Re: Spam fighting

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur Machlas wrote: >> Forward all mail to a gmail account, then forward back to Debian's >> list-servs. Spam problem solved. > > except Debian pushes hard for their outbound mail host to be > whitelisted...  w

Re: Spam fighting

Guys, this is all spam to me. It's coming to the point where I just want to usubscribe rather then keep watching this ridiculous flame war. Let's be big boys and gals and stop fighting. On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur Machlas wrote: >

Re: Spam fighting

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur Machlas wrote: > Forward all mail to a gmail account, then forward back to Debian's > list-servs. Spam problem solved. except Debian pushes hard for their outbound mail host to be whitelisted... which is also a reason the default Spamassassin will generally n

Re: Spam fighting

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, CaT wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Wojciech Ziniewicz wrote: >> Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and >> debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages. >> Moreover i see that in my spam

Re: Spam fighting

On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Wojciech Ziniewicz wrote: > Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and > debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages. > Moreover i see that in my spam folder i have like 3-7 spam messages per > hour.

Re: Spam fighting

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 09:49, Roger Hanna wrote: > Ok Folks, really, your mails about the spam are starting to actually spam! > > Wait, this email is then also considered a spam about spamming. > > You just can't win. Good thing the FOSS ppl don't think like that. -Jim P. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, e

RE: Spam fighting

Ok Folks, really, your mails about the spam are starting to actually spam! Wait, this email is then also considered a spam about spamming. You just can't win. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists

Re: Spam fighting

hi, 2010/7/5 Wojciech Ziniewicz : > 2010/7/5 Bjoern Meier > Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and > debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages. > Moreover i see that in my spam folder i have like 3-7 spam messages per > hour. > What'

Re: Spam fighting

On 07/05/2010 04:19 PM, Bjoern Meier wrote: > hi, > > 2010/7/5 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI : > . No system will ever be 100% accurate > >> and filter all spams. >> > Right. But less then 99.8% - for a private system (which the list is > not) - is not tolerable. Can the list track how spam is block

Re: Spam fighting

2010/7/5 Bjoern Meier > hi, > > 2010/7/5 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI : > . No system will ever be 100% accurate > > and filter all spams. > > Right. But less then 99.8% - for a private system (which the list is > not) - is not tolerable. Can the list track how spam is blocked and - > maybe - an overview

Re: Spam fighting

hi, 2010/7/5 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI : . No system will ever be 100% accurate > and filter all spams. Right. But less then 99.8% - for a private system (which the list is not) - is not tolerable. Can the list track how spam is blocked and - maybe - an overview how effective this is (like graphs over

Re: Spam fighting

On Dom, 04 Jul 2010, Jim Popovitch wrote: I beleive d.o can (and should) attempt to block 100% of spam. While I'm in no way associated with Debian mailing list management, I'm pretty certain they do attempt to block 100% of spam. But attempting it and achieving it are two different things.

Re: [ SPAM! ] [SECURITY] [DSA 1594-1] New imlib2 packages fix arbitrary code execution

--On June 11, 2008 10:44:02 PM +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bonjour Je suis absent jusqu'au 16 juin. Vous pouvez envoyer vos demandes à [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am out of the office until june the 16th. You can send your request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure what is worse here. The fact

Re: [ SPAM! ] [SECURITY] [DSA 1594-1] New imlib2 packages fix arbitrary code execution

Bonjour Je suis absent jusqu'au 16 juin. Vous pouvez envoyer vos demandes à [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am out of the office until june the 16th. You can send your request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Nicolas Foucher - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responsable Technique CARRENET - Solutions CRM 100% Web 01.56.56.56.

Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Michelle Konzack wrote: >Am 2005-01-30 15:32:25, schrieb Sam Morris: > > > >>Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be >>removed from the archive, since they are unsupported, and *very* >>dangerous to use? >> >> > >Sorry, that I ask, but where ist 2.4.28 ? > >The

Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

* Michelle Konzack wrote: > There will be no new version of 2.4.XX Wrong.  Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Michelle Konzack wrote: Generaly there is no reason to remove 2.4.18. But I think, there is a need to a note about Servers like where they can get newer Kernels. Well it seems sensible to remove such unmaintained packages from the archive. It will prevent people from in

Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Am 2005-01-30 16:02:23, schrieb Sam Morris: > Sam Morris wrote: > >Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be > ^ > should be 2.4.18, sorry :) :-) Generaly there is no reason t

Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Am 2005-01-30 15:32:25, schrieb Sam Morris: > Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be > removed from the archive, since they are unsupported, and *very* > dangerous to use? Sorry, that I ask, but where ist 2.4.28 ? The Kernel-Maintainer-Team has stoped adapting 2.4

{Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Sam Morris wrote: Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be ^ should be 2.4.18, sorry :) -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 Fingerprint 3412 EA18 1277 354B

Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning

* Jan Luehr: > So your point is, there a much already known local root exploits on an > standard woody system no one cares about? For those of you who don't subscribe to full-disclosure, the following information might be a bit reassuring. A clearer image of what's going is now emerging (a vers

Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jan Luehr wrote: > Greetings, > > Am Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 16:43 schrieb Ron DuFresne: > > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Verwayen wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:12, Todd Towles wrote: > > > > The kernel could be save. But with weak passwords, you are toast. Any >

Re: !SPAM! [Full-Disclosure] Automated ssh scanning

Greetings, Am Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 16:43 schrieb Ron DuFresne: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Verwayen wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:12, Todd Towles wrote: > > > The kernel could be save. But with weak passwords, you are toast. Any > > > automated tool would test guest/guest. > > > >

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:38:10AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: tokens in order to get any effect from SpamAssassin. Other than using zombies, I don't think spammers could afford to generate real tokens for every recipient. Well, since there are millions of vulnerable systems all over the 'net th

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Daniel" == Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> On 16 Jun 2004, Hubert Chan wrote: >> SpamAssassin will check for hashcash in the future. Support is >> already present in the development version of SpamAssassin. Daniel> ...makes you wonder how long it will take before someon

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:38:10AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: tokens in order to get any effect from SpamAssassin. Other than using zombies, I don't think spammers could afford to generate real tokens for every recipient. Well, since there are millions of vulnerable systems all over the 'net that d

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Daniel" == Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> On 16 Jun 2004, Hubert Chan wrote: >> SpamAssassin will check for hashcash in the future. Support is >> already present in the development version of SpamAssassin. Daniel> ...makes you wonder how long it will take before someon

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On 16 Jun 2004, Hubert Chan wrote: >> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > SpamAssassin will check for hashcash in the future. Support is already > present in the development version of

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote: >> Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good >> signatures stored on them somewhere already? Russell> Presumably the signature would be bas

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to >> agree with that consensus. >> >> I'm just wondering what is the general feeling a

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On 16 Jun 2004, Hubert Chan wrote: >> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > SpamAssassin will check for hashcash in the future. Support is already > present in the development version of

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote: >> Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good >> signatures stored on them somewhere already? Russell> Presumably the signature would be bas

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Russell> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to >> agree with that consensus. >> >> I'm just wondering what is the general feeling a

Re: Spam fights

Can the mailing list software add a X-Subscribed : yes/no in the mail headers ? Then people decide to filter it out or not. Alain

Re: Spam fights

Can the mailing list software add a X-Subscribed : yes/no in the mail headers ? Then people decide to filter it out or not. Alain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Spam fights

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:22, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Incoming from Rick Moen: > > Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > > > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. > >

Re: Spam fights

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:22, "s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Incoming from Rick Moen: > > Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > > > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. > >

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote: > In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen typing: > > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those > > signatures anyway... > > Why bother, when said windows machines

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rens Houben) wrote: > In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen typing: > > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those > > signatures anyway... > > Why bother, when said windows machines

Re: Spam fights

Incoming from Rick Moen: > Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. > > A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list

Re: Spam fights

Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list would be most useful. ;->

Re: Spam fights

Incoming from Rick Moen: > Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. > > A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list

Re: Spam fights

Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I > wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems. A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list would be most useful. ;-> -- To

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen typing: > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures > anyway... Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good signatures stored on them somewhere already? >

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to > agree with that consensus. > > I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and > other header signatures systems. Currently you ca

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:38, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That said, those who can afford it will hire human > operators to act as email gatekeepers; those who can't > will use whatever a salesman can convince them is > affordable and works. Whether we like it or not will > not figure into

Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to agree with that consensus. I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and other header signatures systems. Patrick

Re: Spam fights

Sent to list. On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:31, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > Hello! > > W liście z czw, 10-06-2004, godz. 19:06, Greg Folkert pisze: > > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems that > > > they > > > try to solve. > > > > Here, here. Agreement on all fronts. I

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen typing: > Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures > anyway... Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good signatures stored on them somewhere already? >

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:39:12PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good. > While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them are > universally regarded as cretins, the spammers won't bother about trying to >

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to > agree with that consensus. > > I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and > other header signatures systems. Currently you ca

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:38, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That said, those who can afford it will hire human > operators to act as email gatekeepers; those who can't > will use whatever a salesman can convince them is > affordable and works. Whether we like it or not will > not figure into

Re: Spam fights

[snip] > If CR systems get popular then spammers will start replying to the > messages. Most spammers have working email addresses, so it would not be > difficult to automate a response to a CR system. Any CR system which just > requires that you "reply to this email" will be trivially broken by >

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are > > important enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to > > send them email. > >

Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to agree with that consensus. I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and other header signatures systems. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub

Re: Spam fights

Sent to list. On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 14:31, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > Hello! > > W liście z czw, 10-06-2004, godz. 19:06, Greg Folkert pisze: > > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems that they > > > try to solve. > > > > Here, here. Agreement on all fronts. If I get

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 08:39:12PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good. > While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them are > universally regarded as cretins, the spammers won't bother about trying to >

Re: Spam fights

Hello Alain, Am 2004-06-10 22:03:54, schrieb Alain Tesio: >Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered, right ? >It's not that antisocial to ask the 1% people who aren't subscribed to >subscribe >before sending a message. I am subscribed to severa mailinglists on pos

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are important > enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to send them email. Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are headed if other solutions

Re: Spam fights

[snip] > If CR systems get popular then spammers will start replying to the > messages. Most spammers have working email addresses, so it would not be > difficult to automate a response to a CR system. Any CR system which just > requires that you "reply to this email" will be trivially broken by >

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are > > important enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to > > send them email. > >

Re: Spam fights

Hello Alain, Am 2004-06-10 22:03:54, schrieb Alain Tesio: >Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered, right ? >It's not that antisocial to ask the 1% people who aren't subscribed to subscribe >before sending a message. I am subscribed to severa mailinglists on postg

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 10:45:44AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > It is anti-social for every idiot on the net to think that they are important > enough to require a subscription from everyone who wants to send them email. Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are headed if other solutions

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it

Re: Spam fights

> > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in > > response to virus messages. > > Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's de

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only. > For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in > confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages

Re: Spam fights

> > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in > > response to virus messages. > > Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's de

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only. > For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in > confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages

Re: Spam fights

hi ya jaroslaw On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > In mean time, I've found additional way for spam filtering, but it > requires some development. The basic idea is simple and already in use: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. already done ... most MTA support a whitelist and

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from > > what you thing about this idea. > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the pro

Re: Spam fights

hi ya jaroslaw On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > In mean time, I've found additional way for spam filtering, but it > requires some development. The basic idea is simple and already in use: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. already done ... most MTA support a whitelist and

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from > > what you thing about this idea. > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the pro

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: > I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it! That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with my address in the

challenge-response antispam systems in the BTS (was Re: Spam fights)

[this is offtopic here, but since the issue was raised on d-security, I thought I'd follow up there and move to d-devel if it's worth a discussion.] * Dmitry Golubev [Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:27:04 +0300]: > On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:58, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 10

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who are replyin

Re: Spam fights

I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! (well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works - that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I do not want to waste my time answering to that spam. Dmitry On Thur

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. Who is "we" in this context? Individual users or mailing list administrators? > For unknown sender, automated confirmation request is send. If For mailing lists this can be achieved

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: > I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it! That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with my address in the

challenge-response antispam systems in the BTS (was Re: Spam fights)

[this is offtopic here, but since the issue was raised on d-security, I thought I'd follow up there and move to d-devel if it's worth a discussion.] * Dmitry Golubev [Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:27:04 +0300]: > On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:58, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 10

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who are replying t

Re: Spam fights

I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! (well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works - that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I do not want to waste my time answering to that spam. Dmitry On Thur

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. Who is "we" in this context? Individual users or mailing list administrators? > For unknown sender, automated confirmation request is send. If For mailing lists this can be achieved

Re: Spam

On Sunday 18 May 2003 19:41, Janus N. wrote: > On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 03:43, Phillip Hofmeister wrote: > > With that point aside, you can try out bogofilters and razor. Between > > the two of those I have few false positive and few false negatives. > > Spamassassin already utilizes razor -- so razo

Re: Spam

On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 03:43, Phillip Hofmeister wrote: > With that point aside, you can try out bogofilters and razor. Between > the two of those I have few false positive and few false negatives. Spamassassin already utilizes razor -- so razor failed that mail as well. Janus -- Janus N. Tønde

Re: Spam

On Fri, 16 May 2003 at 04:58:04PM +0200, Christian Storch wrote: > Interesting. That mail has overcome spamassassin without any hits: > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 > tests=none > version=2.53-lists.debian.org_2003_04_28 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-lists.d

Re: spam block

If you have a spare box, you can run spamassissin's spamd and connect remotely. Jay On Tuesday 15 April 2003 7:47 am, Konstantin wrote: > hi, > > I need a spam filter, but I need one which works with sendmail and is not > spamassasin(the system needs an old perl 5.0.X), but spamassasin needs per

Re: spam block

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Konstantin" writes: >hi, > >I need a spam filter, but I need one which works with sendmail and is not >spamassasin(the system needs an old perl 5.0.X), but spamassasin needs p

Re: spam block

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:47:52PM +0200, Konstantin wrote: > I need a spam filter, but I need one which works with sendmail and is > not spamassasin(the system needs an old perl 5.0.X), but spamassasin > needs perl 5.6 When I set up spamassassin on a potato system, I installed perl from source wi

Re: spam block

On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 08:58, Celso González wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:47:52PM +0200, Konstantin wrote: > > hi, > > > > I need a spam filter, but I need one which works with sendmail and is not > > spamassasin(the system needs an old perl 5.0.X), but spamassasin needs perl > > >5.6 > > >

Re: spam block

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:47:52PM +0200, Konstantin wrote: > hi, > > I need a spam filter, but I need one which works with sendmail and is not > spamassasin(the system needs an old perl 5.0.X), but spamassasin needs perl > >5.6 > > any ideas, which spam filter I can use on such a system. Try wi

Re: (SPAM?) Marginheight

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Not at this address Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] could not be delivered. Due to the large amounts of email with the SIRCAM virus to this address, we have terminated this account. Make sure you have the latest virus software and scan your PC for this virus.

Re: (SPAM?) Marginheight

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Not at this address Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] could not be delivered. Due to the large amounts of email with the SIRCAM virus to this address, we have terminated this account. Make sure you have the latest virus software and scan your PC for this virus.

Re: spam

> > Some mail I try to reply have latin-1 > > chars. > > > > They will be translated to Japanese charset when I > > reply to them, so people are conveniently > > blocking some of my mail, > > which is immensely annoying. > > Does that happen when you are replying in English, or only for Japan

Re: spam

> > Some mail I try to reply have latin-1 > > chars. > > > > They will be translated to Japanese charset when I > > reply to them, so people are conveniently > > blocking some of my mail, > > which is immensely annoying. > > Does that happen when you are replying in English, or only for Japan

Re: spam

Hello, Am 11:26 11/11/02 -0800 hat Rich Rudnick geschrieben: >I try to block on character sets: ie., > >^Content-Type.*charset.*[gG][bB]2312 > >This catches quite a few spams I can't read. I do it too and it filters around 70% of all spam mail MIchelle

Re: spam

Hello, Am 11:26 11/11/02 -0800 hat Rich Rudnick geschrieben: >I try to block on character sets: ie., > >^Content-Type.*charset.*[gG][bB]2312 > >This catches quite a few spams I can't read. I do it too and it filters around 70% of all spam mail MIchelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR

Re: spam

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:43:24AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > I try to block on character sets: ie., > > > > ^Content-Type.*charset.*[gG][bB]2312 > > > > This catches quite a few spams I can't read. > > > > Some mail I try to reply have latin-1 > chars. > > They will be translated to J

Re: spam

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:43:24AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > I try to block on character sets: ie., > > > > ^Content-Type.*charset.*[gG][bB]2312 > > > > This catches quite a few spams I can't read. > > > > Some mail I try to reply have latin-1 > chars. > > They will be translated to J

Re: spam

> I try to block on character sets: ie., > > ^Content-Type.*charset.*[gG][bB]2312 > > This catches quite a few spams I can't read. > Some mail I try to reply have latin-1 chars. They will be translated to Japanese charset when I reply to them, so people are conveniently blocking some of my

  1   2   >