0.pgp
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file? My guess is that it is from a listing on Five-Ten-SG blacklist, check out: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php?ip=66.45.0.0 SpamBouncer supports a variety of blacklists including the Five-Ten-SG blacklist, though support for the Five-Ten-SG blacklist is disabled by default in the sb.rc file. (see http://www.spambouncer.org/#BlacklistSupport). Regards, Abe Ro Harry Tabak wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black-listed on a whim. Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? Harry Tabak QUAD TELECOM, INC
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote: I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting fire from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier. I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S That said, I can offer you some assistance here. Catherine Hampton's SpamBouncer relies on Procmail, whose filtering recipes are easily tunable. It shouldn't be hard to change the recipes, and you can then encourage the port maintainer to add your changes. Unfortunately, if you want to get the master SpamBouncer recipe file changed, you will have to contact Catherine. My wife knows her personally, so if you cannot get through to her by other means I may be able to reach her for you. In the meantime, you may want to use a mail relay (not a fully open one, of course) to get around the block. All you need is one machine on a different subnet that will relay your outbound mail. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Email is not regulated by the government. Rick To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S I think you should all move the discussion elsewhere. It's boring and you've already flooded my inbox and the vast majority of people subscribed to this list don't care about the fact that someone's blacklisted somewhere. It sucks, I know, but that's life. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. :-) Cheers, -- Bosko Milekic * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Abe wrote: Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file? Nevermind. I found the Inflow entry in sb-blockdomains.rc file. :) Regards, Abe Ro To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S I think you should all move the discussion elsewhere. It's boring and you've already flooded my inbox and the vast majority of people subscribed to this list don't care about the fact that someone's blacklisted somewhere. It sucks, I know, but that's life. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. :-) awww and i just created a headercheck that would drop al the e-mails with this subject. But i must agree, enough is enough guys. The discussion sounds more like an advocacy discussion about e-mail and spam regulations then FreeBSD related stuff. Greetings, Marcel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
(please tell me this is just a dream, and this thread really isn't happening and I am not participating...) ++ 28/12/02 08:45 -0500 - Harry Tabak: | I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross | posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- The list appropriate for this is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I'm not sure this even belongs on a FreeBSD mailing list. | I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported | package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me | to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll | probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a | freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't | be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest | that you check it out.] It's a port. A 3rd-party package, FreeBSD does not control, but provides if a user wants it. It is not FreeBSD's position to say this port does X poorly -- that is up to the user. If somebody blindly installs this port without looking at what it actually does, or knowing it blindly blocks mail from large IP blocks, that is the user's problem. Unfortunatly, we can't control the IQ of our users. If my IP block was listed in spambnc, and I couldn't communicate with someone because they chose to use spambnc without knowing the semi-evil things it does, quite frankly I probably am lucky I don't have to communicate with said person. | me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my | service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address | from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be | black-listed on a whim. If it's that important to you, do it. You have discovered the big problem in spam filtering and mail flow on the Internet. It is discussed over and over on more appropriate lists (spam-l, inet-access, nanog, etc). The conclusion is eventually the same every time: yes, in a perfect world, we could only block the evil spammers, never block a legitimate mail, and there would be no war. If somebody chooses to install this software, their loss. Or maybe they will block more spam than legit mail, and they don't mind. I really hope we don't have to rehash this topic on a freebsd security list, because it's completely unrelated to freebsd. --pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:11:50 -0800 (PST) Rick Hamell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Email is not regulated by the government. Rick Yup. This is currently the case. But lets say we have some real business to conduct. And lets say I send you some mail, and your SP blocks it 'cause someone used the DIP I'm on to spam some months ago. So then, our business gets fucked up. I think we'd have a real good case for suing the ass offa the SP(s) who contracted with us to supply the mail services. And if such a situation were to ensue, there would be a real good chance of uninvited government regulation. Bet on it. Dhu msg13505/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
I _really_ fail to see what this has to do with FreeBSD. Can you please move this to a more appropriate forum ? I'm sure there are lists and groups out there where the black-listing crew communicates. Thankyou! Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Duncan Patton a Campb ell writes: --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:11:50 -0800 (PST) Rick Hamell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Email is not regulated by the government. Rick Yup. This is currently the case. But lets say we have some real business to conduct. And lets say I send you some mail, and your SP blocks it 'cause someone used the DIP I'm on to spam some months ago. So then, our business gets fucked up. I think we'd have a real good case for suing the ass offa the SP(s) who contracted with us to supply the mail services. And if such a situation were to ensue, there would be a real good chance of uninvited government regulation. Bet on it. Dhu --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+DhlIXgQtJ7uBra8RAtrDAJ972EARDY9HLZWH5UWA79v5wnjTSQCg6psd +Hq/W2/y3BWq4HdeuieTwPg= =o6zt -END PGP SIGNATURE- --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
The law would have to consider intention of the sender: Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Harry Tabak wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with spam filters; like most things (and most people), they aren't perfect and they sometimes make mistakes. I became a postmaster about the time when the practice of signing a document stating you would not use network access for commercial purposes was no longer being commonly required before one gained network access via DARPAnet, JAnet, and such. My sympathies are very much in agreement with your main point, which is that legitimate email should not be blocked by spam filters. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. ...and... Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? If one sends a message that could not be delivered, an error report (called a DSN) is returned, describing the problem. People sending legitimate email know who they've sent mail to, right? And when they get DSN's, as you most probably did, you talk to your ISP, etc, etc. How many bounced messages are you talking about, approximately? Would you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to let your mail through? [ Because that's basicly what it all comes down to, all of the advocacy for or against regulation aside. FWIW, I block three /16's under 16.0.0.0/8, but yours wasn't one of them-- I checked. Bah...I'm getting 1000+ dictionary scans from DSL pools in .br a day. ] -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was intentional? please... On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: The law would have to consider intention of the sender: Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better be *really* careful about what they block. If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then you are asking for real trouble. That's all. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was intentional? please... On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: The law would have to consider intention of the sender: Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
*doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet* On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better be *really* careful about what they block. If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then you are asking for real trouble. That's all. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was intentional? please... On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: The law would have to consider intention of the sender: Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Here is the difference... The US Postal Service is a government agency owned by the people, hence, interfering with regular mail is bad.. email runs over corporate networks and uses private resources, none owned by the people... hence a corporation, ISP, can certainly decide what it allows into its network to use its resources... if you, as a customer, have a problem with that, exert pressure on them.. if enough customers bitch, they will change policy... as far as suing, I am sure someone will figure out a way to do it and win... doesnt mean they should... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 17:02, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better be *really* careful about what they block. If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then you are asking for real trouble. That's all. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was intentional? please... On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: The law would have to consider intention of the sender: Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it to you I have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too? and the same goes for filtering out porn? -chris On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: Seems to me that this is an invitation to government regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal offense for good reason. Dhu On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500 Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular organizations are doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam filter, I've had to send this from another account] I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Chris Orr wrote: *doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet* better yet, who's laws should be followed then? should the world follow the american laws like loyal puppies or should we follow another countries laws? perhaps the law of the country of the sending party should be respected then. That would make it verry usefull when some stupid sysadmin has his server badly configured and is an open mailrelay and the law says you are not allowed to reject his e-mail.. kinda stupid don't you think? now please, kill the beast :-) and move this thread to somewhere else Marcel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
I would say a better solution that blocks would be header/body based phrase and word matching on a weighting system like spamassassin provides. The False positive rates for such a system are MUCH lower than what you could ever hope for with a blacklist. Also regarding Inflow. They have been warned, notified, complained to, etc. countless times with ZERO attempt to police their users. If you doubt this just look at this: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=inflownum=10as_scoring=rhl=enie=ISO-8859-1btnG=Google+Searchas_epq=as_oq=as_eq=as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse.*as_usubject=as_uauthors=as_umsgid=lr=as_qdr=as_drrb=bas_mind=1as_minm=11as_miny=2002as_maxd=28as_maxm=12as_maxy=2002safe=images It clearly shows that Inflow has no reason or desire to police their users. Harry Tabak wrote: Snip -- Colin Faber (303) 736-5160 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * - SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL - To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
CAN WE GET THIS THREAD KILLED NOW ??? It has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Please shut up and move this thread somewhere else! Poul-Henning In message 1041114029.3577.60.camel@pitbull, Shawn Duffy writes: --=-hYgamAC/8Ubo1V9A/Ysq Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is the difference...=20 The US Postal Service is a government agency owned by the people, hence, interfering with regular mail is bad..=20 -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Brett Glass wrote: At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote: I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting fire from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier. I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S Actually I have been privately chided. That said, I can offer you some assistance here. Catherine Hampton's SpamBouncer relies on Procmail, whose filtering recipes are easily tunable. It shouldn't be hard to change the recipes, and you can then encourage the port maintainer to add your changes. Unfortunately, if you want to get the master SpamBouncer recipe file changed, you will have to contact Catherine. My wife knows her personally, so if you cannot get through to her by other means I may be able to reach her for you. I've been in contact with the port maintainer. His position: 1) This problem is out of scope for him, 2) He is away on holiday and can't easily access the FreeBSD cluster, 3) Other pressures will keep him from this problem for several weeks. He advised me to contact me Miss Hampton. I can't fault him. Unfortunately, I have not gotten a response from Miss Hampton via the contact address on her web site [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I'd apprecite it if you could contact her. I've had so much bad luck getting my mail out -- my mail may be pidgeon holed in her spam basket. In the meantime, you may want to use a mail relay (not a fully open one, of course) to get around the block. All you need is one machine on a different subnet that will relay your outbound mail. Actually, that wouldn't work for my fixed address DSL server. I'd have to dial out from my laptop. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
