On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Simon Huggins wrote:
> Our elected leader, when faced with a problem that he knows will
> stop his mail being delivered to certain recipients, should IMHO
> work around it in order to fulfill his role.
Sure, it would be nice if the DPL would, but it would also be nice if
the D
also sprach Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.20.0252 +0200]:
> I'd be impressed if your ISP can rewrite the Received: header
> produced by the hop after them to change the IP address of their
> SMTP server into your IP address.
That's really not difficult, and it's being done. Remember:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 06:32:49PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> > > For what it's worth: how do you know they don't intercept the
> > > mail that your mail spool then sends out?
> >
> > Eventually you get a bounce with the
Simon Huggins wrote:
> I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a problem the
> project needs to address if the leader is going to continue to send mail
> =66rom a blacklisted host and not care about doing so.
Blocking based solely on blacklists (instead of using them as one
part in
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:49:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Blacklisting based on dial-up or dynamic status is nothing more than
> an effort to turn the internet into an oligarchy, where only the rich
> and powerful can control mail. It's a power grab. That's all it does
> and all it's inten
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> > 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
> > 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
> > claim to be from my dropbear address
On Sunday June 19 2005 9:32 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> > So punish them specifically. There are blackholes that do that.
> > bl.spamcop.net, sbl.spamhaus.org, xbl.spamhaus.org and
> > bl.ursine.ca all do that.
>
> And then t
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> So punish them specifically. There are blackholes that do that.
> bl.spamcop.net, sbl.spamhaus.org, xbl.spamhaus.org and bl.ursine.ca
> all do that.
And then they just hang up and dial in again to get a new IP.
> You need
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it
> against relaying. I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spoo
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> Blacklisting via the DUL is a
> positive measure when coupled with virus scanning smarthosts as it
> reduces the number of virus mails spread by clients like Outlook.
So is dropping all incoming mail.
Virtually ANYTHING reduces the
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
>
> 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
> claim to be from my dropbear address instead of the ISPs domain.
>
> 3) If I can't afford DSL or cable,
On Sunday June 19 2005 6:22 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1404 +0200]:
> > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
>
> The problem is not you, the problem are the other morons who think
> like you *and* can't operate mail ser
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1404 +0200]:
> Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
The problem is not you, the problem are the other morons who think
like you *and* can't operate mail servers. With that I mean: I have
no reason to believe that you ca
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spool on a dial-up.
1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
claim to be from my dropbear address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-06-2005 12:40, martin f krafft wrote:
> These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it
> against relaying.
And because some (alot) can do it wrong, noone should be al
Hallo Paul,
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-19 14:06]:
> On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > > > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > > > sucks, delays or drops
On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > > sucks, delays or drops mail, or whatever, well... switch your
> > > goddamn provider then.
> >
> >
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > sucks, delays or drops mail, or whatever, well... switch your
> > goddamn provider then.
>
> Can't. Monopoly.
Get yourself a separate mail provider then. gm
On Sunday June 19 2005 3:40 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> And if your argument here is
> that their provider's mail spool sucks, delays or drops mail, or
> whatever, well... switch your goddamn provider then.
Can't. Monopoly.
--
Paul Johnson
Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): [EMAIL PROTECTED
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
> Y'all do realize that greylisting takes care of those about 9 out
> of 10 times, and the overhead to do virus scanning is minimal on
> what does keep retrying long enough to get greylisted, right?
> DULs are considered stupid,
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:53:21AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's
> > academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via
> > the DUL is a positive measure when coupl
On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote:
> You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's
> academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via
> the DUL is a positive measure when coupled with virus scanning
> smarthosts as it reduces the number of virus
Martin Schulze wrote:
>>I wonder where/if you can buy debian t-shirts. Would be a good way to
>>both make some money and promote Debian.
> Go to the exhibitions listed at http://www.debian.org/events/
I really do not want to resurrect old threads... But do you also sell
Debian hats? I mean we all
Hi all,
I originally sent this mail to:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i.e. Leader and Project SCUD
I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a
24 matches
Mail list logo
