[Request received] spam

. -- Debian-security, Jul 2, 09:35 PDT spam spam spam This email is a service from iTel Networks. [1V9E27-KX6N]

Re: fighting spam

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Davide Prina wrote: > I think this is a very bad solution. .. > I think the actual policy is the best one. Debian already uses RBLs to block spam from the lists, another one wouldn't be anything new. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

RE: fighting spam

Because we can't block all spam doesn't mean we shouldn't try to block any. I think the solution is multi-dimensional on the other hand there are some dedicated IP's that exclusively send spam, there shouldn't not be a way to block these. -Original Messag

Re: fighting spam

On 25/04/2016 10:58, Paul Wise wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM, SZÉPE Viktor wrote: Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list. The people running the Debian lists can be contacted here: https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintenance I've forwarded

Re: fighting spam

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM, SZÉPE Viktor wrote: > Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list. The people running the Debian lists can be contacted here: https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintenance I've forwarded your suggestion to them. -- bye, pab

fighting spam

Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list. Thank you! SZÉPE Viktor -- +36-20-4242498 s...@szepe.net skype: szepe.viktor Budapest, III. kerület

SPAM?: Fwd: Your NY Photos

Spam detection software, running on the system "webmail.streamwave.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questio

This is not SPAM

This message isn't SPAM, so you can reply to it. Please don't reply to SPAM messages, and when you absolutely *must* do not quote SPAM message. Either of these actions make it much harder for the administrators and automated systems to identify and remove SPAM from the mailing list

Re: mitacs.com is a spam domain - configure your mail server to block it

Hello Russell Coker and *, for some minutes I have called MITACS in Austria and the support Person is a REAL employee. They asked me for one of the message with full headers to find out whats going on here. I think, hey will call me back. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle

mitacs.com is a spam domain - configure your mail server to block it

Every message that you send to supp...@mitacs.com will be resent to debian- security. Every message you send to postmaster or abuse will be ignored. Please everyone, configure your mail servers to block all mail from 85.125.218.18 and all mail with @mitacs.com in the From: field. If you really

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 mai

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 M

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 wil

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

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 p

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. -Ji

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?

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 message

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 tolerabl

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

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 gra

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 differ

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

here. The fact the autobot responded to the list, or the fact that it responded to something that had been identified as SPAM. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

{Spam?} Re: woody kernel image

Michelle Konzack wrote: Where is it posted that the dropped support for 2.4.18? It was on and They told, there are too much kernels to maintain and droped 2.4.(18-22) They sugested to use one of the Backports. Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be removed from the

plz. recommand best anti-spam sites and books.

hello, there. i have a problem. :( now, I'm dealing with spams sended from so many place in the world. but i'm new in this field like anti-spam and e-mail. so i want to know how to deal with spams and , especially, analyze mail header. If you know good anti-spam sites or b

Re: OT, spam tips.

get every day more the 700 in my SPAM-Box with the procmail filter attached... Most are catched by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and never I had FP's. > cn-kr.blackholes.us dynablock.njabl.org bl.spamcop.net cbl.abuseat.org > dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net taiwan.blackholes.us Hmm, maybe I will add them

Re: OT, spam tips.

Quoting tomasz abramowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what > my internet provider is talking about? > No problem, spam is always interesting to look at (well, at least > for me ;). > But when I see that they use S

OT, spam tips.

gt;>murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AC162E0A4; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 > >[...] > >>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=4.0 tests=MURPHY_RCVD_IN_SBLXBL, >>RCVD_IN_SBL autolearn=no version=2.63-lists.debian.org_2004_08_17_01 >>X-Spam-Level: ** > > > >Jesu

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

...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does Daniel> generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems Daniel> to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth Daniel> avoiding/abusing for spammers - the silly haiku header thing Daniel> being on

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

...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does Daniel> generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems Daniel> to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth Daniel> avoiding/abusing for spammers - the silly haiku header thing Daniel> being on

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

s already > present in the development version of SpamAssassin. ...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth avoiding/abusing for spammers - the sill

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

y? Russell> Presumably the signature would be based on the envelope Russell> recipient and therefore signatures you find on someone else's Russell> machine would not do any good. If it was otherwise then a Russell> single signature would work for an entire spam run. Yes. In hashca

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

s already > present in the development version of SpamAssassin. ...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth avoiding/abusing for spammers - the sill

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

y? Russell> Presumably the signature would be based on the envelope Russell> recipient and therefore signatures you find on someone else's Russell> machine would not do any good. If it was otherwise then a Russell> single signature would work for an entire spam run. Yes. In hashca

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: [OT] Spam fights

Here is a list of junk subject patterns in case someone is interested. Alain junkMailPatterns.gz Description: Binary data

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: [OT] Spam fights

Here is a list of junk subject patterns in case someone is interested. Alain junkMailPatterns.gz Description: Binary data

Re: [OT] Spam fights

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

Re: [OT] Spam fights

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

Re: [OT] Spam fights

: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 From field. If I confirm,

Re: [OT] Spam fights

: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 From field. If I confirm,

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

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

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

ture would work for an entire spam run. I am assuming that the sending machine would not store the signatures for messages it sent, which could be re-used if the spam messages were to have an ancient time-stamp. However this still wouldn't be of any great use, not many people have more than 10

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

ture would work for an entire spam run. I am assuming that the sending machine would not store the signatures for messages it sent, which could be re-used if the spam messages were to have an ancient time-stamp. However this still wouldn't be of any great use, not many people have more than 10

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

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

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

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

r signatures systems. Currently you can't accept only such messages because almost no-one sends them. Most people see no need to send them because almost no-one checks for them when receiving a message. Anti-spam measures may be used on workstations eventually, but have to be initially i

Re: Spam fights

will > not figure into the decision. 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. It should not be technically difficult to publish some email addresses, wait for challenge messages to com

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

hey asked for it on D-U... forcing me to write another e-mail JUST to help them... nope, ain't gonna happen. > Currently, in many cases when I'm sending email to address found on > website I'm receiving challenge, and I fully understand people doing it. > Whitelist with email/IP

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

hitelist) mail. If your business requires recieving unsolicted email, then your business model will include the wages of a presorter. They are cheaper than a knowledgeable mail admin. As to the "type in this random code from a jpeg", I use that on samizdata (a major blog for which I&#

Re: Hashcash - was re: Spam fights

r signatures systems. Currently you can't accept only such messages because almost no-one sends them. Most people see no need to send them because almost no-one checks for them when receiving a message. Anti-spam measures may be used on workstations eventually, but have to be initially i

Re: Spam fights

will > not figure into the decision. 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. It should not be technically difficult to publish some email addresses, wait for challenge messages to com

Re: Spam fights

be trivially broken by > spammers. [snip] You are right in everything except the tense - it's already happening. I've had friends that use the CR systems reporting that spammers did reply to their challenges. Apparently this is done by the "put your computer to work" victims

Re: Spam fights

o > > send them email. > > Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are > headed if other solutions to spam are not implimented > that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good. While CR

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

U... forcing me to write another e-mail JUST to help them... nope, ain't gonna happen. > Currently, in many cases when I'm sending email to address found on > website I'm receiving challenge, and I fully understand people doing it. > Whitelist with email/IP can decr

Re: Spam fights

hitelist) mail. If your business requires recieving unsolicted email, then your business model will include the wages of a presorter. They are cheaper than a knowledgeable mail admin. As to the "type in this random code from a jpeg", I use that on samizdata (a major blog for which I&#

Re: Spam fights

d to severa mailinglists on postgresql.org, php.net, mutt.org, exim.org and others where I get not more then a half SPAM per month. I am on 146 Mailinglists 46 and on this list I get 80% of the normal SPAM (not the last two days) Because the SPAM filter of murphy works quiet well, I like to see

Re: Spam fights

ed if other solutions to spam are not implimented that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect we'll see a generation of mail systems which greylist by default at the very least. Perhaps a future secreterial job will be to wade through the muck and query the boss as to whether one or two s

Re: Spam fights

be trivially broken by > spammers. [snip] You are right in everything except the tense - it's already happening. I've had friends that use the CR systems reporting that spammers did reply to their challenges. Apparently this is done by the "put your computer to work" victims

Re: Spam fights

o > > send them email. > > Like it or not (and I don't) that is where we are > headed if other solutions to spam are not implimented > that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good. While CR

Re: Spam fights

o severa mailinglists on postgresql.org, php.net, mutt.org, exim.org and others where I get not more then a half SPAM per month. I am on 146 Mailinglists 46 and on this list I get 80% of the normal SPAM (not the last two days) Because the SPAM filter of murphy works quiet well, I like to see a

Re: Spam fights

ed if other solutions to spam are not implimented that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect we'll see a generation of mail systems which greylist by default at the very least. Perhaps a future secreterial job will be to wade through the muck and query the boss as to whether one or two s

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 suppo

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 suppo

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 ad

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

ssage 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. has it been discussed before the

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. Dmitr

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 ad

  1   2   3   4   5   >