Re: update

[Daniel Staal]

--As of September 25, 2014 4:05:16 AM +0900, Randy Bush is alleged to have 
said:



there is an update out you want.  badly.
debian/ubuntu admins may want to apt-get update/upgrade or whatever
freebsd similarly
can not speak for other systems


--As for the rest, it is mine.

FreeBSD (and other BSDs, as far as I can tell) are not affected unless the 
admin has installed bash specifically; it's not part of the default 
install.  It may however have been installed as part of the requirements 
for something else.


This also should mean that the vulnerability is a bit more limited than in 
systems that use bash for /bin/sh: Even if you've installed bash, you 
aren't as likely to be running it in CGI or other similar contexts.  (Not 
that that means it's blocked entirely if you've installed it, but it should 
help.)


As of Wednsday afternoon, FreeBSD ports had the update but packages did not 
yet.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

RE: Is LinkedIn down?

[Daniel Staal]

--As of August 18, 2014 3:44:09 PM +, Warren Bailey is alleged to have 
said:



I took a picture of my wife for my her profile on my phone, and it ended
up on a profile they created for her. She has no idea what LinkedIn is,
but she's got a profile and a picture.

I wanted to like them, but they are simply douchebags. They give zero
thought to how their customer would want to be treated and they consume
your entire life.

I can't wait to see them at a trade show or get an email about the class
action someone is filing soon.

And if you're from LinkedIn and reading this.. Quit now and save your
soul. Your employer makes the Internet a less valuable tool by degrading
it into some mega corporate data fleecing machine.

Have a good week! ;)

Speaking for all rational people who expect a "social media" website to
stay in their lane.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

To everyone who feels this way, and has *some* influence: Please tell your 
HR people this as well.  I've been searching for a job for months, and 
getting a LinkedIn account is 'highly recommended' by most job agencies, 
and outright *required* for application to some companies.


Complaining here is complaining to the choir.  Talk to the people who think 
it's a useful tool and are requiring other people to use it, against their 
own better judgment.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

[Daniel Staal]

--As of May 14, 2014 9:23:21 AM -0500, char...@thefnf.org is alleged to 
have said:



So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.


No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and
aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). They
did a bit of an advertising campaign of "smart home" offerings, but that
seems to have never grown beyond a pilot.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

This whole argument is about them seeking new sources of revenue: The 
content providers who their current customers want to access.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality

[Daniel Staal]

--As of May 12, 2014 3:02:28 PM +0200, Nick Hilliard is alleged to have 
said:



On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:

imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person.  .  my
friends in last mile providers disagree.  i take that as a good sign.


Vi's analogy is wrong on a subtle but important point.  In the analogy,
the delivery company needs to get a bunch of new trucks to handle the
delivery but as the customer is paying for each delivery instances, the
delivery company's costs are covered by increased end-user charges.

In the net neutrality debate, the last mile service providers are in a
position where they need to upgrade their access networks, but the
end-user pricing is not necessarily keeping pace.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

So the fact that the USA has higher prices than many other countries, for 
slower service, and those prices are rising (mine went up three times in 
the past year, including them starting to charge rent for a cable modem I 
bought when I signed up, for the same service) doesn't mean anything?


Or the fact that they are one of the most profitable market segments in the 
country?


They have the money.  They have the ability to get more money.  *They see 
no reason to spend money making customers happy.*  They can make more 
profit without it.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: spamassassin

[Daniel Staal]

I'm going to forward on what's probably a 'final disposition' post on this 
below.  Note the behavior of the BAYES_999 rule is going to change 
dramatically.  (It will be *in addition* to the BAYES_99 rule, instead of 
replacing it for messages with the appropriate bayes score.)


From: "Kevin A. McGrail" 


As of about 10:30EST Tonight, I expect that versions 3.3.X will be able
to use sa-update to receive an update that includes BAYES_99 as it used
to exist + BAYES_999 which overlaps with BAYES_99 and adds 0.2 to the
score.

By about 4AM tomorrow, version 3.4.1 will have an update though likely no
one can access that update.

Tomorrow morning by about 10AM, I will update 3.4.0 manually to receive
the 3.4.1 update.

So as of ~1 hour past the times above based on the version in use to
allow for DNS ttl and mirror updates, I would recommend people run
sa-update and remove any manual edits for rules named BAYES_99 or
BAYES_999.  If they have manual scoring for these, they will want to
review those scores for their own installation.  BAYES_99 scores in the
3.75 range and BAYES_999 will score in the 0.25 range.  Anything outside
of those scores should be done understanding your own Bayesian database.

They can confirm they received the correct update if the rule score for
BAYES_999 changes to 0.2, i.e. for a default path 3.4.0 installation:

grep BAYES_999
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/updates_spamassassin_org/50_scores.cf

gives

score BAYES_999 0  0  4.03.7

Tomorrow, this should change to 0.2.

regards,
KAM

Re: spamassassin

[Daniel Staal]

--As of February 20, 2014 11:22:34 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to have 
said:



http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/183433


as blabby as nanog, and not really specific


body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '0.999')
body BAYES_999 eval:check_bayes('0.999', '1.00')
score BAYES_99 0 0 3.8 3.5
score BAYES_999 0 0 4.0 3.7


and this is a replacement for both 999 and 99?


--As for the rest, it is mine.

It's a redefinition of both, yes.  It was partly given in the original 
thread as a help to understand what was happening - and it was listed as a 
*temporary* fix, until the rule has been stabilized.


Discussion on both of these rules is ongoing at the moment, and I wouldn't 
advise the above fix unless you are following it. It's likely that it will 
double-score some of your spam, or drastically change the meanings of the 
rules from what is shipped, if not now than soon.  Putting the 'score' 
lines in your local.cf or user_prefs should be fine, but I'd avoid the 
definition lines.  (`/etc/mail/spmassassin/local.cf` is the usual main 
editable config file for spamassissin, and `~/.spamassassin/user_prefs` is 
per-user configs, if you have that.)


The correct score has been pushed, as Simon Perreault mentioned.  Taking 
out anything you've done and running sa-update should get you a working 
ruleset.  (If you've increased the score of either one in the normal 
fashions - using local.cf or user_prefs - that should be fine.)


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: spamassassin

[Daniel Staal]

--As of February 19, 2014 9:52:57 AM +0800, Randy Bush is alleged to have 
said:



in the last 3-4 days, a *massive* amount of spam is making it past
spamassassin to my users and to me.  see appended for example.  not
all has dkim.

clue?


--As for the rest, it is mine.

The spamassassin list has been tracking an issue where a new rule made it 
out of the testbox accidentally, which lowers scores on a lot of spam.  It 
wasn't in the sample you provided, but the rule name is BAYES_999 - it 
catches mail that the bayes filter thinks is 99.9-100% sure to be spam.  As 
it got promoted prematurely, it's showing with a score of 1.0.  (The 
default.)  It's probably a part of your problem.


A fix should be in the rules update today or tomorrow - or you can rescore 
it to the same as BAYES_99 (someplace in the 3 range by default, I 
believe).  That's what used to catch that mail: it used to mean 99-100%, 
and now means 99-99.9%.


More info can be found in the mailing list archives for the spamassassin 
list.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: IPv6 Burgers (was: IPv6 Ignorance)

[Daniel Staal]

On 2012-09-17 13:48, Richard Brown wrote:

Another measure of the size of the IPv6 address space... Back on
World IPv6 Day in June 2011, Dartware had a barbecue. (Why? Because
the burgers had 128 (bacon) bits and we served IP(A) to drink :-) You
can see some photos at:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/scenes-ipv6-day-barbecue

But we came up with another interesting measure for the vastness of
the IPv6 address space:

If an IPv4 hamburger patty has 2^32 (4.2 billion) unique addresses in
its 1/4 inch thickness, how thick would an IPv6 hamburger be (with
2^128 unique addresses)?

The answer is... 53 billion light-years.


Just got to playing with this today, trying to put it in some sort of 
perspective.  First off, lets bring that down to human-sized numbers, 
using standard units used in astronomy:


2^94 inches = 16 gigaparsecs + 304 megaparsecs + 322 kiloparsecs + 752 
parsecs + 2 lightyears + 57101 au + 23233 earthradius


(Gigaparsecs isn't very common, but that's because it's a bit big.)

So...  How big is that?  What can we compare it to?  Well, let's start 
at the top: does this thing actually fit in our universe?


The size of the observable universe is set by the Hubble Constant and 
lightspeed: The Hubble Constant is the rate of growth of expansion in 
the universe - the redshift phenomena.  The further away you look, the 
faster things are moving away from us.  At a certain point, they are 
moving away from us faster than light, meaning that light coming from 
them would never reach us.


That's about 14 gigaparsecs away.  (Adjusting for such things as how 
much they will have moved since you measured them.  There's a whole 
rabbit hole to go down for this, on Wikipedia alone.)  Which means the 
observable universe is about 28 gigaprsecs across.  (Now you can see why 
gigaparsecs isn't a common unit.)


So our hamburger patty would fit inside it - but you wouldn't be able 
to see one end from the other.  Ever.  In fact, while someone at the 
center could reach either end, once they got there they'd never be able 
to reach the other.  They wouldn't even be able to get back to where 
they started.


Which of course means that even if you ate at lightspeed, you'd never 
be able to eat it.


(Oh, and if it still has a radius of 3 inches - standard 1/4 pound 
burger at 1/4 inch thick - it's got a volume around that of 11,000 
Earths, and a mass of about 1,400 Earths, about 4.6 times the mass of 
Jupiter.)



It's straightforward unit conversions. There are 2^96 IPv4 Hamburgers
at a quarter-inch apiece. That's 2^96 inches/4 (2^94 inches).
Switching to decimal units, 1.98x10^32 inches; 1.65x10^27 feet;
3.13x10^23 miles; and then continuing to convert to light-years.

A good tool for this kind of wacky unit conversion is Frink

(http://futureboy.us/fsp/frink.fsp?fromVal=2%5E94+inches&toVal=lightyears),
which can do this in one shot. Simply enter:


I prefer the 'units' program, which is usually a standard utility on 
Unix-like boxes.  (If not in your distro of choice, finding the GNU or 
BSD versions is left as an exercise for the reader. ;) )


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Most energy efficient (home) setup

[Daniel Staal]

--As of February 22, 2012 3:48:42 PM -0600, Joe Greco is alleged to have 
said:



Right now my always on server is a VIA artigo 1100 pico-itx system
(replacing the G4 system) and my "router/firewall/modem" is still the el
cheapo DSL modem (which runs busybox by the way). I have an upgraded
workstation that's "sometimes on", it has a mini itx form factor (AMD
phenom2 CPU). I use debian on all systems.

I haven't measured it but I think if the set up would use 30 watts
continuously (only taking the always on systems into account) it'd be a
lot. Of course it'll spike when I fire up the workstation.

It's not extremely energy efficient but compared to some setups I read
about it is. The next step would be to migrate to a plugcomputer or
something similar (http://plugcomputer.org/).

Any suggestions and ideas appreciated of course. :-)


You want truly energy efficient but not too resource limited like the
Pogoplug and stuff like that?  Look to Apple's Mac mini.

The current Mac mini "Server" model sports an i7 2.0GHz quad-core CPU
and up to 16GB RAM (see OWC for that, IIRC).  Two drives, up to 750GB
each, or SSD's if you prefer.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

There is an intermediate step as well; something along the lines of an ALIX 
or Fit-PC (or Netgate) board.  These are boards designed for 
embedded/network applications, mostly.  (Although the Fit-PC looks to be 
more of a thin client desktop.)  Depending on the use, one can run a decent 
home server on one, or even a lightweight *nix desktop.


Most of these don't actually specify what they use, power-wise; they just 
list what power supply is included.  Fit-PC advertises that it runs at .5 
watts for standby, 8 watts fully loaded.  Many of the others are probably 
similar, depending on how powerful they actually are, and how you configure 
them.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Daniel Staal]

On Thu, January 5, 2012 11:37 am, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> If I wrote a blog article that criticized the government and it was
> shutdown along with my Internet access I wouldn't say that my right to the
> Internet was violated. I would say that my right to free speech was
> violated. Regardless of one way or two way communication it is
> communication.

The Internet is quickly becoming more than just a medium for speech.  It
is access to services, education, markets, and tools of analysis, among
*many* others.  Many of the specifics are covered under other rights, so
the question is does the whole become more than the parts, and is *that* a
right?

I'm with the 'probably not quite yet, but soon' group.  I don't think it
will be long before it is impossible to participate in modern society in
any meaningful way without access to the Internet.

Vint does have one other point: the tool is not the whole of the thing. 
What we currently call 'the Internet' could be replaced by a different
network, if someone were to invent something that was a good enough
replacement.  But at this point, I think *that* network would be called
'the Internet' then, and we don't *have* a separate name for the tool from
what it does.  (With the possible exception of some terms in cyberpunk
novels...)

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: personal backup

[Daniel Staal]

--As of August 13, 2011 2:12:24 PM +0900, Randy Bush is alleged to have 
said:



charles skipped what i see as a highly critical question, personal
backup.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

Personal system: Important files are on the fileserver, on a RAID-Z volume. 
It's backed up nightly using Tarsnap; the keyfiles to that are on two 
machines, and two USB drives.  (Including an Ironkey in the firesafe.)


Tarsnap is worth looking at if you are looking at an offsite backup for 
small-scale use: On a per-GB basis, it's not especially cheap, but it bills 
on a per-byte basis, so if you aren't storing hundreds of GB, it's cheap.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

[Daniel Staal]

--As of May 10, 2011 9:37:55 AM -0400, Jon Lewis is alleged to have said:


I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court.  This is surely a
topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to
prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified
that what they got really was a part of the movie.  If they're going
after any IP that connected to and downloaded from an agent of the studio
(and that's what it sounds like) who hosted the file, can they really
expect to prosecute people for downloading something they were giving
away?


--As for the rest, it is mine.

Typically the response (from what media coverage I've read) is that they'll 
put up a token defense to see if you are really interested, and then drop 
it at the first opportunity if you continue.  Keeping them in court once 
they have dropped the prosecution is tricky, and they will resist that with 
all available resources.


Actually paying court costs and spending billable time on these cuts into 
their business model.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?

[Daniel Staal]

--As of May 4, 2011 5:43:04 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to have said:


You know what would make this work *well*?  If IAPs *didn't include mcast
traffic in your cap*.  Since the reason for their caps is, in the final
analysis *to limit THEIR transit costs*, multicast would seem to be a
really good means toward that end, unless my final analysis is
contradicted by something better justified and documented...

This would turn multicast into a Consumer-pull technology.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

Assuming that is the actual reason for traffic caps, instead of just the 
stated reason.  In many cases it seems like traffic caps are being rolled 
out in an effort to stymie the streaming-content services (Hulu, Youtube, 
etc.) that compete with the ISP's other business of selling TV/Cable 
service.


If that is the case, multicast is just a way for the services the ISPs are 
trying to interfere with to lower their costs and increase their quality. 
So not including that traffic in their cap is the last thing they would 
want to do.


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Top-posting

[Daniel Staal]

--As of April 11, 2011 3:11:15 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to have 
said:



Of late I have started to get responses from people (not even the person
who top-posted) saying that I should f*** off and that they would post
however they wanted. Very hostile and even threatening.

I even manage to bottom post from my iPod. With cut and paste, it's
really not hard, but I guess it's just beyond the capacities of some
and somehow offensive to others.


Standard threaded (IE: not top-posted) replies have been the standard for
technical mailing lists on the net since I first joined one.

In 1983.

Anyone who has a problem with it can, in short, go bugger off.  Really.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

I've found my mail has fallen into three basic categories over time:

1) Mailing list, technical or otherwise.

2) Personal discussions.

3) 'Official' work email, of one form or another.

Of the three, #1 almost always is either bottom posted, or fully 
intermixed.  #2 I often introduce people to the idea, but once they get it 
they like it.  In both of these it is more important what is replying to 
what, and what the *current state* of the conversation is.  Either one I 
can rely on the other participants to have the history (or at least have 
access to it).  Top-posting in either context is non-helpful.


#3, is always top-posted, and I've grown to like that in that context.  The 
most current post serves as a 'this is where we are right now, and what 
needs to be done', while the rest tends to preserve the *entire* history, 
including any parts I was not a part of initially.  (For instance: A user 
sends an email to their boss, who emails the helpdesk, who emails back for 
clarification, and then forwards on that reply to me.  At that point it's 
often nice to know what the original issue was, or to be able to reach the 
user directly instead of through several layers of intermediary.)


It has different strengths and weaknesses, and can be useful in it's place. 
Mailing lists are not top-posting's place.  ;)


Daniel T. Staal

(As for HTML email...  I've yet to meet an actual human who routinely used 
HTML-only emails.  They are a sure sign of a marketing department's 
involvement.)


---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: unsubscribing, was Switching Email

[Daniel Staal]

--As of March 12, 2011 3:02:38 PM +, John Levine is alleged to have 
said:



Anyone have a list of MUAs that actually support RFC 2369 with
subscription management widgets in the GUI? Surely someone has written
one but I can't seem to find any documentation to that effect.


Alpine, which has what must be the cruddiest GUI on the planet, does.
Too bad people prefer glitz to function.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

Squirrelmail and Kmail both do as well, although in both cases it's an 
option that needs to be configured.  (In Squirrelmail's case it's actually 
a plugin, I think.)


Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Posting from freebie E-mail Accounts

[Daniel Staal]

On Wed, March 31, 2010 12:14 pm, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> Until somebody does 'view headers' and sees
>
> /X/-/Sender/-/IP
> /
> and oh look, it was sent from 'foobarco' ;-)

That depends on how they are sending it, of course.  Webmail usually just
has the IP of the host, and I imagine quite a few others around here have
their own personal servers that could also be used for this, one way or
another.

Then of course there are things like Blackberries and iPhones that can
send email themselves, and are likely to have IP addresses that are linked
to something besides their current location.

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Hotmail/MSN email admin

[Daniel Staal]

If there are any Hotmail/MSN email admins on this list, could you please
contact me offlist at daniel.t.st...@uscg.dhs.gov

Thanks.

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Need advise for a linux firewall

[Daniel Staal]

--As of March 11, 2010 4:22:38 PM +, gordon b slater is alleged to have 
said:



One caveat for the current PFsense: traffic shaping in 1.2.3 release is
somewhat borked (1.2.2 works much better) and it doesn't work with more
than 2 interfaces, so 1 wan - 1 lan is OK.


--As for the rest, it is mine.

One more, given the other current thread going on at the moment: The 
current version of PFsense doesn't support IPv6 through the GUI.  (The OS 
and PF support it, but you have to log in to a shell to configure it.)


It's on their to-do list.

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Spamcop Blocks Facebook?

[Daniel Staal]

On Thu, March 4, 2010 3:19 am, Jay Hennigan wrote:

> Facebook, like many similar sites, rather aggressively requests that its
> users supply their email credentials so that the site can "invite" their
> contacts.  All of them.  Every stinkin' email address they can mine.

Also, Facebook sends mail from many different IP ranges, and non-Facebook
(but @facebook.com) spam mail manages to get sent from overlapping IP
ranges on occasion.

Facebook tends to send mail from address...@facebook.com, where 'address'
is something like 'notifications' and 'id' is some random string.  Some
spam mail packages cannot distinguish this from addr...@facebook.com,
which many of the spammers who try to spoof Facebook use  (using the same
common 'address'es as Facebook does).  If you don't watch what you are
doing, this can result in significant amounts of false-positives on manual
sender-based blacklists.

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---