Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. Cool, even more email sent to my mailbox that has nothing to do with anything I've sent or requested (get these as a result of email address spoofing viruses too) Steve ** Reply to message from Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:08:10 + (GMT) What is this.. I've had lots and lots from [EMAIL PROTECTED] whoever he is?! On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, James Edwards wrote: NO ! On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 05:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATTENTION! A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer... was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted. http://www.0spam.com/verify.cgi?user=1079785893verify=568107 This is an automated message from 0Spam.com. Please do not reply to this Email. Looking for a free anti-spam service? Visit us at http://www.0spam.com to find out more.
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
James Blueyonder is the ISP part of a Cable TV company over here in the UK. Looks like the are playing with various 'annoying' (IMHO) anti-spam technologies. Personnally I've looked at this technique at a request of one of users who thought it might be a better idea than the Spamassassin system, we use. For this very reason where the 'from' is kept by mailing list systems I was dubious it would work. Looks like (for once) I was right to be dubious. -- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300 james wrote: : : What is this.. I've had lots and lots from [EMAIL PROTECTED] whoever he is?! Not sure, but I got 4 of them, and it took 12 hours from my only post over the weekend to get them. Since I cannot get mail to @@blueyonder since I will not play this little game I hope he sees this and realizes it is a really BAD idea to run such a service for the lists is is subscribed to. James Edwards Routing and Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa Store hours: 9-6 Monday through Friday 505-988-9200 SIP:1(747)669-1965 -- 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.
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
Only because I was up checking on a remote problem... This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. Like the Delete function? what's NOT better than easily duped validation mechanisms? Perhaps the only reason spammers haven't bothered is because adoption rates are so low. Consider: 1) in order to reduce annoyance, systems validate essentially ONCE. At best, they're going to validate once a month or so. 2) it's trivial these days to register a fresh domain and enter auth servers. Fraudulent registrations are already common. 3) DHCP assignments on broadband are *just* stable enough that someone can setup some verifiable servers and send some mostly mundane messages 4) it's technically trivial to collect verify responses and direct things into a bot that senses a validation system and replies(via email or web, either is a well-known pattern that MUST remain valid once deployed to customer sites, to be useful to the customers) as needed. 5) it'll take longer to clean these out of your validation system than it will for them to move onto another domain that's newly in(hours). All you've really down is open up your whitelisting policy to the outside world. Well, that and tie up more system resources to manage the database. Now ask yourself how you're going to track down a validated server that went away, to be replaced by more spam from 0wned systems. Your own protection system has opened the door. You think getting help stopping a DDOS in progress is bad? And of course, the folks you're asking for help are the ones getting spammed by your validation email to begin with. Congratulations. If these annoying systems become widespread, very smart people with more time than us to work on it will have no trouble defeating them. A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer... was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted. http://www.0spam.com/verify.cgi?user=1079785893verify=568107 -- Ray Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. Pace en requiat email Please! Spare us the fractured Latin. Requiescat in pace - May he/it rest in peace. Requiescat - 3rd person singular subjunctive of requiescere in - same as English preposition in pace - ablative singular of pax indicating that in refers to position rather than movement. Personally I think you should have said Requiescas in pace o email which means Oh email, may you rest in peace
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
--On 09 March 2004 11:25 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Requiescas in pace o email ITYM Requiescas in pace o elitterae Alex
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. Pace en requiat email Please! Spare us the fractured Latin. Mea maxima culpa. Requiescat in pace - May he/it rest in peace. Thank you. I don't speak Latin (he says redundantly) but was trying in inject my point with good humor. Requiescat - 3rd person singular subjunctive of requiescere I sort of knew that and tried to verify it by Googling and was persuaded that I was wrong. That is annoying, because I am pretty sure I know that your phrase os the original decode of R.I.P.. in - same as English preposition in The preceding not withstanding, I would not have guessed that they were the same. pace - ablative singular of pax indicating that in refers to position rather than movement. Personally I think you should have said Requiescas in pace o email which means Oh email, may you rest in peace I do too. Wish I had known enough to have done so--makes my original point well. [We now terminate the off-topic thread and return you to the real Operational issues of just how many B's there are in BGP.]
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
NO ! On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 05:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATTENTION! A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer... was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted. http://www.0spam.com/verify.cgi?user=1079785893verify=568107 This is an automated message from 0Spam.com. Please do not reply to this Email. Looking for a free anti-spam service? Visit us at http://www.0spam.com to find out more.
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. ** Reply to message from Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:08:10 + (GMT) What is this.. I've had lots and lots from [EMAIL PROTECTED] whoever he is?! On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, James Edwards wrote: NO ! On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 05:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ATTENTION! A message you recently sent to a 0Spam.com user with the subject Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer... was not delivered because they are using the 0Spam.com anti-spam service. Please click the link below to confirm that this is not spam. When you confirm, this message and all future messages you send will automatically be accepted. http://www.0spam.com/verify.cgi?user=1079785893verify=568107 This is an automated message from 0Spam.com. Please do not reply to this Email. Looking for a free anti-spam service? Visit us at http://www.0spam.com to find out more. -- Jeff Shultz Loose nut behind the wheel.
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
: : What is this.. I've had lots and lots from [EMAIL PROTECTED] whoever he is?! Not sure, but I got 4 of them, and it took 12 hours from my only post over the weekend to get them. Since I cannot get mail to @@blueyonder since I will not play this little game I hope he sees this and realizes it is a really BAD idea to run such a service for the lists is is subscribed to. James Edwards Routing and Security [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa Store hours: 9-6 Monday through Friday 505-988-9200 SIP:1(747)669-1965
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
Jeff Shultz wrote: This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. Pace en requiat email
Re: Verification required for steve@blueyonder.co.uk, protected by 0Spam.com.
Jeff Shultz [3/9/2004 2:54 AM] : This is the future of e-mail, if something better at spam suppression doesn't come along. You are joking, right? Clueless users and bad software have been a feature of email (or anything else on the internet) since quite some time. -- srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : EDEDEFB9 manager, outblaze.com security and antispam operations
