also sprach Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.28.0755 +0200]:
If you want secure email, encrypt it. Don't depend on the transport.
And the envelope?
I really doubt that you have set up your mail server so that your
provider couldn't *trivially* launch a man-in-the-middle attack
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 coupled
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
DULs are considered stupid, you might as well just deny mail from
0.0.0.0/0.
I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
server with
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:42:30AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:30:14PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or
best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which
isn't on that list) in order
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:03:15AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I don't see him trying to fix anything. Rather, I see him not wasting
time on trying to fix brainlessly broken crap but instead just
ignoring it and carrying on.
It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Adam McKenna]
It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckwits.
Sure. Just carry on the way you are. :)
It is not acceptable for our DPL to behave that way (not when acting
in his role as DPL,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:46:34AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
You missed:
I received an interview request from Andy Channelle of the UK
publication Linux Format, but unfortunately was unable to get my
response to him because he's `blocking my mail`_. A freelancer for
the `Gartner
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As DPL he is the public face of the project and should make extra effort to
contact people when doing so would benefit the project.
Sure, but many of these people don't put telephone numbers on
their emails. Some put a web address and then you can work out
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:55:58PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As DPL he is the public face of the project and should make extra effort to
contact people when doing so would benefit the project.
Sure, but many of these people don't put telephone numbers on
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:44:21AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I don't quite agree with Branden's page that it is entirely
the blocker's fault - there's some blame with his ISP, or maybe
his ISP's relations with abuse.net and friends.
I don't understand how you are inferring an assignment of blame
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
Again, for those who are reading in a hurry:
As of 10 May 2005, when I find myself blacklisted when sending mail as
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I fall back to a host that is not blacklisted.
Great news.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:44:21AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I don't quite agree with Branden's page that it is entirely
the blocker's fault - there's some blame with his ISP, or maybe
his ISP's relations with abuse.net and friends.
I don't understand
On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
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
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:44:00PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
because you can't do it yourself for free - at least
On Wednesday June 22 2005 12:19 am, Craig Sanders wrote:
You wrongly assume it isn't a valid option when for many people
it's the only option. Deal.
how is whinging a valid option? it won't even achieve anything
(aside from making you look like a whinging loser)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:10:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:26 +0100, Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on,
but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe
that
also sprach Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.22.1642 +0200]:
how is whinging a valid option? it won't even achieve anything
(aside from making you look like a whinging loser)
http://ursine.ca/Craig_Sanders Or yourself.
Wow. Are we going passive aggressive now?
Things like
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No. The DPL, hopefully, jas better ways to spend his time, and
more critical tasks to perform, than to jump through hoops to please
people who just drop mail without paying any attention to content.
Note that this
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:30:14PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or
best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which
isn't on that list) in order to help the Debian project's image and
not just been seen as biting
be extra costs.
note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights are
being infringed because your dynamic-IP mail is being blocked. you do
not have ANY right to demand that your mail must be accepted by anyone.
nobody has that right.
craig
ps: as for branden's mail policies - IMO
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 02:12:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
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
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:26 +0100, Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on,
but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe
that occasional jumping through hoops may be required.
I don't. People in
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:35:31 +0200, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:37:14AM -0400, Blu Corater wrote:
I reject at SMTP time any mail to which I can't answer, with a polite
550 message explaining that the server is blocking legitimate mail
arbitrarily.
it's your server, it is your right to use whatever arbitrarily stupid
blocking
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:05:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:12:55 +1000, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights
are being infringed because your dynamic-IP mail is being
blocked. you do not
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: the
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 DPL
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Marino Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I support Branden's general approach, but think it would be
better to include some more active announcement. I think it's
unreasonable to demand post-holders work to accommodate daft
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
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
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]
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.
Can't.
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 mail, or
-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
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
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
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 servers.
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, or
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 spool
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 to
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 they just
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 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 intended
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 a
45 matches
Mail list logo
