Re: spam issues
--- Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These are useful, but... > > >whois.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have > >proper WHOIS information > > This one can be totally bogus as it depends on the > maintainers of the whois > databases, not on the ISPs themselves. > I'm not sure what you mean here. Anything on the whois.rfc-ignorant.org bl has been submitted and tested and found to not have a correct whois listing in more than just one whois server. At least that is how I read the description on the rfc-ignorant.org web site. I've been using it without any problems. But maybe there's something about it that I don't understand. Sure wouldn't be the first time. Care to explain why it is bogus to depend on the whois databases? Gary __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 05:19:24AM -0700, Gary Wilson wrote: ... >I would add the bl servers at rfc-ignornant.org, which >includes : >postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have >postmaster@ addresses >abuse.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have >abuse@ addresses >dsn.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not accept >bounces These are useful, but... >whois.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have >proper WHOIS information This one can be totally bogus as it depends on the maintainers of the whois databases, not on the ISPs themselves. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``I have learned what some people are like. And if some people are like that, other people must have the means to shoot them.'' Donald Hamilton -- The Vanishers ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
--- Matthew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > If email doesn't go through because of a well-chosen > blacklist (this includes > RBL's which actually block SPAM servers, which I > left out of my early post), > the problem is theirs to fix, not yours. The reason > you choose RBL's > CAREFULLY, is because not all RBL's are created > equal. SpamCop and (most of) > Osirusoft are pretty reputable. What I mean by that > is, they are > deterministic (they take complaints, verify when > possible, and take action) > and they are reasonable for removing a server. This > allows those servers > which were blacklisted by mistake (Administrator > mistake, that is) are able to > correctly configure their server and easily submit a > request and be removed > from the RBL. > > I'm sorry, but Email administration is a job. You > have to learn how to do it. > There are many tools available to make it simpler, > but as in all skilled > trades, it helps to have friends who can help you > learn... Don't bicker to > Computerworld about your email getting blocked or > your site blocking email. > Fix the problem. Either reconfigure your servers, > STOP SENDING SPAM, or don't > use certain RBL's. My point is that the bad RBL's > don't make the good RBL's > any less good. Just don't use the bad ones... > > > Examples of what is generally good to use (in > sendmail.mc format): > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `Dialups.relays.OsiruSoft.com', > `Dialup servers rejected by > policy -- use the mail server your ISP provides')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `dnsbl.njabl.org', `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `proxies.blackholes.wirehub.net', > `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `sbl.spamhaus.org', `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `proxies.relays.monkeys.com', `', > `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `list.dsbl.org', `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `dnsbl.sorbs.net', `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `relays.ordb.org', `', `')dnl > FEATURE(`dnsbl', `bl.spamcop.net', `')dnl > *note: you can pick and choose which to use. I > recommend using the > Dialups RBL, and OpenRelay RBL and a couple others. > I recommend 3-4 > per server, but some very reputable professionals > are running as many > as 6 or 7 on major servers. > > Examples of what NOT to use: > selward (xbl.sel.werd.cx) > urbl (The Ultimate RBL-Blocks all of IPv4 :) > 510 (blackholes.5-10-sg.com) > Spews (spews.relays.osirusoft.com) > DorkSlayers (ztl.dorkslayers.com) > Unfonfirmed (Unconfirmed.dsbl.org) > MultiHop (multihop.dsbl.org) > An interesting list. I don't agree with you about spamcop, having had some very difficult encounters with them. Some of the sites that get listed there seem to be done so at the personal whim of the guy who runs it and can be very difficult to deal with. I would add the bl servers at rfc-ignornant.org, which includes : postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have postmaster@ addresses abuse.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have abuse@ addresses dsn.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not accept bounces whois.rfc-ignorant.org -- Sites that do not have proper WHOIS information Gary __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On 07/31/03 17:11, Kurt Wall wrote: Quoth collins: That presumes you have a choice. As I stated earlier, there is no high speed access choice here. Even if there were, as soon as I were to You have a choice, dial-up or broadband access. You just don't get to choose between broadband ISP A and broadband ISP B. Come on now. That's like saying you have a choice between walking 20 miles to work each day, or driving a car. Its a choice when the options are of a comparable nature. Not when they are night & day different. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo:http://netllama.ipfox.com 5:15pm up 16 days, 19:58, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.03, 0.05 ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Quoth collins: > Andrew Mathews wrote: > > >Use a responsible ISP instead? Why should you suffer because they're > >incompetent? As long as they're the only game in town they don't *have* > >to bend to meet customer demands. When you start spending your money > >with someone else, large chunks of material suddenly falls out of their > >ears and their hearing gets a lot better. > > > That presumes you have a choice. As I stated earlier, there is no high > speed access choice here. Even if there were, as soon as I were to You have a choice, dial-up or broadband access. You just don't get to choose between broadband ISP A and broadband ISP B. > switch, all the control freaks who have chimed in would decide that > there is something wrong with my new isp and block that domain as well. I'm not a control freak, but I certainly do want to control who has access to my inbox and my mail server. *I* pay for both, so I get to "control" both. If I don't want Spammerz 'R Us to have access to may mail server, I damn well have the option to keep them out. > If you guys have your way, the average Joe out there will have no way of > obtaining email access. Webnazis 'r us. This thread is officially dead. Kurt -- Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president Litton Industries ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
RE: spam issues
Who said you would get any requests? That would defeat the purpose of the whole idea. :) Regards, Wil McGilvery Manager Lynch Digital Media Inc 416-744-7949 416-716-3964 (cell) 1-866-314-4678 416-744-0406 FAX www.LynchDigital.com -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So instead of getting inundated with SPAM, now we are inundated with requests to SPAM us... Sorry, I'm not buying. Again, it doesn't scale. My inbox does not need the DDOS that this would cause. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:22:04 -0400 "Wil McGilvery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do; however, feel that whitelists could be used. We all sign up for user > groups and have to verify our intention with a reply email. I am sure a lot > of us have filled out forms on the web site to receive information or to > download a file. I understand that getting on the whitelist needs to be > fairly painless or it just won't work. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
RR is one of the worst networks I've ever had the habit of sending abuse reports to... not that they ever noticed. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:56:03 -0400 Douglas J Hunley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bill Campbell shocked and awed us all by speaking: > > Road Runner has very effective anti-spam policies in place, and you rarely > > see major abuse from their network. COMCAST is the most noticeable source > > > You gotta be kidding! > > I'm on RR (so is the mothership) and we are constantly turning away relay > attempts. And if they do such a wonderfull job, why are there literally > dozens of networks that refuse mail from me/linux-sxs based on our IP? > Several of them even say 'mail not accepted from Road Runner that is not MX > host' or something like that.. > - -- > Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 > http://doug.hunley.homeip.net && http://www.linux-sxs.org > > Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal > basis.-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE/KWZD2MO5UukaubkRAosCAJ9fyy6CHE3139oPDl64kjZadIaj7wCeNopT > Qt/71etJOhlcUASl9VLR6wI= > =0Zgg > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > ___ > Linux-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> > http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
So instead of getting inundated with SPAM, now we are inundated with requests to SPAM us... Sorry, I'm not buying. Again, it doesn't scale. My inbox does not need the DDOS that this would cause. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:22:04 -0400 "Wil McGilvery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do; however, feel that whitelists could be used. We all sign up for user > groups and have to verify our intention with a reply email. I am sure a lot > of us have filled out forms on the web site to receive information or to > download a file. I understand that getting on the whitelist needs to be > fairly painless or it just won't work. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Campbell shocked and awed us all by speaking: > Road Runner has very effective anti-spam policies in place, and you rarely > see major abuse from their network. COMCAST is the most noticeable source You gotta be kidding! I'm on RR (so is the mothership) and we are constantly turning away relay attempts. And if they do such a wonderfull job, why are there literally dozens of networks that refuse mail from me/linux-sxs based on our IP? Several of them even say 'mail not accepted from Road Runner that is not MX host' or something like that.. - -- Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778 http://doug.hunley.homeip.net && http://www.linux-sxs.org Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/KWZD2MO5UukaubkRAosCAJ9fyy6CHE3139oPDl64kjZadIaj7wCeNopT Qt/71etJOhlcUASl9VLR6wI= =0Zgg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Quoth Collins Richey: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0700 > Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The broadband providers could mitigate this problem by blocking > > incoming traffic to their customer's systems on ports 25, 80, and > > commonly used proxy ports. When @HOME was running the AT&T cable > > network, they were doing this (probably in response to ``Code Red'' > > and ``Nimda''). When ATTBI took over they dropped these filters, and > > COMCAST hasn't put them back. I see dozens of relay attempts from > > attbi/comcast every day, and add the hosts individually to our local > > I've passed on your comments (the snippet above) to comcast.net. We'll > see whether anything comes of that. It won't. Kurt -- Boy, n.: A noise with dirt on it. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:01:54 -0700 Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The broadband providers could mitigate this problem by blocking > incoming traffic to their customer's systems on ports 25, 80, and > commonly used proxy ports. When @HOME was running the AT&T cable > network, they were doing this (probably in response to ``Code Red'' > and ``Nimda''). When ATTBI took over they dropped these filters, and > COMCAST hasn't put them back. I see dozens of relay attempts from > attbi/comcast every day, and add the hosts individually to our local > RBL. > I've passed on your comments (the snippet above) to comcast.net. We'll see whether anything comes of that. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:04:05AM -0600, Collins Richey wrote: >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT) >Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >> You're assunming that only users in a business environment are >> effected. In reality, its mostly home users who are getting punished >> by this stuff, and they don' care why they are blocked, and don't have >> an 'IT guy' to run to to complain. They're stuck in the middle of a >> war that they have no role in. >> > >Amen. Most of the discussion thus far has been from the extremely >communications/email/internet savvy contingent who are in a position to >control their environment and (unfortunately a byproduct) to wreak havoc >on unsuspecting (and frequently clueless) home users without (it seems) >having any effect on the actual spammers. The home users may be unsuspecting and clueless, but the fact is that their machines are frequently being used by clueful spammers who take advantage of the home user's Microsoft system. It's a bit like putting a machine gun up where anybody can come in and use it anonymously without fear of the consequences (and I'm not trying to get a gun control thread started :-). The broadband providers could mitigate this problem by blocking incoming traffic to their customer's systems on ports 25, 80, and commonly used proxy ports. When @HOME was running the AT&T cable network, they were doing this (probably in response to ``Code Red'' and ``Nimda''). When ATTBI took over they dropped these filters, and COMCAST hasn't put them back. I see dozens of relay attempts from attbi/comcast every day, and add the hosts individually to our local RBL. Road Runner has very effective anti-spam policies in place, and you rarely see major abuse from their network. COMCAST is the most noticeable source of network abuse, and they appear to ignore complaints and illegal activity on their network. History has proven that wholesale blocking is the only thing that seems to motivate the major providers (e.g. AGIS, uu.net, Sprint, etc.) to clean up their networks when their legitimate customers complain or start leaving in droves. For those who don't remember AGIS was the home of Cyberpromo and Spamford Wallace, and went out of business as a result. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ ``Never do your enemy a minor injury.'' - Machiavelli ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
RE: spam issues
Oops. Bad sentence. I realize blocking domains is different than rbl's and ip addresses. I should have split the two ideas up. I use RBl's, but I don't agree with blocking out IP address blocks or domains for the reasons already stated. The customer switched ISP's because the problem with the blocked IP address could not be resolved. I will reiterate that it wasn't just the single address that was blocked, but an entire block of addresses. I do; however, feel that whitelists could be used. We all sign up for user groups and have to verify our intention with a reply email. I am sure a lot of us have filled out forms on the web site to receive information or to download a file. I understand that getting on the whitelist needs to be fairly painless or it just won't work. I kind of imagine it to work something like this. You send me an email for the first time, and receive an email asking you to reply so that you can be added to the list. You reply and the original email gets delivered. We have one ISP in Toronto advertising a program that does just this. It is http://ipermitmail.com I am watching with interest to see how it goes. I know that I am probably in the minority, but it's my 2 cents. Regards, Wil McGilvery Manager Lynch Digital Media Inc 416-744-7949 416-716-3964 (cell) 1-866-314-4678 416-744-0406 FAX www.LynchDigital.com -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:07:19 -0400 "Wil McGilvery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Blocking domains doesn't really work. One of my customer's employees > couldn't send mail to his house because his personal ISP was using RBL's and > the work mail server ip was in an address block that had been listed. The > employees personal ISP refused to let the mail through. (Get your IP off the > list) and the business ISP couldn't or wouldn't get the address block off > the list. Sorry Wil, but it appears that there is a misconception here. RBL's are Server (IP ADDRESS) specific. At least the ones worth using are. Dialup RBLs are different, but are a choice whether to use them or not. Blocking whole address ranges and blocking based on domain name have nothing to do with RBL's if you select appropriate RBLs. Again, the onus is on the administrator using the RBL's to use them responsibly... kinda like Beer. How many of you are willing to give up your Beer because some idiots like to kill themselves or other people when abusing it? > > Our solution was to switch to a new ISP. (Someone else probably got the bad > address). Not a bad solution, so long as you exerted pressure on the ISP first and let them know why you were leaving. One key concept here is RESPONSIBLE INTERNET CITIZENSHIP. Consequences without explanation are like going home and spanking your child without explaining what behavior caused you to punish them. > Blocking legitimate email can be worse for your business than the spam. Again, your company gets to choose which RBL's to use. Don't use Spews! (see other post) > We can't afford to have customers orders blocked and even though I do use > RBL's, I spent a fair bit of time monitoring the system at the beginning to > make sure we didn't miss anything and now all of our customers/vendors etc > get whitelisted. > > One idea that I like but has not gained much acceptance is the programs like > TMDA where someone has to be on your whitelist before mail is accepted. A > solution like this would only work if it was widely accepted and some easy > yet secure method of getting added to the list was possible. (Maybe > something similar to the way people sign up for user groups). This solution doesn't scale. What about new customers. WhiteLists are worse than blacklists! Perhaps a SOHO can get away with them, but again, you are allowing email only from a select few, and you have to maintain the list! At least with RBL's there is cooperation over the Internet over which systems are naughty and need to be blocked. And you have a direct effect over that, whether you are the BL'ed system or the one getting SPAM. Power to the Intelligent and Knowledgible people! Encourage people to understand the world we live in, not just change the world for the dumbest common denominator! Microsoft has been trying that for years and look where it got them... and us. They keep making billions but the end users get crappy software and stability/security problems -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-use
Re: spam issues
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote: > > Correction... Users DO care WHY they were blocked, but they aren't > > going to let you know that since they are using you as a vent-sink. > > Those who are clueless are also calling their IT guy (yes, even > > SMB's have those, contract or on-staff) > > You're assunming that only users in a business environment are > effected. In reality, its mostly home users who are getting punished > by this stuff, and they don' care why they are blocked, and don't have > an 'IT guy' to run to to complain. They're stuck in the middle of a > war that they have no role in. > Amen. Most of the discussion thus far has been from the extremely communications/email/internet savvy contingent who are in a position to control their environment and (unfortunately a byproduct) to wreak havoc on unsuspecting (and frequently clueless) home users without (it seems) having any effect on the actual spammers. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Good point... but I'd need more specific real-world details in order to respond since I've not found too many instances where RBL's have blocked an ISP's email servers. Those that I am aware of, the situation has been resolved quickly by the ISP and generally a Spammer gets ousted. On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote: > > Correction... Users DO care WHY they were blocked, but they aren't going > > to let you know that since they are using you as a vent-sink. > > Those who are clueless are also calling their IT guy (yes, even SMB's have > > those, contract or on-staff) > > You're assunming that only users in a business environment are effected. > In reality, its mostly home users who are getting punished by this stuff, > and they don' care why they are blocked, and don't have an 'IT guy' to run > to to complain. They're stuck in the middle of a war that they have no > role in. > -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:07:19 -0400 "Wil McGilvery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Blocking domains doesn't really work. One of my customer's employees > couldn't send mail to his house because his personal ISP was using RBL's and > the work mail server ip was in an address block that had been listed. The > employees personal ISP refused to let the mail through. (Get your IP off the > list) and the business ISP couldn't or wouldn't get the address block off > the list. Sorry Wil, but it appears that there is a misconception here. RBL's are Server (IP ADDRESS) specific. At least the ones worth using are. Dialup RBLs are different, but are a choice whether to use them or not. Blocking whole address ranges and blocking based on domain name have nothing to do with RBL's if you select appropriate RBLs. Again, the onus is on the administrator using the RBL's to use them responsibly... kinda like Beer. How many of you are willing to give up your Beer because some idiots like to kill themselves or other people when abusing it? > > Our solution was to switch to a new ISP. (Someone else probably got the bad > address). Not a bad solution, so long as you exerted pressure on the ISP first and let them know why you were leaving. One key concept here is RESPONSIBLE INTERNET CITIZENSHIP. Consequences without explanation are like going home and spanking your child without explaining what behavior caused you to punish them. > Blocking legitimate email can be worse for your business than the spam. Again, your company gets to choose which RBL's to use. Don't use Spews! (see other post) > We can't afford to have customers orders blocked and even though I do use > RBL's, I spent a fair bit of time monitoring the system at the beginning to > make sure we didn't miss anything and now all of our customers/vendors etc > get whitelisted. > > One idea that I like but has not gained much acceptance is the programs like > TMDA where someone has to be on your whitelist before mail is accepted. A > solution like this would only work if it was widely accepted and some easy > yet secure method of getting added to the list was possible. (Maybe > something similar to the way people sign up for user groups). This solution doesn't scale. What about new customers. WhiteLists are worse than blacklists! Perhaps a SOHO can get away with them, but again, you are allowing email only from a select few, and you have to maintain the list! At least with RBL's there is cooperation over the Internet over which systems are naughty and need to be blocked. And you have a direct effect over that, whether you are the BL'ed system or the one getting SPAM. Power to the Intelligent and Knowledgible people! Encourage people to understand the world we live in, not just change the world for the dumbest common denominator! Microsoft has been trying that for years and look where it got them... and us. They keep making billions but the end users get crappy software and stability/security problems -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote: > Correction... Users DO care WHY they were blocked, but they aren't going to > let you know that since they are using you as a vent-sink. > Those who are clueless are also calling their IT guy (yes, even SMB's have > those, contract or on-staff) You're assunming that only users in a business environment are effected. In reality, its mostly home users who are getting punished by this stuff, and they don' care why they are blocked, and don't have an 'IT guy' to run to to complain. They're stuck in the middle of a war that they have no role in. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:36:04 -0500 ronnie gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I realize that I'm not alone in blocking domains and that it is mainly an > act of total frustration and completely unfair to the unculpable user. OTOH, > as I stated before, one domain...big deal...one hundred...BIG DEAL. blocked > by one domain and you will beleive your ISP when they say something wrong on > the other end. But if 50% of everything they send gets refused...then, well, > the ISP cannot say it is an outside problem any longer. That is a huge > incentive not to host spammers or to tolerate misuse of their system. And a good reason to use RBL's. RBL's are at least more accurate than blocking netblocks. You also don't pay for the bandwidth to receive 10 copies of the same SPAM (reading the annals of a former spammer, they send multiple copies on purpose because inundation "works" for them). -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
I am also not afraid of RBL's since I AM in control of my email servers. The only thing that scares me about RBL's is people using them without understanding what's important. It's kinda like choosing an Email server. Those who are clueless choose Exchange and plug it into the Internet... and pay the consequences. I'm not saying that Exchange is only run by idiots. You can "protect" Exchange by front-ending it with Sendmail or Postfix (or Qmail or others, I know). The thing that bugs me about Spam-Tagging is that I STILL HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE FREAKING SPAM! RBL's may block legitimate email, but at least the sender is NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE! The problem with tagging and dumping is that either you still dump the mail to /dev/null, or you filter it into a SPAM folder and STILL HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT! The sending party has no idea of a problem and will continue as if all is well until you miss some deadline and you're screwed. What will you say then? "My Bayesian filter screwed up"? On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:37:15 -0600 collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably no complaints because you aren't really affected by the action > of the RBLs. If everyone used them, I would see a 95% reduction of my > personal email (not spam) and never be able to send email. If you have > the wherewithal to run your own email server, you can take this cavalier > attitude; some of us don't have that luxury. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Correction... Users DO care WHY they were blocked, but they aren't going to let you know that since they are using you as a vent-sink. Those who are clueless are also calling their IT guy (yes, even SMB's have those, contract or on-staff) As for blocking, that's all well and good unless you actually USE or PAY for your bandwidth. Besides, tagging does nothing to help FIX the problem! At least RBL's feedback to the administrators telling them one of two things: 1) Get a clue and learn how to configure your servers 2) Stop the crap and play nice on this, our Internet. If email doesn't go through because of a well-chosen blacklist (this includes RBL's which actually block SPAM servers, which I left out of my early post), the problem is theirs to fix, not yours. The reason you choose RBL's CAREFULLY, is because not all RBL's are created equal. SpamCop and (most of) Osirusoft are pretty reputable. What I mean by that is, they are deterministic (they take complaints, verify when possible, and take action) and they are reasonable for removing a server. This allows those servers which were blacklisted by mistake (Administrator mistake, that is) are able to correctly configure their server and easily submit a request and be removed from the RBL. I'm sorry, but Email administration is a job. You have to learn how to do it. There are many tools available to make it simpler, but as in all skilled trades, it helps to have friends who can help you learn... Don't bicker to Computerworld about your email getting blocked or your site blocking email. Fix the problem. Either reconfigure your servers, STOP SENDING SPAM, or don't use certain RBL's. My point is that the bad RBL's don't make the good RBL's any less good. Just don't use the bad ones... Examples of what is generally good to use (in sendmail.mc format): FEATURE(`dnsbl', `Dialups.relays.OsiruSoft.com', `Dialup servers rejected by policy -- use the mail server your ISP provides')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `dnsbl.njabl.org', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `proxies.blackholes.wirehub.net', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `sbl.spamhaus.org', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `proxies.relays.monkeys.com', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `list.dsbl.org', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `dnsbl.sorbs.net', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `relays.ordb.org', `', `')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl', `bl.spamcop.net', `')dnl *note: you can pick and choose which to use. I recommend using the Dialups RBL, and OpenRelay RBL and a couple others. I recommend 3-4 per server, but some very reputable professionals are running as many as 6 or 7 on major servers. Examples of what NOT to use: selward (xbl.sel.werd.cx) urbl(The Ultimate RBL-Blocks all of IPv4 :) 510 (blackholes.5-10-sg.com) Spews (spews.relays.osirusoft.com) DorkSlayers (ztl.dorkslayers.com) Unfonfirmed (Unconfirmed.dsbl.org) MultiHop(multihop.dsbl.org) On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:24:28 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. It wasn't *me* blocking it. > 2. They couldn't care in the least why they were blocked. > 3. Half of those who *would* care, are clueess as to how to get it fixed. > > Fine, identify open relays and have them fixed, obviously tag mail as > spam, but don't *block* the mail from its intended recipient. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:34:12 -0700 - Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues >On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:15:17PM -0600, collins wrote: >... >>Unfortunately it's not comcast that will eat the bounces. In order to >>get broadband service (DSL is not offered), I have to use comcast.net (I >>don't know anything about comcast.com), and since people are so friendly >>about bulk blocking of anything they don't like, I already have one user >>list that I can neither unsubscribe from nor post to, since all mail is >>bounced. >> >>comcast.net users have no control. Fortunately, I'm not being blocked >>by any other group. It seems to me that spam filters would be a more >>friendly approach, rather than assuming that all users on the domain are >>spam. > No wonder I never saw your post. Comcast is unable to maintain control of their system, abuse is rampant. An email addy from comcast is getting more and more useless each day. >You might be surprised at who's blocking comcast, and not just with RBLs, >but router level blocks on SMTP from 12.254.0.0/16 and 172.128.0.0/10. >We're talking some major U.S. national broadband providers who've given up >on trying to get comcast/attbi to deal with their issues. > >AOL recently started block connections from any server that doesn't have >rDNS (Reverse Domain Name Service). We've been doing that here for several >months, and it has done wonders for the spam levels with few false >positives. This isn't blocking on rDNS that doesn't agree with the HELO >announcement, only hosts with no rDNS. It can be argued that anybody who's >running a legitimate mail server should at least be able to get some type >of rDNS working (and yes, I know of a local ISP here who's DSL netblocks >come from uu.net, and uu.net can't/won't delegate the rDNS to the ISP). > >Folks on this list may well argue that this shouldn't apply to them, but >for every cable/dsl use who has a clue, there are thousands who don't. The >clueless ones install Windows systems directly to their broadband >connection with no firewall/router, giving access to all the insecure >Microsoft stuff (but I repeat myself). > >Bill >-- >INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. >UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way >FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 >URL: http://www.celestial.com/ > >We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a >man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. >-- Winston Churchill >___ >Linux-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> >http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Andrew Mathews wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 collins wrote: | Matthew Carpenter wrote: | |> I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all |> include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to |> visit in |> order to get removed when their system is fixed. |> |> | Yeah, except that I'm the one having his mail blocked and I have no way | to fixed the system. | Use a responsible ISP instead? Why should you suffer because they're incompetent? As long as they're the only game in town they don't *have* to bend to meet customer demands. When you start spending your money with someone else, large chunks of material suddenly falls out of their ears and their hearing gets a lot better. That presumes you have a choice. As I stated earlier, there is no high speed access choice here. Even if there were, as soon as I were to switch, all the control freaks who have chimed in would decide that there is something wrong with my new isp and block that domain as well. If you guys have your way, the average Joe out there will have no way of obtaining email access. Webnazis 'r us. -- Collins ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
RE: spam issues
I have followed this thread with interest and as far as I am concerned the only way to get people to notice is to hurt their pocket book. I am not sure how to best go about doing this except for refusing to use ISP's that are tolerant of Spammers. Blocking domains doesn't really work. One of my customer's employees couldn't send mail to his house because his personal ISP was using RBL's and the work mail server ip was in an address block that had been listed. The employees personal ISP refused to let the mail through. (Get your IP off the list) and the business ISP couldn't or wouldn't get the address block off the list. Our solution was to switch to a new ISP. (Someone else probably got the bad address). Blocking legitimate email can be worse for your business than the spam. We can't afford to have customers orders blocked and even though I do use RBL's, I spent a fair bit of time monitoring the system at the beginning to make sure we didn't miss anything and now all of our customers/vendors etc get whitelisted. One idea that I like but has not gained much acceptance is the programs like TMDA where someone has to be on your whitelist before mail is accepted. A solution like this would only work if it was widely accepted and some easy yet secure method of getting added to the list was possible. (Maybe something similar to the way people sign up for user groups). Regards, Wil McGilvery Manager Lynch Digital Media Inc 416-744-7949 416-716-3964 (cell) 1-866-314-4678 416-744-0406 FAX www.LynchDigital.com -Original Message- From: collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Carpenter wrote: >Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have >yet to hear complaints. > Probably no complaints because you aren't really affected by the action of the RBLs. If everyone used them, I would see a 95% reduction of my personal email (not spam) and never be able to send email. If you have the wherewithal to run your own email server, you can take this cavalier attitude; some of us don't have that luxury. -- Collins ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 collins wrote: | Matthew Carpenter wrote: | |> I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all |> include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to |> visit in |> order to get removed when their system is fixed. |> |> | Yeah, except that I'm the one having his mail blocked and I have no way | to fixed the system. | Use a responsible ISP instead? Why should you suffer because they're incompetent? As long as they're the only game in town they don't *have* to bend to meet customer demands. When you start spending your money with someone else, large chunks of material suddenly falls out of their ears and their hearing gets a lot better. - -- Andrew Mathews - - ~ 7:45pm up 18 days, 14 min, 9 users, load average: 0.98, 1.04, 1.02 - - Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. -- Wm. Shakespeare - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQE/KHclidHQ0m/kEssRAncGAJ908bZq+6Qg3ka9Fqvr9JiVFFHECACXbdKj 0/bq2tjfnAwOtsbFVPVohg== =8GRC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:41:31PM -0600, collins wrote: >Matthew Carpenter wrote: > >>I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all >>include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in >>order to get removed when their system is fixed. Postfix makes it easy to allow mail for certain addresses to come in before doing any RBL checking. We accept all mail to our major role accounts, postmaster, abuse, hostname, and support, so that we can get reports about blocking problems. >> >Yeah, except that I'm the one having his mail blocked and I have no way >to fixed the system. No way? We provide uucp over TCP connections to quite a few cable customers which allows them to send/receive mail without worrying about their provider's blocking policies on port 25. So far I haven't seen a broadband provider who even knows about the uucp ports, much less blocks them. This has a secondary benefit in that the customer's e-mail doesn't have anything to do with the provider's system so none of our cable customers have had to change anything on their e-mail through the @HOME to ATTBI, to COMCAST transitions. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 http://www.celestial.com/ You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Matthew Carpenter wrote: I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in order to get removed when their system is fixed. Yeah, except that I'm the one having his mail blocked and I have no way to fixed the system. -- Collins ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:15:17PM -0600, collins wrote: ... >Unfortunately it's not comcast that will eat the bounces. In order to >get broadband service (DSL is not offered), I have to use comcast.net (I >don't know anything about comcast.com), and since people are so friendly >about bulk blocking of anything they don't like, I already have one user >list that I can neither unsubscribe from nor post to, since all mail is >bounced. > >comcast.net users have no control. Fortunately, I'm not being blocked >by any other group. It seems to me that spam filters would be a more >friendly approach, rather than assuming that all users on the domain are >spam. You might be surprised at who's blocking comcast, and not just with RBLs, but router level blocks on SMTP from 12.254.0.0/16 and 172.128.0.0/10. We're talking some major U.S. national broadband providers who've given up on trying to get comcast/attbi to deal with their issues. AOL recently started block connections from any server that doesn't have rDNS (Reverse Domain Name Service). We've been doing that here for several months, and it has done wonders for the spam levels with few false positives. This isn't blocking on rDNS that doesn't agree with the HELO announcement, only hosts with no rDNS. It can be argued that anybody who's running a legitimate mail server should at least be able to get some type of rDNS working (and yes, I know of a local ISP here who's DSL netblocks come from uu.net, and uu.net can't/won't delegate the rDNS to the ISP). Folks on this list may well argue that this shouldn't apply to them, but for every cable/dsl use who has a clue, there are thousands who don't. The clueless ones install Windows systems directly to their broadband connection with no firewall/router, giving access to all the insecure Microsoft stuff (but I repeat myself). Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Matthew Carpenter wrote: Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have yet to hear complaints. Probably no complaints because you aren't really affected by the action of the RBLs. If everyone used them, I would see a 95% reduction of my personal email (not spam) and never be able to send email. If you have the wherewithal to run your own email server, you can take this cavalier attitude; some of us don't have that luxury. -- Collins ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
ronnie gauthier wrote: I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains and clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let them eat bounces. Unfortunately it's not comcast that will eat the bounces. In order to get broadband service (DSL is not offered), I have to use comcast.net (I don't know anything about comcast.com), and since people are so friendly about bulk blocking of anything they don't like, I already have one user list that I can neither unsubscribe from nor post to, since all mail is bounced. comcast.net users have no control. Fortunately, I'm not being blocked by any other group. It seems to me that spam filters would be a more friendly approach, rather than assuming that all users on the domain are spam. -- Collins ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:00:44 -0600 - Andrew Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > >ronnie gauthier wrote: >| I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? >| I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We >could kill >| spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back >and blocked >| them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and >| complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. >| When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my >domains and >| clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, >let them >| eat bounces. >| ___ >| Linux-users mailing list >| [EMAIL PROTECTED] >| Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> >http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > >I attended the USENIX conference in San Antonio last month for the >Sendmail seminar. Eric Allman (the author of Sendmail) said that in the >near future we will see email become fragmentary and crippled due to the >neglect by ISP's to adequately punish the spammers they're providing >services to, or condoning through their inaction. More and more people >and companies will flatly refuse any mail from entire netblocks or >domains which will cripple the ability of legitimate users to >communicate with the rest of the world. The key is to inform those >people of the exact reasoning why their ISP is "bad" and encourage them >to use someone legitimate. If the ISP has no customers because they're >blacklisted, the problem will become theirs, instead of ours. >Personally, I encourage the use of blacklists, provided they're >responsible, act quickly, and provide unbiased services that allow a >problem to be fixed and remove the offender as quickly as they list >them. Somewhere between allowing it all, and blocking it all is the >happy medium, and it's going to be different for everyone. > I realize that I'm not alone in blocking domains and that it is mainly an act of total frustration and completely unfair to the unculpable user. OTOH, as I stated before, one domain...big deal...one hundred...BIG DEAL. blocked by one domain and you will beleive your ISP when they say something wrong on the other end. But if 50% of everything they send gets refused...then, well, the ISP cannot say it is an outside problem any longer. That is a huge incentive not to host spammers or to tolerate misuse of their system. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:46:40 -0400 - Matthew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues Its been a few years since I dealt with being blocked and have hated and not used RBL's since then. I'll have to take another look at them again now. thanks! >Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have >yet to hear complaints. The trick is choosing RBL's that are comprehensive, >deterministic, and responsive. This means that some of the RBL's out there >that don't allow your servers off the list when closed just don't find their >way in my config. > >I also use SpamAssassin and Bogofilter (Bayesian algorithm) and tagging >(allowing the filtering to be done at the client or last server with >procmail/sieve instead of at the front-end servers. Since I also use RBL's I >can't tell you how effective these are. I hardly ever see spam... > >Frying Spam: >http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/03/06/index2a.html > > > >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:13:52 -0500 >ronnie gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? >> I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could >> kill spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and >> blocked them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail >> them and complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is >> blocked. When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my >> domains and clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about >> spam, let them eat bounces. >___ >Linux-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> >http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:57:47 -0400 - Matthew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues I agree with you in theory but all RBL's are not equal. But what I've seen is that once on one its a bitch to get unlisted. They also get legitimate web sites in the same block as the spammer. We got RBL'd once. It was a nightmare. Ya, it was our fault, we were open for a bit but the result was that even after the block was lifted we were still blocked at many domains and had to contact them individualy. I remember it took forever to get IBM to unblock us. That is a lesson not forgotten. That is why I chose to block by domain. >RBL's are still better than SA or other filters... > >Why? Because properly selected RBL's (ie. Deterministic, easy to get off of) >actually allow you to block based on a PROBLEM! RBL's that you want to use >are Open Relay black lists and Dialup server blacklists. These are PROBLEMS >to be FIXED. They aren't attempting to look for the appropriate number of >"Free" and "XXX" in the email, which could be used in real life email. > >I have been blocked before. I used to administer a GroupWise system that was >difficult to lock down. This was before I learned about RBL's. They >rightfully flagged my server as an Open Relay (anyone can send email to >anywhere/anyone) and when I checked the server, we had a HUGE backlog of >emails which the spammers had sent to anyone and everyone. We got the server >configured correctly and then got off the RBL. It was inconvenient, but RBL's >are a real part of a good strategy against SPAM, and will be around for as >long as SPAM is around. And this is why. > ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:47:51 -0500 - "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues Go get 'em. > >As an ISP, I'm striking back locally. > >I own my netblocks. I have my sights on a local spammer. I've now >billed them 2 months for using my servers and my bandwidth for their >commercial advertising to my clients. Next week, I send out a past due >notice with a note that if they don't pay within a week, I'll start >court proceedings against them for non-payment. I plan to sequester >their company as part of the whole thing. Will let folks know as I go >how it goes. > >In the states, I'd suggest not suing the spammers, but go after the >folks hiring them. Many spam links lead to companies/servers in the US. > Go after those folks with a vengeance. I suspect you'll have to be >using your own mail server to make claims like I am. But if companies >start learning that hiring spammers will land them in court, they'll >probably stop and spam will become a non-issue. > >Ciao, > >David A. Bandel >-- >Focus on the dream, not the competition. > Nemesis Racing Team motto >GPG key autoresponder: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:47:51 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Next week, I send out a past due > notice with a note that if they don't pay within a week, I'll start > court proceedings against them for non-payment. I plan to sequester > their company as part of the whole thing. Will let folks know as I go > how it goes. > David, I'm all for it! May the Bandwidth be with you also! Terence ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:03:09 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From an end user perspective, I've found Mozilla's junk mail > filtering > to be fantastic at determining what's junk and what's not. Much better > > than plain SpamAssassin. Although, current SpamAssassin is supposed to > > be able to do Bayesian analysis, it's not nearly as user friendly as > using Mozilla Mail. But for KMail's superiority in handling mailing > lists, I'd have moved my home e-mail to Mozilla already. > > I had found a link that described how to automate the use of > SpamAssassin's Bayesian filtering, but I haven't actually tried it > yet. > here it is: > http://spamassassin.rediris.es/doc/sa-learn.html I've been using popfile for a while and it works great. It also uses Bayesian filtering. http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Bill ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ronnie gauthier wrote: | I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? | I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill | spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked | them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and | complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. | When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains and | clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let them | eat bounces. | ___ | Linux-users mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users I attended the USENIX conference in San Antonio last month for the Sendmail seminar. Eric Allman (the author of Sendmail) said that in the near future we will see email become fragmentary and crippled due to the neglect by ISP's to adequately punish the spammers they're providing services to, or condoning through their inaction. More and more people and companies will flatly refuse any mail from entire netblocks or domains which will cripple the ability of legitimate users to communicate with the rest of the world. The key is to inform those people of the exact reasoning why their ISP is "bad" and encourage them to use someone legitimate. If the ISP has no customers because they're blacklisted, the problem will become theirs, instead of ours. Personally, I encourage the use of blacklists, provided they're responsible, act quickly, and provide unbiased services that allow a problem to be fixed and remove the offender as quickly as they list them. Somewhere between allowing it all, and blocking it all is the happy medium, and it's going to be different for everyone. - -- Andrew Mathews - - ~ 1:45pm up 17 days, 18:15, 9 users, load average: 1.06, 1.03, 1.00 - - : is not an identifier - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/KCPsidHQ0m/kEssRAlEiAJ9WKhW/7G4wZ5wA/hPdwQ/ZTv6LSQCfe8WD vAlMLcDPEIC+YCwjD71bZKg= =kvZ5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Fine. But end users won't care, or simply don't understand. I got calls from irate users, people trying to send my company e-mail, demanding to know why I was blocking their mail. 1. It wasn't *me* blocking it. 2. They couldn't care in the least why they were blocked. 3. Half of those who *would* care, are clueess as to how to get it fixed. Fine, identify open relays and have them fixed, obviously tag mail as spam, but don't *block* the mail from its intended recipient. Besides, SA *does* use RBL's to determine whether somethiing gets tagged as spam, in addition to the logic regarding the number of "Free" and "XXX" in the email (IIRC)... On 7/30/2003 2:57 PM, someone claiming to be Matthew Carpenter wrote: RBL's are still better than SA or other filters... Why? Because properly selected RBL's (ie. Deterministic, easy to get off of) actually allow you to block based on a PROBLEM! RBL's that you want to use are Open Relay black lists and Dialup server blacklists. These are PROBLEMS to be FIXED. They aren't attempting to look for the appropriate number of "Free" and "XXX" in the email, which could be used in real life email. I have been blocked before. I used to administer a GroupWise system that was difficult to lock down. This was before I learned about RBL's. They rightfully flagged my server as an Open Relay (anyone can send email to anywhere/anyone) and when I checked the server, we had a HUGE backlog of emails which the spammers had sent to anyone and everyone. We got the server configured correctly and then got off the RBL. It was inconvenient, but RBL's are a real part of a good strategy against SPAM, and will be around for as long as SPAM is around. And this is why. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:09:31 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When our ISP blocked mail intended for my company (we're a small company, don't want to administer a mail server locally) based on RBL's, I pitched a major fit with them. We're a business, we don't want ANY mail blocked. They were pretty good at determining what to block, about 95% right, but it was the 5% of legitimate mails that they blocked that caused considerable problems. They now use SpamAssassin and spam gets marked, but delivered. Much better for our end users. Some legit mail gets a SAPM tag, and some spam goes un-tagged, but it's much more managable for our users. (FWIW) ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
About 2 years ago our state (Arkansas, US) passed "Do Not Call" legislation with the usual hoopla and moaning from the telemarketing scum. So I sent $5.00 to our Attorney General to put my numbers on the list. And my phone has largely gone dead silent except for the few "exceptions" that were unfortunately allowed in the legislation. We've done this now at the national level, would it be so hard to pass "Do Not E-mail" legislation also? (And while I objected to having to pay $5.00 for it, it would have been a bargain at 10x the price. Peace and quiet is worth alot.) Michael ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
That still won't mean anything to the average user out there. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Matthew Carpenter wrote: > I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all > include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in > order to get removed when their system is fixed. > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) > Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem here is that you assume that when people get bounced mail, > > they understand why, and attempt to take corrective action. Most people > > haven't the foggiest clue what a bounced email means, and will most likely > > just delete it and move on. Punishing the innocent isn't going to win a > > spam war. It just puts them in the middle as you throw grenades at the > > spammers on the other side. > > -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
RBL's are still better than SA or other filters... Why? Because properly selected RBL's (ie. Deterministic, easy to get off of) actually allow you to block based on a PROBLEM! RBL's that you want to use are Open Relay black lists and Dialup server blacklists. These are PROBLEMS to be FIXED. They aren't attempting to look for the appropriate number of "Free" and "XXX" in the email, which could be used in real life email. I have been blocked before. I used to administer a GroupWise system that was difficult to lock down. This was before I learned about RBL's. They rightfully flagged my server as an Open Relay (anyone can send email to anywhere/anyone) and when I checked the server, we had a HUGE backlog of emails which the spammers had sent to anyone and everyone. We got the server configured correctly and then got off the RBL. It was inconvenient, but RBL's are a real part of a good strategy against SPAM, and will be around for as long as SPAM is around. And this is why. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:09:31 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When our ISP blocked mail intended for my company (we're a small > company, don't want to administer a mail server locally) based on RBL's, > I pitched a major fit with them. We're a business, we don't want ANY > mail blocked. They were pretty good at determining what to block, about > 95% right, but it was the 5% of legitimate mails that they blocked that > caused considerable problems. > They now use SpamAssassin and spam gets marked, but delivered. Much > better for our end users. Some legit mail gets a SAPM tag, and some spam > goes un-tagged, but it's much more managable for our users. (FWIW) -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
I'm not sure how it works with other MTA's, but my Sendmail servers all include information on which BL they were blocked by and a URL to visit in order to get removed when their system is fixed. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem here is that you assume that when people get bounced mail, > they understand why, and attempt to take corrective action. Most people > haven't the foggiest clue what a bounced email means, and will most likely > just delete it and move on. Punishing the innocent isn't going to win a > spam war. It just puts them in the middle as you throw grenades at the > spammers on the other side. -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Service Appliances * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Using the appropriate RBL's can lead to a drop in 95% of all spam, and I have yet to hear complaints. The trick is choosing RBL's that are comprehensive, deterministic, and responsive. This means that some of the RBL's out there that don't allow your servers off the list when closed just don't find their way in my config. I also use SpamAssassin and Bogofilter (Bayesian algorithm) and tagging (allowing the filtering to be done at the client or last server with procmail/sieve instead of at the front-end servers. Since I also use RBL's I can't tell you how effective these are. I hardly ever see spam... Frying Spam: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/03/06/index2a.html On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:13:52 -0500 ronnie gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? > I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could > kill spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and > blocked them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail > them and complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is > blocked. When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my > domains and clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about > spam, let them eat bounces. ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
The problem here is that you assume that when people get bounced mail, they understand why, and attempt to take corrective action. Most people haven't the foggiest clue what a bounced email means, and will most likely just delete it and move on. Punishing the innocent isn't going to win a spam war. It just puts them in the middle as you throw grenades at the spammers on the other side. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > Not exactly, at least thats not how I see it. If enough users of an ISP or > email suppliers complain they are blocked by one, big deal, blocked by dozens, > then it begins to matter and the ISP's must take notice. We as an admin > community have done nothing to stop the spam problem. Oh, some filteer, most > have a TOS that they stick to but thats it. Hell, when it gets bad enough that > congress looks into it you know that congress will shit on you with their > solution. If it a drastic enough problem then we should deal with it ourselves. > I know that blocking innocent users is not with the spirit of the Internet but > any solution congress comes up with will be worse and we can remove blocks > easily with a few edits. No so with whatever solution congress comes up with, > you wont just edit that away. > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT) - Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote the following > Re: Re: spam issues > > >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > >> I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? > >> I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill > >> spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and > >blocked> them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them > >and> complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. > >> When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains > >and> clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let > >them> eat bounces. > > > >what is that solving? spam preys on the weakest link & lowest common > >denominator. blocking off entire netblocks is just cutting off your nose > >to spite your face. > > > >-- > >~~ > >Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com > >___ > >Linux-users mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> > >http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > ___ > Linux-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On 7/30/2003 1:55 PM, someone claiming to be ronnie gauthier wrote: Not exactly, at least thats not how I see it. If enough users of an ISP or email suppliers complain they are blocked by one, big deal, blocked by dozens, then it begins to matter and the ISP's must take notice. We as an admin community have done nothing to stop the spam problem. Oh, some filteer, most have a TOS that they stick to but thats it. Hell, when it gets bad enough that congress looks into it you know that congress will shit on you with their solution. If it a drastic enough problem then we should deal with it ourselves. I know that blocking innocent users is not with the spirit of the Internet but any solution congress comes up with will be worse and we can remove blocks easily with a few edits. No so with whatever solution congress comes up with, you wont just edit that away. When our ISP blocked mail intended for my company (we're a small company, don't want to administer a mail server locally) based on RBL's, I pitched a major fit with them. We're a business, we don't want ANY mail blocked. They were pretty good at determining what to block, about 95% right, but it was the 5% of legitimate mails that they blocked that caused considerable problems. They now use SpamAssassin and spam gets marked, but delivered. Much better for our end users. Some legit mail gets a SAPM tag, and some spam goes un-tagged, but it's much more managable for our users. (FWIW) Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On 7/30/2003 1:45 PM, someone claiming to be Wil McGilvery wrote: I would think blocking domains is worse than the RBL lists. I have started using an email gateway called messagewall. It has a number of checks included rbl lists, reverse DNS on MX records and a lot more. Since implementing this setup our spam has become almost no existent and is no longer considered a problem. (I still get one or two a day). I may be wrong, but a lot of spam claims to be from one domain, but isn't really. Making sure that the mail comes form where it claims to have originated is the best way. I gave up on Spam Assassin and those types of programs because it seemed to Be a losing battle. From an end user perspective, I've found Mozilla's junk mail filtering to be fantastic at determining what's junk and what's not. Much better than plain SpamAssassin. Although, current SpamAssassin is supposed to be able to do Bayesian analysis, it's not nearly as user friendly as using Mozilla Mail. But for KMail's superiority in handling mailing lists, I'd have moved my home e-mail to Mozilla already. I had found a link that described how to automate the use of SpamAssassin's Bayesian filtering, but I haven't actually tried it yet. here it is: http://spamassassin.rediris.es/doc/sa-learn.html Regards, Tim ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
Not exactly, at least thats not how I see it. If enough users of an ISP or email suppliers complain they are blocked by one, big deal, blocked by dozens, then it begins to matter and the ISP's must take notice. We as an admin community have done nothing to stop the spam problem. Oh, some filteer, most have a TOS that they stick to but thats it. Hell, when it gets bad enough that congress looks into it you know that congress will shit on you with their solution. If it a drastic enough problem then we should deal with it ourselves. I know that blocking innocent users is not with the spirit of the Internet but any solution congress comes up with will be worse and we can remove blocks easily with a few edits. No so with whatever solution congress comes up with, you wont just edit that away. On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT) - Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following Re: Re: spam issues >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: >> I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? >> I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill >> spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and >blocked> them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them >and> complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. >> When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains >and> clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let >them> eat bounces. > >what is that solving? spam preys on the weakest link & lowest common >denominator. blocking off entire netblocks is just cutting off your nose >to spite your face. > >-- >~~ >Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com >___ >Linux-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> >http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > > I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? > > I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We > > could kill spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a > > while back and blocked them. A while back I had a rash of spam from > > comcast.com and mail them and complained heavily, it stopped. Until > > this week. Now comcast is blocked. When I say blocked I dont mean > > filtered I mean blocked from all my domains and clients mail > > servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let them > > eat bounces. > > what is that solving? spam preys on the weakest link & lowest common > denominator. blocking off entire netblocks is just cutting off your > nose to spite your face. As an ISP, I'm striking back locally. I own my netblocks. I have my sights on a local spammer. I've now billed them 2 months for using my servers and my bandwidth for their commercial advertising to my clients. Next week, I send out a past due notice with a note that if they don't pay within a week, I'll start court proceedings against them for non-payment. I plan to sequester their company as part of the whole thing. Will let folks know as I go how it goes. In the states, I'd suggest not suing the spammers, but go after the folks hiring them. Many spam links lead to companies/servers in the US. Go after those folks with a vengeance. I suspect you'll have to be using your own mail server to make claims like I am. But if companies start learning that hiring spammers will land them in court, they'll probably stop and spam will become a non-issue. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. Nemesis Racing Team motto GPG key autoresponder: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
RE: spam issues
I would think blocking domains is worse than the RBL lists. I have started using an email gateway called messagewall. It has a number of checks included rbl lists, reverse DNS on MX records and a lot more. Since implementing this setup our spam has become almost no existent and is no longer considered a problem. (I still get one or two a day). I may be wrong, but a lot of spam claims to be from one domain, but isn't really. Making sure that the mail comes form where it claims to have originated is the best way. I gave up on Spam Assassin and those types of programs because it seemed to Be a losing battle. Regards, Wil McGilvery Manager Lynch Digital Media Inc 416-744-7949 416-716-3964 (cell) 1-866-314-4678 416-744-0406 FAX www.LynchDigital.com -Original Message- From: Net Llama! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:33 PM To: linux SxS On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? > I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill > spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked > them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and > complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. > When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains and > clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let them > eat bounces. what is that solving? spam preys on the weakest link & lowest common denominator. blocking off entire netblocks is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: spam issues
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, ronnie gauthier wrote: > I've had it with spam, RBL's bite. So what to do? > I have taken drastic measures. I wish others would follow suit. We could kill > spam in short order. How? I have got fed up with yahoo a while back and blocked > them. A while back I had a rash of spam from comcast.com and mail them and > complained heavily, it stopped. Until this week. Now comcast is blocked. > When I say blocked I dont mean filtered I mean blocked from all my domains and > clients mail servers. FSCK to domains with a lax attitude about spam, let them > eat bounces. what is that solving? spam preys on the weakest link & lowest common denominator. blocking off entire netblocks is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com ___ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
