Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
Jo Rhett wrote:
There's nothing on that site. It's on another site nobody
mentioned. It's not my job to find all references. And I'm not
saying people should find *ALL* references, I'm saying that people
should taking 1-2 minutes to read what the person is actually
suggesting/implementing, rather than disregarding the product/idea/
whatever publically without any clear understanding of what it does.
On May 22, 2008, at 1:18 AM, mouss wrote:
and who told you I did not check what they do?
I may have got it wrong as I said before, but this is no reason for
you to jump into insults.
mouss, read your own words. You threw insults ("there's a word for
this"). There isn't a single insult in what I said?
I'm sorry, but you are effing nuts. Not an insult, a factual
observation of your psychopathic behavior.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
RE: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
> And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm > trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the > responses. FYI: So are other products (at least one). And slowing down TCP sessions will hit ISPs as well btw. but that's a different stories. Oh and btw: Putting me on your personal blacklist is really mature! :-) It shows how interested you are in a discussion.
RE: AW: Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
>> http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/ >Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you >provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this >data. Possible. > Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you > should be explicit with your links. Up to this point in time I tried to be very nice. Not sure I will be any longer. At least try to follow your own thread. There is one person who started pointing fingers and suggested that the rest of the world is not doing research. Unless I am missing a lot of mails this person was/is you. You could not find the information, ok. Granted. You asked and got the pointer from me. However, not finding the necessary detailed information you jumped to conclusions and claimed that BarricadeMX was not able to do things. Note the difference: I (and others) say things like "I can find no information on MailChannels site indicating that they do xyz." You say "BarricadeMX is not able to do xyz." Clear now? Probably not I am afraid. Funny: Now that you have the information proving you are wrong you do not say so. Interesting move. > As afar as the slowdown is concerned, there aren't false positives. That is true in theory. Maybe you define false positives differently than others. There are tons of damn stupid MTAs out there (and stupid e-mail admins as well) that are not able to communicate according to the RFCs. These MTAs sometimes are not able to deliver mail into tarpitting/slowdown systems. Technically that is not a false positive. In reality a perfectly valid mail is not able to be delivered. Mangers tend to think of those as false positives. Saying slowdown does never under any circumstances cause false positives is plain wrong. Moreover you yourself keep pointing out that they are not only slowing down and tarpitting. So there are other techniques (e.g. their reputation system) that can cause false positives. Oh and thanks for not answering my backscatter problem. No answer sometimes is an answer. :-) > Read the text! Which one? I was kind enough to provide the links you asked for. Return the favour: What text on their website will enlighten me and tell me exactly (!) what they are doing so I can judge their efforts without having to try it? > People: maybe. I did not do so. So if you want to accuse them, go > ahead but leave me out of this loop. Please provide a link which > describes what exactly they are doing. The things I could find > justify "peoples" statements a bit since most of what I read can > indeed be done with standard MTAs. Then they use a reputation > network (in the commercial version only?) so they do not have to do > the interesting tests themselve on the box. If I failed to see the > magic of the product please enlighten me and please apologize. > Apologize for what? Oh my god. Where to start? For starters: - Your tone? - Your accusation that I and others are not doing any sort of research? > The top-level links on the website provided the > Information you claim isn't there. You asked and got the detailed information. What else do you want? All I am saying is: Do not jump to conclusions and tell me that a product (in this case BarricadeMX) does not have specific features. Say "could not find the information". Do not say "cannot do xyz". >> I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me >> to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP >> sessions. I can't find it. So I provided the link. This means you accept my accusation? Fine. > Your memory wasn't laid out to anyone else. Lacking your memory in my > search pool, I used Google. Even Google might have pointed out the site btw. But that is beside the point and I agree they could make the documentation more easily available. > I'm tired of wasting time with this pointless conversation. Agreed. > Just stop > making authoritative statements about products you haven't researched. Strange. I thought I keep telling you exactly this! I did do research. I keep asking questions you do not answer. I say "probably is not able to" (not authoritative) while you make false authoritative statements. You really do not see this, do you? Let's stop this here before it unnecessarily get's messy. You believe in MailChannel, I do not (maybe some more detailed information will convince me). That's fine. Everybody is free to use whatever we like. Cheer up and enjoy the day. Regards, JP
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
Jo Rhett wrote: On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote: I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this feature. if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous. There's nothing on that site. It's on another site nobody mentioned. It's not my job to find all references. And I'm not saying people should find *ALL* references, I'm saying that people should taking 1-2 minutes to read what the person is actually suggesting/implementing, rather than disregarding the product/idea/whatever publically without any clear understanding of what it does. and who told you I did not check what they do? I may have got it wrong as I said before, but this is no reason for you to jump into insults.
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote: Your insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with it. ...I thought you plonk'd him? :) -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the liberty of a free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Read Books shall not be infringed. --- Today: the 4th anniversary of SpaceshipOne winning the X-prize
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On May 21, 2008, at 3:18 PM, mouss wrote: Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX, No problem, search for "Slow Replies" in the 2.0 release notes. And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the responses. Bots already deal with slow replies, it's non-effective. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote: I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this feature. if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous. There's nothing on that site. It's on another site nobody mentioned. It's not my job to find all references. And I'm not saying people should find *ALL* references, I'm saying that people should taking 1-2 minutes to read what the person is actually suggesting/implementing, rather than disregarding the product/idea/whatever publically without any clear understanding of what it does. before suggesting what others should do, try improving your search and navigation skills. (I am serious here. I am sure you will thank me in few years). *snip other insults* Lose the attitude. I was suggesting people actually read what's right in front of them, not even asking that they search around. Your insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with it. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On May 21, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote: I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that everyone read the information available. http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/ Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this data. Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you should be explicit with your links. Test results are nice to read but thats it. Moreover: how fast? How expensive? What about clustering? 99% effective with how many false positives etc. Does it fight backscatter? What I am saying is that there is more to it than this one figure. As afar as the slowdown is concerned, there aren't false positives. Read the text! People: maybe. I did not do so. So if you want to accuse them, go ahead but leave me out of this loop. Please provide a link which describes what exactly they are doing. The things I could find justify "peoples" statements a bit since most of what I read can indeed be done with standard MTAs. Then they use a reputation network (in the commercial version only?) so they do not have to do the interesting tests themselve on the box. If I failed to see the magic of the product please enlighten me and please apologize. Apologize for what? The top-level links on the website provided the information you claim isn't there. It's not stored on some other website nobody has named ... I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP sessions. I can't find it. See above. From memory. Detailed description of all tests, options, error messages etc. Your memory wasn't laid out to anyone else. Lacking your memory in my search pool, I used Google. I'm tired of wasting time with this pointless conversation. Just stop making authoritative statements about products you haven't researched. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
René Berber wrote: [snip] Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX, No problem, search for "Slow Replies" in the 2.0 release notes. you answer with more of your dumb messages. Can we kill this thread now?
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
mouss wrote: [snip] I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP - sessions. I can't find it. and this is the guy who is trying to teach me research? - try searching their web site for a document that contains this: "MailChannels has developped ... SLOW email traffic ..." on their site. (the capitals in "SLOW" are mine). [snip] Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX, you answer with more of your dumb messages. -- René Berber
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
Jo Rhett wrote: On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote: It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!) features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure it is I who has to do the researching? I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this feature. if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous. I can't research it further without getting the product here to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that everyone read the information available. before suggesting what others should do, try improving your search and navigation skills. (I am serious here. I am sure you will thank me in few years). Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having to slow down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing up ressources. But honestly I do not think this leads to anything. Look at testing results. Try it out. It's on the pile. as soon as I finish testing the pills and the diplomas, I'll get my lottery gains, and I'll try your product :) It's been 99% effective against the botnets on a test system I enabled. 99%? numbers out of context are only useful for politicians and marketers. Both have no (good) place on this list. Please stop pissing on the carpet :) But please do not accuse me or others of not doing research if you are not sure. I did quite a bit of research and even asked for more information (which has not been provided yet). I have not said "it lacks feature x" while you incorrectly claim lacking "features" of other products. People said specifically that mailchannels was doing "nothing more than qmail does" which is clearly not true with even some basic reading. This clearly indicates a lack of research. who ever spoke of qmail here? I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP sessions. I can't find it. and this is the guy who is trying to teach me research? - try searching their web site for a document that contains this: "MailChannels has developped ... SLOW email traffic ..." on their site. (the capitals in "SLOW" are mine). - try searching for the 2007 MIT conference paper by Ken Thomson. I don't know if you can still access it for free. but if you're serious about research, you can order the proceedings. - try getting a friend to read this for you: http://blog.mailchannels.com/2008/02/spammers-are-less-patient-than.html - or maybe you'll have more chances with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarpit_%28networking%29 on some pages cited above, you may need to scroll to the bottom. if you don't know what scroll means, try asking your friends and family
AW: Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
>I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this >feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here >to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that >everyone read the information available. http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/ >Look at testing results. Try it out. It's been 99% effective against >the botnets on a test system I enabled. Test results are nice to read but thats it. Moreover: how fast? How expensive? What about clustering? 99% effective with how many false positives etc. Does it fight backscatter? What I am saying is that there is more to it than this one figure. >> But please do not accuse me or others of not doing research if you > >are not sure. I did quite a bit of research and even asked for more > >information (which has not been provided yet). I have not said "it > >lacks feature x" while you incorrectly claim lacking "features" of > >other products. >People said specifically that mailchannels was doing "nothing more >than qmail does" which is clearly not true with even some basic >reading. This clearly indicates a lack of research. People: maybe. I did not do so. So if you want to accuse them, go ahead but leave me out of this loop. Please provide a link which describes what exactly they are doing. The things I could find justify "peoples" statements a bit since most of what I read can indeed be done with standard MTAs. Then they use a reputation network (in the commercial version only?) so they do not have to do the interesting tests themselve on the box. If I failed to see the magic of the product please enlighten me and please apologize. >I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me >to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP >sessions. I can't find it. See above. From memory. Detailed description of all tests, options, error messages etc.
Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote: It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!) features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure it is I who has to do the researching? I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that everyone read the information available. Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having to slow down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing up ressources. But honestly I do not think this leads to anything. Look at testing results. Try it out. It's been 99% effective against the botnets on a test system I enabled. But please do not accuse me or others of not doing research if you are not sure. I did quite a bit of research and even asked for more information (which has not been provided yet). I have not said "it lacks feature x" while you incorrectly claim lacking "features" of other products. People said specifically that mailchannels was doing "nothing more than qmail does" which is clearly not true with even some basic reading. This clearly indicates a lack of research. I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP sessions. I can't find it. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
