On Thursday, 2002-09-12 at 10:20:39 +0200, Marcel Hicking wrote:
> --On Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2002 14:04 +0300 Samuli Suonpaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
> >>fills up their boxes with returned undeliverables..
> >So if some spamme
--On Mittwoch, 3. Juli 2002 14:04 +0300 Samuli Suonpaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
folder ???
i would rather see that the spam se
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Rafael wrote:
> As I said, I might hang around for some time
Please don't.
Please go back to whichever Red Hat list it was that threw you out for
spewing flame-bait all over them; with the attitude problem you
display, and ignorance of real-life conditions in the world of e-ma
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 11:28:35AM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> >> Since I do not tolerate any level of spam
> >
> > If you do not tolerate any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
>> Since I do not tolerate any level of spam
>
> If you do not tolerate any level of spam, you are not using e-mail.
> Sorry, but spam exists. I hate it
Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
> i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
> folder ???
>
> i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
> fills up their boxes with returned undeliverab
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:12:56AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
> bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
>
> Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
> started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gon
> Since I do not tolerate any level of spam I consider it immature to run a
> "professional mailing list" like debian security so that it can be abused
> by the most stupid script kiddie. Sorry but the impression I got so far
> is "semiprofessional". Cannot recommend it for use at work when people
Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not
>> perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not
>> only that, but there are a number of
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not
> perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not only
> that, but there are a number of Debian users and developers that, for
> various reaso
Ironically enough, Rafael's server rejected my message for the sole reason
that Savvis broke reverse DNS for the colo facility my box is at 2 weeks ago
and has been slow to fix it. Shows you right away why these restrictions
are bad.
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> > It sure will, but being this the security list, let's say someone
> > found a root crack in let's say, the inetd server. And their post
> > gets thrown out because no RR. Hmmm, no one gets warned and some
> > worm starts going around and
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> > members of a list, should be able to post to the list...
> > even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as
> > spammers...
> > member's only postin
Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gone through
spamassassin at all. Some of these were obviously spam. In
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:30:52PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
>
> Given that rfc-ignorant lists *.uk for not having contact info, would you
> like to refine that to `shite idea'?
That's in the whois.rfc-ignorant.org blacklist. That's not the list I
was talking about. And it is not rfc-ignorant's
"Noah L. Meyerhans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
> reverse DNS entry. However, rfc-ignorant.org runs several nice
> blacklists, including ip-whois, which I subscribe to. This blacklist
> contains netblocks for which no valid whois
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> Assuming the spam came from 213.181.64.226 it would be very easy to reject
> it based on the fact that there is no RR in DNS for that IP.
I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
reverse DNS entry. However, rfc-i
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> members of a list, should be able to post to the list...
> even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as
> spammers...
> member's only posting will fix that ..
It sure will, but being this the security list, let
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not provide
> RR for some stupid little reason.
For addresses assigned by RIPE, all users of IP addresses have the right to
have reverse DNS if they want it. Does ARIN not have a similar poli
Bob Nielsen wrote:
> apt-get install spamassassin
>
> It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of the spam I receive.
AFAIK, mail addressed to the Debian lists are already filtered using
spamassassin, but it's a two years old version.
Kind listmaster, when will murphy (or the relevant machine) b
* Quoting Alvin Oga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> hi ya
>
> a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
> i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
> folder ???
>
> i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
> fills up their boxes with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>> The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on
>> the theory that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from
>>
hi ya adam
most ISP will allow their clients to send outgoing email
thru their ( hopefully properly configured ) SMTP server
- so all your outgoing emails will have an RR associated with it
- problem is that galacticasoftware.com is gonna look like its
coming from mail1.foo_isp.net
On Tuesday, 2002-07-02 at 15:02:14 +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
Doesn't here. I run it from procmail, which is invoked from postfix:
(In /etc/procmailrc:)
# Spamassasin
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
My personal .procmailrc files supposed Spam in
Adam Majer écrivait :
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> > Assuming the spam came from 213.181.64.226 it would be very easy to reject
> > it based on the fact that there is no RR in DNS for that IP.
>
> Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not prov
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
>
> Email should never be accepted from poorly (or intensionaly baddly) setup
> servers that do not follow RFCs.
>
> by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
> id 17Ozil-0003W2-00; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:51:58 -0500
If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
As for "bounce", while Kmail has that feature it does require a real reply-to
address. For the vast majority of spam, the reply-to is deliberately obfuscated.
> apt-get install spamassassin
>
> It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of
hi ya
a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
folder ???
i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
fills up their boxes with returned undeliverables..
- at least thats what i th
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Rafael said:
..
>
> I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
> grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
> configuration error should not mean automated l
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> > What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
> > managed so poorly
> > to let this happen.
>
> The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on
> the theory that it's better to press DEL than to pre
> What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
> managed so poorly
> to let this happen.
The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on the theory
that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from posting.
However, "subscriber only" is a simple config op
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
> grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
> configuration error should not mean automated lockout.
>
It would be nice if we low
Rafael said:
> What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are managed so
poorly
> to let this happen. I subscribed to 6 debian mailing lists recently,
> dropped two right away because there was so much spam I've never seen
> before. Today I received 8 messages related to that f*ng crap fro
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:08:19AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> Unlike most "spam", this one has actually resulted in some arrests.
> Well, not "this one" specifically, it's been going on for a while with
> multiple different people/groups attempting the "Spanish Prisoner" con
> game.
>
> Thank
Unlike most "spam", this one has actually resulted in some arrests.
Well, not "this one" specifically, it's been going on for a while with
multiple different people/groups attempting the "Spanish Prisoner" con
game.
Thanks for the email address for the Fed.Gov investigation.
Curt-
> > If anyone
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:07:37PM +0200, Olle Hedman wrote:
> At 08:25 2002-01-07, Mr.Muyiwa Ige wrote:
> > [a load of bullshit]
>
> If anyone wonders what that mail was, read here:
> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/nigeria.htm
And forward it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with full headers intact,
At 08:25 2002-01-07, Mr.Muyiwa Ige wrote:
> [a load of bullshit]
If anyone wonders what that mail was, read here:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/nigeria.htm
///Olle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 matches
Mail list logo
