Re: Outlook Express Prank
In the immortal words of Alex Pennace ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): No one deserves to be censored because some people made a poor choice for their MUA. At what point, exactly, did asking someone to act like (a) a professional and (b) a decent human being become censorship? Oh, right, the same point at which this list became about adolescent chest-thumping and OS/MUA advocacy instead of qmail. Silly me. I think we'll just add me to the list of disgusted unsubscribers. Someone please drop me a line if the kids here ever grow up, eh? -n, unix user since before you figured out how to cop an attitude, thanks. --[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've got more than one membership / to more than one club and I owe my life / to the people that I love. (--Ani DiFranco) http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: AntiVirus!
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): A good attack agent could spread itself using SMTP, RPC, FTP and IRC all at the same time. Yeah, and pigs can fly. The only people who would have a reason to spend the massive amounts of time and money on this purely destructive work are the military. Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports. And despite his father's connections, RTM himself was basically a bored college student. Of course, we're so much smarter now that this could never happen, right? Of course. -n, going back to ignoring this thread --[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dressing like your sister / living like a tart / you don't know what you're doing / babe, it must be art! (--U2) http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: secrets and lies
([EMAIL PROTECTED] snipped due to overwhelming qmail-centrism) In the immortal words of Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): You don't, but others do. For instance, I can distribute a package that contains pristine qmail source and patches, and include a script which applies the patches, changes conf-home, and compiles and installs qmail. According to dist.html, that would be fine. But what if Dan found out someone was doing this and got angry? Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html. After he changed it, could I then continue distributing this package without fear of being sued? IANAL, but my feeling is that the documents in question pretty unambiguously lead to the conclusion that you'd be SOL in that case, and I would further suspect that Dan keeps the only notices about qmail's distribution terms in a centralized place to leave himself the option of refining the terms were such a case to arise. As he wrote the code, this is unquestionably his right. As I peronally could care less about the alleged moral tonic of "Free" or "Open Source" software and my needs are satisfied by qmail's default configuration, this isn't really an issue for me personally. People with personal or business needs for such things should probably consider the MTAs which explicitly set such terms, rather than hoping that qmail might one day satisfy them. Based on past experience, it's not likely to. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sunshine Dear Future Employer: Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy? I think we know. Thanks! $100,000 a year, I'll be there on monday, please. -chelleMarie http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: secrets and lies
In the immortal words of Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It sounds like the author of this book is a M$-type weenie. Bruce Schneier, "M$-type weenie." God I'm glad I wasn't trying to eat or drink anything when I read that... "That would be `no.'" -n -[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Many argue that it is an outrage to expect Elián González to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. But I don't think Miami is so bad." (--Maureen Dowd) http://www.blank.org/memory/-
Re: Maildir -- does it work with QPopper (Qualcomm POP3 server)
In the immortal words of Aleksander Rozman - Andy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I am trying to convert all my mbox files to maildir format. I am wondering if anyone tried to use maildir with QPopper, QUALCOMM's POP3 server. I am using it from beginning and I like how good it works (now I use 3.0 version), but now I am not sure if it will work with this maildir format. Did anybody tried to use this two together? Qpopper does not work with maildirs. Nor is it ever likely to. You should take a look at qmail-pop3d, the pop3 daemon included in the qmail distribution, or at http://www.vpopmail.cx/. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When JFK was killed, America lost its innocence. Now, several Kennedy deaths later, we've all learned to just laugh at it. Pretty soon we'll be killing them for fun." (--The Onion) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: qmail on Mac OSX?
In the immortal words of Faried Nawaz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Remove "-s" from conf-ld, or try changing it to "-x". I ran into that on OpenStep 4.1, of all places. Not exactly surprising: "Mac OS X" == "OpenStep 6.0" for all intents and purporses. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The beauty you like is precisely that which escapes you."(--Issey Miyake) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: orbs and qmail
In the immortal words of Kevin Waterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): ORBS doesn't use the abuse.net tests to determine who is an open relay. To quote from the ORBS site Try Abuse.Net's new relay tester (requires registration). This is the only web-based tester which carries out the same set of tests which ORBS does. The text on the orbs.org website is, unfortunatly, misleading. Alan Brown, the person who is ORBS, has given more cogent explanations of how the tester works on various mailing lists and newsgroups. ORBS uses the abuse.net tester...with one VERY important difference: they actually check to see if the relayed message is received at the final destination address. The fact that qmail "accepts" the message will NOT result in being listed by ORBS: the message would actually have to be incorrectly relayed for that to happen. Hopefully, it should be self-evident why the abuse.net tester does not do this. (Hint: it would make a great mailbombing service.) There are many legitimate complaints that people have had about ORBS' behavior (such as "spite listings" and the fact that its tests generate spam to postmasters of correctly configured machines), but even ORBS' most vocal detractors (and I have been one of those) do not believe that a correctly configured qmail server will, on its own, generate an ORBS listing. -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] And when love is gone, there's always justice. And when justice is gone there's always force. And when force is gone, threre's always mom. Hi mom! (--Laurie Anderson) http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: ITU-T (Off Topic)
In the immortal words of Mark Lo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Offtopic Again !! Sorry !! Does anyone know ...Do I need a license to operate a mail server in Hong Kong.?? How about in US ? Although many of us think it would be a great idea, you do not need a license to operate a mail server in the US. No idea about Hong Kong. -n ---[EMAIL PROTECTED] "History, which torments other countries, most just teases America." (--www.suck.com) http://www.blank.org/memory/---
Re: Help with my girlfriend?
In the immortal words of Julie Baumler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You guys obviously haven't heard about the alternate drivers which have
multiple switches to allow things like a bind and top interface, multiple
instances of /dev/gfn, /dev/bfn, compatibility between /dev/gfn and
/dev/wife, etc. Unfortunately, there tend to be serious conversion
problems when using existing /dev/gf0, /dev/bf0, /dev/wife, and
/dev/husband device nodes with the alternate drivers which can result in
substancial permanent system resource degradation.
There's also the matter of import/export restrictions. Certain
localities consider such patches to MonagamOS to be in violation of a
number of archaic statutes. Luckily, such laws are enforced only
sporadically in the US, but one you've been forced by the state to
mount /dev/lawyer, all sorts of holy hell can break loose. (cf.
www.paddleboro.org)
void main {
free(your mind) will_follow(your ass);
}
-n
--[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"What's the difference between a regular actuary and a Chicago actuary?
A regular actuary can tell you how many people will die in the next
year. The Chicago actuary can tell you their names." --Chuck McClenahan
http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD. Three words: journalling file system. Four more words: integrated logical volume manager. Solstice DiskSuite may not be a best-of-breed product in either of those categories, but it's there, it's basically stable, it's documented, and as of Solaris 7 it's part of the base distribution. I'm not a big fan of Solaris/Intel myself, but in a production environment, a reliable and flexible filesystem is a dealbreaker. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I've yet to read about an ex-lesbian who, upon accepting Jesus Christ as her personal savior, was seized by a sudden and overwhelming desire to chew through Matt Damon's underpants." (--Dan Savage) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: linuxpeople thread
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I got all the way up to: Step 7. Read INSTALL.maildir Here's how to set up qmail to use maildir for your incoming mail: % maildirmake $HOME/Maildir % echo ./Maildir/ ~/.qmail [root@www qmail-1.03]# maildirmake $HOME/Maildir bash: maildirmake: command not found [root@www qmail-1.03]# Any legitimate suggestions? Legitimate suggestion: put /var/qmail/bin in your $PATH, and then try again. And before people start jumping all over him for _this_, please recall that this is _exactly_ why several long-term list members have had long-standing beefs with djb over his use of an installation path which is not only nonstandard by which actively breaks standard unix failsystem assumptions. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm getting laid tonight, so that takes precidence over the Newton, but I'll try and squeeze in some time for Nathan during the afterglow. (--Lamont Lucas) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: linuxpeople thread
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Note: your posts are more noise, less signal, than any of the people you've flamed. Most of my flames are done in private Email. Start reading some of those Internet newbie sites again, and learn how to deal with people you don't like on mailing lists the recommended way -- in private. This is basically what happens when people read the BOFH stories and forget that the BOFH is a fictional character, created as a joke, and that Simon, in real life, is a reasonably well-adjusted person who is a professional on work hours and pleasant in public. As one of the co-administrators of BOFHnet, I find the emergency of such "BOFH-wannabees" pretty amusing. They will be tolerated for exactly as long as there is a labor shortage in this industry. When the hiring crunch ends, they will either learn to behave like professionals, or they will learn to flip burgers. Frankly, this industry will win in either case. -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dude, don't say 'pigfucker' in front of Jesus!" http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Solaris 7 definitely doesn't come with DiskSuite as part of the base distribution. I know that I certainly don't have it. Hrm. Okay, I could have sworn that 2.7 was being bundled with DiskSuite, but I don't have a media package around me that I can verify that with. I _can_ verify that the current Binary License for Solaris 8 does appear to include SDS bundled with it. Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list. Well, like I said, it's not necessarily best-of-breed, it's just there, which is a big win over the various free unixes if you're working on a constrained hardware budget. In 1-2 years, when reiserfs/xfs/jfs/ext3 or whatever is integrated into the mainline linux distributions, this will become much less of an issue. (Doesn't really address that LVM portion, but that's probably a lot less critical for most people.) -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Two crucial things in New York: Do the work and enjoy the town. New York furnishes vast pleasure to them what can hear the music and do the dance. They may be from Wisconsin or Denmark or Japan, but they walk down the street and it appeals to them, the hurly-burly and the eccentrics and the street musicians, the aroma of pizza and chestnuts and hot dogs, the jangle of a dozen different languages, the distant siren, the rumble of the subway, the pockets of grace and elegance and the flash and hustle and the river of perspiring humanity. A person who knows how to make himself happy can do well in New York. Enjoying the carnival is more important to your happiness than "making it." But do do the work." (--Garrison Keillor) http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list. Well, like I said, it's not necessarily best-of-breed, it's just there, which is a big win over the various free unixes if you're working on a constrained hardware budget. Can you please expand on how an inferior file system for Solaris is in any way "a big win over the various free unixes"? Especially under the assumption of a constrained budget, please. Could we please dispense with the flamebait? I think I've been pretty clear here: _IF_ you have an environment where filesystem integrity in case of power loss or other catastrophe is paramount, a journalling filesystem is probably going to be a requirement. Solaris X86 happens to offer it, bundled into the core operating system, and is currently free (as in dollars) for most uses. If you have an environment where read/write performance is critical, but reliability isn't, you've got... well, actually what you've got is a nice leadin to the eternal "ext2 vs ffs" debate, which is even more off-topic. Let's just say you've got plenty of options. Have fun. If reliability, flexibility _and_ speed are paramount, you're probably running VXFS+VXVM already, and long-since stopped paying attention to this discussion. (You're probably also not even considering low-end x86 hardware in the first place.) Who cares about "mainstream linux distributions"? I'm not trying to advocate a particular OS here. Somebody asked why one might want to use Solaris x86 instead of linux and I offered a hypothesis. If that happened to tickle some odd sensitivity of yours, that was not my intention, but nor is it my concern. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There are certain phrases that inspire an instinctive dread in moviegoers: `Tarantino-esque'; `big in France'; `starring Andy Garcia.'" (--M.E. Williams) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: question about uninstall
In the immortal words of shawn p . duffy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hey... I was thinking of uninstalling and reinstalling qmail so I could get even more familiar with it. If get rid of /var/qmail and edit the boot scripts I should be OK right? oh... also the /services dir and all of the qmail users and groups... would that work OK? You shouldn't have to remove the entire services dir -- just the entries for qmail-smtpd and qmail-send should do the trick. Watch out for qmail's "sendmail" wrapper, which might still be lying around in /usr/lib or /usr/sbin. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] Toward the end of my career in porn, I reached a point where what I saw every day didn't affect me anymore. Not because I was desensitized or had lost my compassion -- I think it was actually the opposite. I began to see just the people, without judgment, without trying to make any sense out of it. I stopped thinking the actors had to be damaged to do what they did. They were having sex for a living, instead of working in a bank. The bank thing probably takes it's own kind of toll. I wouldn't know. (--Barbara Nitke) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): The inferiority was noted by yourself, so I don't see a flamebait here. I think you're reading a little too much into what I'm saying. "Not as good as veritas" is a far cry from "inferior," and is still a long sight better than "only available as unstable patch sets." Match your tools to your task: not everybody needs a gold-plated hammer to pound in penny nails, nor is everybody interested in forging their own steel. As you might know, the journaling code is new in Solaris 7. Solaris 7 is about two years old now. Ahem. Previously, Sun would offer licensed code from another vendor (Veritas AFAIK). Actually, no. Sun has always had two JFS/LVM products, targeted at different markets. Solstice DiskSuite (which was part of the "server" licenses for Solaris going back at least to 2.4) was an internally developed solution targeted at low- to mid-range servers. For high-end requirements (e.g. database hosting), they OEMed Veritas' VXFS/VXVM product. You wouldn't actually recommend new Sun code to anyone for reliability reasons, would you? As far as I am aware, the journalling code in 2.7 is simply the "metatrans" code from DiskSuite, slightly tweaked (the log gets stuck into the filesystem root-reserved space instead of onto a dedicated partition) and bundled into the core OS. And DiskSuite has been around forever and a day. Besides, what makes you claim that there is no journaling for free unices? I claim no such thing. There are plenty of them, none of which are anywhere near production-quality. (Hans Reiser would disagree I guess, but I will content myself with knowing that Linus and Alan do not.) That will change with time. This conversation has veered into the silly and completely off-topic; I will no longer cc the list at this point. -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Bedford has never ever heard of Salvador Dali. Which is perfectly all right. Salvador Dali and fifty cents will get you a cup of clock melt." http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
In the immortal words of Oezguer Kesim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): reiserfs is available for many distributions. But even if not, it should not take more than half an hour on decent machines to patch a decent kernel and run the a new kernel with reiserfs included. Honestly, I can't consider reiserfs to be production quality yet. I really would prefer not to open that can of worms on this list though; let's just say that reasonable people can disagree about that and that we're all looking foward to the day when it's part of the standard kernel. If you want LVM under linux, take a look of SuSE´s work on that issue. It basically feels like the LVM on HPUX 10.X and is available _now_. Hm, thanks for the pointer. SuSE's tools don't get anywhere near as much exposure as they should on this side of the pond... -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Rand dealt with that by blandly ignoring the issue. She never had kids, and I doubt very much that she ever gave them a moment's thought. Too inconvenient. That messy reality thing, you know? It's much more fun to write 800-page superhero comic books and then declare them by fiat to be an accurate description of reality. It helps to have disciples who'll tell you you're not a psychopath."(--80md) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Flame (Dont read if you hate this like I do)
In the immortal words of Robin S. Socha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): * Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000906 05:09]: You call that a flame? You've got to be joking... (90+ lines of truly uninspired ad hominem attacks deleted for brevity.) Well congratulations. On reading Leslie's original post, I found myself thinking that "know-it-all teenagers" was a bit over-the-top as a complaint, but you've managed not only to make it stick, but to make it seem like a restrained, cautious judgement. I have a newsflash for you: ALT.FLAME IS THATAWAY your local nntp server If you want to engage in half-assed adolescent chest-beating under the deluded impression that it somehow makes you look wiser, smarter, cooler or in any other way better than your putative target, please avail yourself of one of the countless venues designed for exactly that purpose. In the meantime, please do yourself and everybody around you a massive favor and disabuse yourself of the notion that being snide and condescending to newbies on informational mailing lists is in any way helpful to you, them, or the list in general. You are not "educating newbies" by doing this. You are not engaging in "tough love". You are most certainly not actually "encouraging people to help themselves"" I'm sure you have some other lame justification you are undoubtedly going to throw at us for your pathetic outburst. Please, save it. You are just being a putz. (Look it up.) If you only want to hear questions from people who already know as much about qmail as your estimable self, please emulate an intelligent person for the 30 seconds it will take you to unsubscribe from the general-purpose mailing list, and find one more targeted to your needs. Every time some self-appointed weasel like you decides to strike a blow for some warped notion of truth and righteousness by stomping all over some innocent newbie, that's ten times harder actual professionals like myself have to work to get community-supported software adopted inside real corporations. Congratulations. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A Force Recon colonel once told me, "If it's a stupid idea, and it works, it must not be a stupid idea." (--John Frazier) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: tcpserver on lpd
In the immortal words of John Conover ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): For completeness, I would like to run lpd under tcpserver. Is there some trick way of doing it? lpd was not designed to be run under tcpserver-although it has a -F option to not go into the background, it also won't die when its finished handling a transaction, and tcpserver invokes another copy when the the next transaction comes along. Any tricks? That seems kinda silly. tcpserver was definintly not meant to run persistant daemons. Would you run apache under tcpserver? You probably just want to run lpd under supervise. -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] "What's the difference between a regular actuary and a Chicago actuary? A regular actuary can tell you how many people will die in the next year. The Chicago actuary can tell you their names." --Chuck McClenahan http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: I Need An Actual License For Qmail
In the immortal words of Mike Flynn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I work for IBM and I want to install qmail on my server. IBM requires that I present our legal department with an actual license so that the Intellectual Property lawyers can review it and bless it or not. I will not be distributing qmail in any way, just using it, hopefully, to dramatically reduce the time spent sending very large mailings (on an RS/6000 server under AIX) using the sendmail daemon. I saw one append a while back that had something about a license and referenced an ftp site. I don't think the information there is in "proper" enough form (I'm guessing) to satisfy the lawyers. You may be out of luck. Qmail does not have a "license". The closest it has is the terms of redistribution: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They've got an unmarked car with your name on it." (--Golden Palominos) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): No offense to DJB at all, but you have a very strange view of open sourced software if you don't believe in using patches. One last time. Qmail is not "open source software". Is not now. Has never been. In all probability never will be. You can reasonably maintain that this is not a good thing. (Heck, I'd agree with you.) You can argue that qmail would benefit from an OSS development model. (You might be right.) But understand that you are talking about a hypothetical: qmail is _not_ OSS. And it seems to me that a great deal of your confusion on this list stems from your misapprehension of this fact. -n --[EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't blame me -- I voted for the Unabomber! http://www.blank.org/memory/--
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is and/or where the license is embedded in C source files ... Goddamnit. The entire world is NOT a gnu software project. Stop pretending that it is. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html And now that that's over with, stop using this mailing list as a substitute for a web browser. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Sure, the left would love to have a Christian Coalition. The tiny problem is that it doesn't have Christianity." (--James Poniewozik) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
In the immortal words of Eric Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and ORBS, because I know nothing of BGP routing. But in the last one, when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in the right. I saw grown men, (admins!) trying to defend the position that by ORBS sending up to 16 messages through their servers a few times a _year_, ORBS was abusing the email system. Mind you, these were servers that relayed 200K to a million messages a day - the ORBS tests amounted to a tiny fraction a of fraction of the spam it would have prevented. Were those messages: - sent in bulk? Yes. - unsolicited by the owner of the server? Almost always. - impossible to opt out of except by blocking the sender's networks? Completely. This is an area where reasonable people may disagree. If you believe spam is defined by content, then no, the ORBS probes are not spam. If, however, you believe that spam is defined by all or some subset of the above criteria, then they are. If you own your own network, you craft your filters accordingly. And please, please, please let's stop calling this a MAPS-vs-ORBS issue. This is ORBS vs. AboveNet, and Alan is trying desperatly to bring MAPS into it for reasons which should be transparently obvious. MAPS is not AboveNet, any more than DJB is the University of Illinois. -n -[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Many argue that it is an outrage to expect Elián González to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. But I don't think Miami is so bad." (--Maureen Dowd) http://www.blank.org/memory/-
maildir delivery code in perl
Anybody got any sample maildir delivery code in perl lying about that I could snarf? A quick scan of CPAN revealed nothing of any use. -n -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Listen up, freaks: This is the last time I'm going to run one of your whiny, "Am I the only one?" questions. Whatever your fetish, no matter how obscure, there are other people like you out there, and guess what? Every last one of them is on-line. Crush fetishists? On-line. Plush-toy fetishists? On-line. Women-who-enjoy-decapitating-men fetishists? On-line. (--Dan Savage) http://www.blank.org/memory/
too much spare time on my hands
http://www.snedmail.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (PKD) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: How good is RBL at filtering spam?
In the immortal words of David Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I'm thinking of deploying RBL to try to cut down on spam, but before I did that I wanted to poke around and see how effective it might be. So, I gathered up some spam messages that I had received and looked up the mailserver's ipaddr in RBL using rbl.maps.vix.com and rbl.dorkslayers.com, and not one host was rejected from either RBL site. Even though I could see the messages looked like they were going trough an open relay. How good is this whole RBL thing anyway? In my experience, the RBL is a _great_ tool for pressuring ISPs into adopting rational anti-spam policies. It is an _awful_ tool for actually cutting down on the amount of spam an individual user gets. As your quick test above amply demonstrated, the spammers just move their source addresses too quickly for the RBL to be useful in stopping them. ORBS (nee dorkslayers) is useful to system administrators in that they will provide automatic reports on your netblocks, but isn't really any more useful for actually lowering your spam intake, for mostly the same reasons. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The Zapruder film confirms, beyond all reasonable doubt, that John F. Kennedy was killed by having his fucking head blown almost completely off his fucking shoulders." (--The Onion) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
In the immortal words of Fabrice Scemama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Is Nathan trying to explain that qmail sends mail so fast that it can't be natural ? ;-) Heh, there is an element of that. Parallelizing MTAs such as qmail and Postfix present a challenge when doing frequency analysis. However, I would tend to think that this is the analyzer's problem, not qmail's. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have seen the future of the net, and it's a pimply 14-year old boy shouting "ADD ME TO THE LIST11!!!" Forever. http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
Oy. Guess I get to delurk now. Hi, my name is Nathan J. Mehl. I run qmail on my home system, blank.org. I also happen to be the Senior Systems Administrator for Mail.Com. Let me state this for the record: MAIL.COM DOES NOT, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL BLACKLIST SERVERS BASED ON THE http://maps.vix.com/tsi/new-rlytest.cgi SCRIPT. I'm afraid that the message sent by the abuse staff at Mail.Com to Mr. Bell was somewhat unclear. iq-ss5.iquest.net was blocked because we received an unexpectedly high volume of mail from it. Period. The speculation that it was an open relay was just that, speculation, and we provided the pointer to the vix.com relay tester as a courtesy to Mr. Bell. Here is the crux of the matter: we would have blacklisted the server even if it had "passed" the TSI Relay Test. Allow me to offer my apologies to Mr. Bell for the inconvenience suffered. And please don't flood our abuse desk with requests to stop something we never did; they're busy enough as it is. :) -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] SENDING JUNK EMAIL TO MY ADDRESS CONSTITUTES YOUR LEGALLY-BINDING ACCEPTANCE OF MY OFFER TO REMOVE BOTH OF YOUR NIPPLES WITH AN ORBITAL SANDER. (--Andy Ihnatko) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
I am, as of now, speaking for nobody but my own fine self. If you have any questions about Mail.Com's policies, regarding spam or anything else, please direct them to the appropriate addresses at Mail.Com. Also, at this point this is really not even slightly qmail-related, so here's my offer: those of you with something to say who feel you have to say it in public, say it now. I won't answer any more questions on the list after tonight. You can mail me privately if you like, but you takes your chances just like everybody else if you do. In the immortal words of Daniluk, Cris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): How on earth can you block based on volume? A better question: how can anybody NOT? Spammers can change their names, change their addresses, alter the length and content of their mail, forge their headers, hide behind proxies, register their assets in the Carribean, get sex changes and crouch down behind shubberies, but there is one fingerprint they can never, ever change: in order to have a prayer of making a profit, they have to send out a lot of mail, really quickly. If I see a host that I do not recognize appear out of the blue and start pumping hundreds or thousands of messages an hour into my mail server, the odds are pretty on that it's a spammer. If it's not, I'm not averse to apologizing later on. I would rather delete 500 spam email messages than lose a SINGLE valid email. That's a very noble goal, and it works fine if you've only got a single mail server and a handful of users. You'll find that it doesn't scale very well once you hit the dozens-of-servers and millions-of-users mark. There comes a point (and it comes pretty damn quickly, believe me) where you have to balance mildly inconveniencing a few of your customers against royally pissing off a lot of them by letting the spammers swamp your system to the point where it's of no use to anybody. No, it's not pretty, but of such compromises is the real world made. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] Calling Motif a GUI is like calling a pile of bricks an apartment building. http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
[Again, speaking for nobody but my own cranky self here.] In the immortal words of David Dyer-Bennet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): So, welcome to the qmail list. Were you hoping for a nice, quiet, lurk? Oh well :-) . Hey, I managed to go about six months up until this point. :) Well, that clears up one issue, but raises another. In the nature of things, mail.com is likely to get lots of mail from certain servers -- those hosting mailing lists, those belonging to other big email providers. [...] This is so completely nonsensical that it must not be, really, what mail.com is doing. Of course, since we're all idiots who were born yesterday, that possibility never occurred to us. Who'd've thought that people who use our email service might subscribe to mailing lists? :-) Suffice it to say that yes, we take measures to prevent false positives when blacklisting servers. Obviously they didn't work in this case; hence my apology. The usual reviews and post-mortems will of course take place to try to make certain it doesn't happen again. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] five claws each rear paw seven claws on the front paws a cat named Haiku (--Mark Amidon) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
[Speaking, as before, only for my own irritable self.] In the immortal words of David Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): But the reason I have not spoken up and retracted my complaint is this: _The fact that your blacklisting was not based on any kind of relay test scares me even more._ I have a small news flash here: not all spam comes from open relays. What happens when an ISP sets up a mail server with tends of thousands of legitimate mail users sending you legitimate mail? What about a list-serv handing out gobs of e-mail specifically requested by your users? Do you black list them too? See my other note on that subject. A legitimate mail server got blacklisted. Complaint still stands. The server is out of the blacklist, the affected party has been apologized to, and I guess your complaint is noted. -n [EMAIL PROTECTED] Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets and then teams up with three complete stangers to kill again. (-- TV listing for the movie, The Wizard of Oz, in the Marin Paper.) http://www.blank.org/memory/
Re: Lobby mail.com
In the immortal words of Ben Kosse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It's only private if you don't make money on it. Some statements are just so stunning that they should be framed on their own. Really, I have no response to this, except to gaze at it in sheer awe. -n p.s. http://www.mail.com/mailcom/serviceagreement.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] My motorcycle/ stands forlorn on Hurlbut Street. The fucker won't start. (--me) http://www.blank.org/memory/
