On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:06, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
[challenge response email systems]
> Would I be wrong in deciding not to make this
> confirmation?
Easy enough: if you receive a confirmation request identifying the message
far enough for you to decide that it was spam with your email
On Thursday 23 March 2006 08:04, Jacob S wrote:
> Except that, as has been discussed many times before... 1) the C-Rs are
> coming from uol.com.br
Not disputed.
> 2) there are some legitimate users that post from
> uol.com.br that do not have C-R on their accounts
So they should get a real ema
Em Qui 23 Mar 2006 13:04, Jacob S escreveu:
> 3) the problem
> address is not a uol.com.br account - the problem account has their
> mail forwarded to a uol.com.br account, so the listmasters have not
> been able to track down the problem account.
Just a side note: the last time I wrote to debian-
On Thursday 23 March 2006 02:41, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 09:45, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> Listmasters have been trying to
> >> identify the responsible subscriber with no luck
> >
> > Why not just 500 all posts from sites
Scripsit Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 09:45, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Listmasters have been trying to
>> identify the responsible subscriber with no luck
> Why not just 500 all posts from sites known to use challenge-response?
The challenges are send directly fr
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 09:45, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Listmasters have been trying to
> identify the responsible subscriber with no luck
Why not just 500 all posts from sites known to use challenge-response?
--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Becau
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 09:06:20AM -0800, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Wonderful. I've now received an auto-generated reply from someone on this
> list to my previous message asking me to confirm that I really sent it, in
> an effort to reduce spam.
Those autoreplies are being sent to every subscri
Scripsit Daniel Gimpelevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Wonderful. I've now received an auto-generated reply from someone on this
> list to my previous message asking me to confirm that I really sent it, in
> an effort to reduce spam. Would I be wrong in deciding not to make this
> confirmation? Also, I
boredom :P
On 3/21/06, Daniel Gimpelevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:41:52 -0800, Hex Star wrote:> ah...russian spam...translated to english:
[snip]Why bother?--To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:38:00 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21:08, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:41:52 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
>> > ah...russian spam...translated to english:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Why bother?
>
> Gotta maximize the propagation of spam as m
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21:08, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:41:52 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
> > ah...russian spam...translated to english:
>
> [snip]
>
> Why bother?
Gotta maximize the propagation of spam as much as possible. It's important,
after all!
--
Paul Johnson
Email
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:41:52 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
> ah...russian spam...translated to english:
[snip]
Why bother?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ah...russian spam...translated to english:WE INVITE TO THE TWO-DAY BUSINESS- SEMINAR. .."bezopasnost' OF
BUSINESS".. _ 5 and on 6 April of 2006 years. Moscow, hotel "Kosmos"
_ on 5 April, 2006, _ business and criminal law - view from the
side of the law-enforcement agencies
* operational chec
13 matches
Mail list logo
