-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:55:49PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
I'd like to thank all of the nice folks who sent me mail today, one of which
I actually read. It was filled with the same juvenile abuse I have been
receiving on the list for the last
Oh this is GREAT! I can't thank you bullies enough.
1) An MSP user receives an abusive mail from someone who has gone through
the CR process, thus giving away their actual address.
2) The person calls up the MSP main menu and chooses [g] Harassment.
They enter the email address at the
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 04:10:05 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did an experiment by posting a temporary account in the From header
in a bunch of different fairly high-traffic, high-spam groups as well
as the ones I regular. Six months later when I remembered I had
started that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:45:44PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
What makes you think I'm not?
Well, that's why I thought I missed it.
I'm pointing out that the assertion that
addresses posted to newsgroups are not harvested is false.
However,
Hallo!
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guess what address is only used on the newsgroups.
So use a 'Reply-To:' with your 'used and read' email address. Spammers
usually get only the 'XOver', which only has the From: in it, so they
won't see your Reply-To: Email.
Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Munging has always traditionally been okay in news.
Not to many people, including myself.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am the rocks.
Show up at the funeral services in a clown suit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
I've been catching up on my email for the past few weeks and found this
rather horrible thread.
My sincerest apologies for all of my earlier posts. I had no idea what a
fluster-cluck this had become.
However, the issue of blocking spam does seem to get people excited, even
to the point of
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:58:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:56:02PM +, Andrew McGuinness wrote:
Where do I get the public key (8B362A2F) to verify the above-quoted
message? You seem to be using a new key. Are you testing us?
x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:57:17AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Uh, no, they're not the same. In a mailing list if someone munges they
don't get mail and might cause accidental bounces. In usenet, no bounces are
possible unless someone else is
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:05:46 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I think I missed it. Why aren't you reporting?
What makes you think I'm not? I'm pointing out that the assertion that
addresses posted to newsgroups are not harvested is false. I use an address
ONLY on the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:38:05PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Note that they DID teach me a valuable lesson. Now any mail addressed
to me goes to /dev/null.
Lol. Any mail *addressed* to you goes to /dev/null now that's a pretty
extreme method to get rid of spam.
That doesn't mean that they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness of people to
answer challenges.
I won't respond to TMDA challenges anymore. Some spammers actually
send out TMDA-like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Munging has always traditionally been okay in news.
I always thought this was exclusively moron behaviour. I'm not alone.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
On the USENET, too, correspondence is always done in the newsgroup.
First-of-all, thanks to B. for helping me get my from header straightened out.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 16:43:57 2003
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 21:33, Lance Simmons wrote:
[...]
My spam box is full of plausible sounding subjects from familiar
sounding names.
You're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:54:03AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 08:41:46 2003
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:57:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:00:02PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:07:09PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
I don't know why CR programs offend some people so much.
The fact that so many CR opponents are self-styled
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:33:25PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Newsgroup descriptions are the proper repository for this information.
Are you referring to those very short descriptions consisting of a few
words which are displayed next to one's subscribed groups as a very
general
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com. So
it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's
just slightly damaging the mail. (Which doesn't strike me as a large
bug, since he shouldn't be
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 11:15:39 2003
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the widespread use of CR systems would eliminate spam from the face of
the earth.
What do you do about spam that goes to mailing list?
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am the rocks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:39:06AM -0300, Anthony Rowe wrote:
There is usually a one-line description of a newsgroup which is
displayed beside one's personal list of subscribed newsgroups. It
gives a very short summary of what the newsgroup is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:26:22PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Some people just won't accept that the traditional approach to spamblocking
doesn't, and never will, work.
What do you think Earthlink uses? If traditional spamblocking doesn't
work,
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 17:17:05 2003
On (05/08/03 13:17), Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 12:33:25 2003
As a disinterested observer (who currently has yet to get grips with
filtering spam - I do it manually at present) this argument seems to be
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:48:42PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
2) They are a an extreme violation of netiquette
I don't know where you've been learning your netiquette. PGP-signed
messages have been widely regarded as acceptable (if
on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:36:41PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:36:01PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
...
Given that a given key is only retrieved once, the penalty is
front-loaded, and gets better.
You can always abort the fetch with ^C.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 07:07:40 2003
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:04:11 -0500, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alanconnor writes:
Still doesn't make sense to me and I am seriously considering
writing a stanza in my newsreaders filters that will dump any posts
with PGP
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 16:18, Alan Connor wrote:
1) Neither I nor anyone I know cares if you are who you say you are or not.
( In fact, someone could forge your PGP sig because most people don't
have the software, and do you MORE harm that way. How would you prove
which of two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 12:58:07PM -0300, Anthony Rowe wrote:
I wouldn't mind taking up the cause. What are the newsgroups this is
heard on?
linux.debian.user
Isn't it also in muc.* someplace?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Aug 2003 10:59:52 -0400
Mark Roach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do care if someone else pretends to be you and makes you look bad
though, don't you? It's really not hard to do.
He does. In fact he perports that C-R is a better defense than PGP.
2) They are a an extreme violation
At 2003-08-05T14:20:02Z, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please fix your mail headers ^^
If the password is used with an address other than the one it was acquired
with, the mail is dumped and the password de-activated.
So, if I write to you from work,
on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:50:34AM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:18:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:50:26 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a script that looks at the sigs in incoming mail as it's
delivered, and
At 2003-08-06T19:36:27Z, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alan,
shout
FIX YOUR STUPIDLY BROKEN FROM: HEADER! YOU ARE *NOT* IMPROVING YOUR
CREDIBILITY.
/shout
It goes in cron.daily and checks all the password/address combos for
Challenge-Responses that were issued more than 48 hours in
At 2003-08-06T22:10:13Z, Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a valid email address.
Neither is [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is how it appears on my
system. Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] for everyone else.
--
Kirk Strauser
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On (05/08/03 07:55), Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:20:02 -0700
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 07:07:40 2003
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:04:11 -0500, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alanconnor writes:
Still doesn't make sense to me
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:22:44AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:38:48AM -0300, Anthony Rowe wrote:
I guess it is non-obvious to some people grazing
Usenet that the gateway is meant to be RO. I am wondering if a post
to the gateway could be automated to go out every
Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By using an invalid email address in your headers with a valid
domain, the site's mx is picking up the weight of spam, even though
you are not.
I think eskimo.com's mail system is actually slightly broken, and
that Alan Connor isn't posting
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:51:33 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com. So
it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's
just slightly damaging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
1) Neither I nor anyone I know cares if you are who you say you are or not.
( In fact, someone could forge your PGP sig because most people don't
have the software, and do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:56:02PM +, Andrew McGuinness wrote:
Where do I get the public key (8B362A2F) to verify the above-quoted
message? You seem to be using a new key. Are you testing us?
x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ or finger://[EMAIL
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:55:34 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:36:27PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 12:22:35 2003
Party Time! No more harassing mails and no more spam -- EVER.
Wouldn't it be easier with roughly the same
Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 08:23:29PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
So, basically, *ALL* mail from those domains will pass -- UN-challenged
-- by your C-R system? And, _none_ of those emails can possibly contain
spam?
Yeah. He's in for a wakeup call the first time someone
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:29:23 -0700, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Either this is a sick joke (and a poor one at that) or it is criminal.
here's the post I sent from my sentmail mbox:
It was actually a mistake. But in any event, the point still remains
intact because you are still
on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:50:26AM +0100, Pigeon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:48:42PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
2) They are a an extreme violation of netiquette
I don't know where you've been learning
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:48:05PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Please do even the tiniest bit of research; the garbage is a
mathematical function of the content of the message, not a single static
object. This is a startlingly elementary mistake to
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:38:48AM -0300, Anthony Rowe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:40:55AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Similarly, Alan's mail configuration breaks threads for some reason.
Yes well, he and I were both curious about reading the gateway using a
newsreader (slrn) and
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 14:27:40 2003
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 11:19, Steve Lamb wrote:
On 05 Aug 2003 10:59:52 -0400
Mark Roach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do care if someone else pretends to be you and makes you look bad
though, don't you? It's really not hard to do.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:18:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:50:26 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a script that looks at the sigs in incoming mail as it's
delivered, and automatically pulls from a keyserver any that I don't
have. Very convenient.
At 2003-08-05T15:45:18Z, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone else find it mildly ironic that Alan here bitches about mangled
headers and then goes on to mangle his own. So much so that his C-R
system would *FAIL* if he ever encountered it in the wild?
From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
Also sprach Alan Connor (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 05:43:58PM -0700):
snip /
I know that some folks here have said that all the headers can be
forged, but they are either ignorant or lying.
Please, support this with something other than your opinion, or desist.
I have NEVER gotten spam from a
on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:38:48AM -0300, Anthony Rowe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Veering [further] off-topic, I notice that at least one other person
has posted a genuine question to the News gateway in the last few days
(the person was admirably helped by someone else reading and posting
to
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:36:01PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:50:34AM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:18:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Why when two entries in your .gnupg/gpg.conf file will do it
just fine?
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:53:56 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:50:34AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I can see why Pigeon's approach might be preferable. I found
auto-key-retrieve annoying and turned it off because it slowed things
down *while I was reading mail*,
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:27:02PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 13:37, David Fokkema wrote:
As filtering is a spam-reduction system, so is C-R. The chance of
receiving spam from a whitelisted address is, in the experience of tmda
users, very rare. And even if it happens,
At 2003-08-03T22:02:53Z, Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Appreciated, Kirk.
Any time. I still owe you favors for writing the why I sign my email
essay that I refer the occasional person to.
--
Kirk Strauser
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
*I* don't get any spam.
im guessing you dont get much ham either...
--
hugh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 10:36:15 2003
At 2003-08-03T22:02:53Z, Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Appreciated, Kirk.
Any time. I still owe you favors for writing the why I sign my email
essay that I refer the occasional person to.
Funny. I know someone who has
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 12:28, Hugh Saunders wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
*I* don't get any spam.
im guessing you dont get much ham either...
Morning.
Morning.
What you got?
Egg and Bacon
Eggs, Sausage and Bacon
Egg and SPAM
Egg, Bacon and SPAM
Egg,
At 2003-08-04T17:41:37Z, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither of
which use his real name or stats.
What makes you think that my real name is Kirk Strauser?
He can prove that he is someone
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:41:37 -0700
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither
of which use his real name or stats.
He can prove that he is someone he isn't.
No, he can't. That's not what a PGP signature is, does, or is for.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 12:45:09 2003
At 2003-08-04T17:41:37Z, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
:-)
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither of
which use his real name or stats.
What makes you think
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 13:02:51 2003
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 12:28, Hugh Saunders wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:32:53PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
*I* don't get any spam.
im guessing you dont get much ham either...
Morning.
Morning.
What you got?
Egg and Bacon
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 13:11:52 2003
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:41:37 -0700
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither
of which use his real name or stats.
He can prove that he is someone he isn't.
No, he
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:41:37AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither of
which use his real name or stats.
He can prove that he is someone he isn't.
The GPG signature on this mail does not prove that I am Colin Watson. It
proves
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:26:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:41:37AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Funny. I know someone who has 2 of those PGP signatures things, neither of
which use his real name or stats.
He can prove that he is someone he isn't.
The GPG
At 2003-08-04T20:01:48Z, Alan Connor writes:
Don't know and don't care. I assess you by the quality of your posts.
Fair enough. When I sign my posts, you can be assured that the *same*
person is writing each time. If you've followed my postings for a period of
time, you may decide that you
At 2003-08-04T20:18:18Z, Alan Connor writes:
1) Neither I nor anyone I know cares if you are who you say you are or
not.
Neither I nor anyone I know have cats. There must be no demand for them.
( In fact, someone could forge your PGP sig because most people don't
have the software,
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:01:48PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Kirk Strauser:
In the same way, I could be Becky Smith using an alias. Regardless
of my real identity, you know that any post with my signature was
written by *me*.
That has no meaning to me. What if I were to just copy all of
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:18:18 -0700
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Chris. Still doesn't make sense to me and I am seriously
considering writing a stanza in my newsreaders filters that will dump
any posts with PGP sigs.
That's your right. I hope you're aware that in the process,
Also sprach Alan Connor (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 01:18:18PM -0700):
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 13:11:52 2003
You might want to read about PGP, and public key infrastructures, a bit
more.
http://web.bham.ac.uk/N.M.Queen/pgp/pgp.html
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 4 13:11:52 2003
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:41:37 -0700 Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Chris. Still doesn't make sense to me and I am seriously considering
writing a stanza in my newsreaders
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2003-08-04T20:01:48Z, Alan Connor writes:
That has no meaning to me. What if I were to just copy all of that garbage
on your posts? Wouldn't people then think I was you?
Not unless you can reverse-engineer the private key that I used to sign my
posts, and use that key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Connor wrote:
|
|
| Thanks Chris. Still doesn't make sense to me and [...]
That's no disgrace. Understanding public-key encryption takes, if not
quite an *average* level of intelligence, at least a level that is by no
means universal.
The only
At 2003-08-03T04:13:26Z, Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
proofread
Effective spam management tools should place the burden either
on the spammer, or at the very least, on the person receiving
the benefits of the filtering (the mail recipient). Instead,
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
nagging at me for a while, here's the draft of why C-R is considered
harmful.
David Fokkema writes:
I don't see the third party.
He assuming the use of commercial C-R services. The spams being sent in my
name frequently generate challenges from these. Some of them expect me to
click on the link, go to the service's Web site, and fill in a form.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 3 12:04:08 2003
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
nagging at me for a while,
Also sprach Alan Connor (Sun 03 Aug 02003 at 12:32:53PM -0700):
snip /
The above gibberish contributed by Karsten is typical of the reaction that
spammers give when asked what they think of CR programs.
And it would make any slimy politician or sleazeball lawyer proud.
Here's the basic
Here's the bottom line:
IF YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT ANONYMOUS MAIL, YOU ARE GOING TO GET SPAM.
So accept this fact and either get used to manually deleting spam.
(unless you LIKE knocking yourself out constantly updating filters
that you know are not going to work for long, or paying someone
on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:14:43AM -0500, Kirk Strauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At 2003-08-03T04:13:26Z, Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
proofread
Effective spam management tools should place the burden either
on the spammer, or at the very least, on the
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:59:47PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
... either get used to manually deleting spam.
(unless you LIKE knocking yourself out constantly updating filters
that you know are not going to work for long, or paying someone else
to engage in this farcical pastime.)
You make
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 13:37, David Fokkema wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
nagging at me for a while, here's
on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:37:49PM +0200, David Fokkema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
There is SO much misunderstanding (and disinformation) about CR systems here.
Let's say I was going to mail a business. Here's what would happen:
The address that I mailed to would go into the temporary part my passlist
automatically, and any mail from that address for the next 7 days would
--
For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam with the Mailbox-Sentry-Program.
See: http://tinyurl.com/inpd for the scripts and docs.
In my last post on this subject, I made a mistake.
When I send a mail to a business (etc.) the address to which it was sent
is entered into
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sig would look like this:
--
Please include this signature in any response to this mail. Thank You.
030303284857463625397654736322637485969437549596969685747
That would be a bad implementation. First, that's not a valid
signature delimiter.
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 18:38, Alan Shutko wrote:
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sig would look like this:
--
Please include this signature in any response to this mail. Thank You.
030303284857463625397654736322637485969437549596969685747
That would be a bad
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:38:03 -0500
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a bad implementation. First, that's not a valid
signature delimiter. Second, if it were, many MUAs strip off
signatures automatically in quoted replies.
Not to mention that if the MUA doesn't do it the
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Aug 3 22:34:48 2003
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The sig would look like this:
--
Please include this signature in any response to this mail. Thank You.
030303284857463625397654736322637485969437549596969685747
That would be a bad
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and stopping it can only be done
with a Challenge-Response mail program, such as the one I put together.
There isn't ANY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
