i certainly hope so
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:03:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > If you subscribe to and use Debian mailing lists, you WILL get
> > spam.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:41:37PM -0700, Karsten M. Self countered:
> No shit.
> $ apt-get install spamfilter
> $ apt-g
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >= Original Message From Ailbhe Leamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
> >If you post to any mailing list with archives on the web you are likely
> >to have your address harvested by spammers. This is not news.
>
> Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would have ap
On Thursday 04 October 2001 04:54 am, P Kirk wrote:
> Its my impression that there are only a few email harvesters out there
> and that they don't work very hard. Perhaps once you have a list with a
> million names, its not worth wasting time building a new one.
I suspect there is some truth to
Hi all,
Its my impression that there are only a few email harvesters out there
and that they don't work very hard. Perhaps once you have a list with a
million names, its not worth wasting time building a new one.
For example, I found about the time of Clinton/Lewinski I was getting a
very well p
At 08:58 4.10.2001, Johnny Ernst Nielsen wrote:
>> I've been on the list, on and off, for roughly a year now and I have yet
>> to get a single bit of spam, other than the occasional one that is sent
>> to a list I am on. None of them have been addressed directly to me.
>
>It wouldn't surprise
(mantra: *please* do *not* Cc me on list-mail, I read all the lists I
post/mail to)
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:47:12 +0200, martin f krafft writes:
>* Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.10.03 18:26:21+0200]:
>> this.is.a.trap.graffl.net TXT "this is just a spamtrap"
>> this.is.a.tra
>> I've been on the list, on and off, for roughly a year now and I have yet
>> to get a single bit of spam, other than the occasional one that is sent
>> to a list I am on. None of them have been addressed directly to me.
>
>It wouldn't surprise me too much if the spammers filter or weight the
>
Rob VanFleet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been on the list, on and off, for roughly a year now and I have yet
> to get a single bit of spam, other than the occasional one that is sent
> to a list I am on. None of them have been addressed directly to me.
It wouldn't surprise me too much if t
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:32:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would have appreciated
> having the connection between lists and spam made to me when I signed
> up, so, I make it now to anyone who might be tempted to use
> their primary e-mail addre
on Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:03:04AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This probably isn't news to most people, but I though I'd go on the
> record here with a warning:
>
> If you subscribe to and use Debian mailing lists, you WILL get
> spam.
No shit.
$ a
On Wednesday 03 October 2001 12:21 pm, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Jason Boxman wrote:
> > I find the effective rule is to trash mail that doesn't have my email
> > in the From: address. Hopefully the spammers won't ever catch on...
>
> Sorry, I haven't been following this thread, but doesn't that mean
* Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.10.03 18:26:21+0200]:
> this.is.a.trap.graffl.net TXT "this is just a spamtrap"
> this.is.a.trap.graffl.net A 127.255.255.255
that's a splendid idea, but don't you want to consider 127.0.0.1
instead. broadcast is kind of harsh...
--
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:10:06 BST, Alex Hunsley writes:
>Robert Waldner wrote:
>> If you believe in using fake addresses, why not use something like
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This doesn't (and probably won't) exist, so you
>> have the benefit of a faked address but don't simply shove the load
>> unto
Jason Boxman wrote:
> I find the effective rule is to trash mail that doesn't have my email
> in the From: address. Hopefully the spammers won't ever catch on...
Sorry, I haven't been following this thread, but doesn't that mean that
if someone bcc's you on a legit message that you really ought t
On Wednesday 03 October 2001 07:12 am, Petr [Dingo] Dvorak wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I managed to stay 'clean' for nearly 9 months to my primary account, now
> > I'm spitting chips at the vision of my e-mail address brunt onto some
> > get-rich-quick-marketting-tool C
On Wednesday 03 October 2001 06:50 am, P Kirk wrote:
> Now armed with this assumption, set up a .procmailrc or .forward to block
> them. To get you started, my .forward which has a way of scoring mail
> to filter spam is attached. I get a certain malign pleasure out of
> checking my junlmail inb
Robert Waldner wrote:
>
> Of course it would be easy to make such bots a little bit more
> intelligent. But why bother? Also, most spammers probably don't target
> people who already have formed an opinion against it, their main
> targets are AOL- & -newbies, anyway.
Fair point.
> If you b
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Alex Hunsley (on Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:03:36PM +0100):
> > What's obnoxious about it? I don't want spam, dad. It's that simple.
>
> maybe obnoxious is not the right word, and hey, i don't want to start
> a flame war... but i almost replied to you in person w
Ailbhe Leamy wrote:
>
> On (03/10/01 13:03), Alex Hunsley wrote:
> > martin f krafft wrote:
> > > > to email me, remove the BLOCK from addressS
>
> > > however, this is both obnoxious, and useless - the mass mailers that i
> > > have seen (no, i am not a spammer) have features that check for a
Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you believe in using fake addresses, why not use something like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This doesn't (and probably won't) exist, so you
> have the benefit of a faked address but don't simply shove the load
> unto someone else.
Funnily enough, UK ed
On (03/10/01 13:03), Alex Hunsley wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > > to email me, remove the BLOCK from addressS
> > however, this is both obnoxious, and useless - the mass mailers that i
> > have seen (no, i am not a spammer) have features that check for a wide
> > variety of such blocks, and
also sprach Alex Hunsley (on Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:03:36PM +0100):
> What's obnoxious about it? I don't want spam, dad. It's that simple.
maybe obnoxious is not the right word, and hey, i don't want to start
a flame war... but i almost replied to you in person without noticing
it, and that would hav
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:03:36 BST, Alex Hunsley writes:
>What's obnoxious about it? I don't want spam, dad. It's that simple.
Almost nobody wants spam. It's that simple.
But such is life. I also don't want advertising in my physical mailbox
(and yes, this also costs the recipient money. My hous
martin f krafft wrote:
> > to email me, remove the BLOCK from addressS
>
> however, this is both obnoxious, and useless - the mass mailers that i
> have seen (no, i am not a spammer) have features that check for a wide
> variety of such blocks, and successfully remove them...
What's obnoxious a
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I managed to stay 'clean' for nearly 9 months to my primary account, now
> I'm spitting chips at the vision of my e-mail address brunt onto some
> get-rich-quick-marketting-tool CD-R. :-(
eh, even if you haven't subscribed to any mailing list, there
also sprach Alex Hunsley (on Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:41:50AM +0100):
> Less sarcasm young man. Many people may find this list via the debian
> users newsgroup, which can be read by anyone, subscribed or not. Also
> the archives can be read before subscribing.
usenet, well, maybe... but archives are us
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:32:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>= Original Message From Ailbhe Leamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
>>If you post to any mailing list with archives on the web you are likely
>>to have your address harvested by spammers. This is not news.
>
>Yeah, knee-jerk reacti
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on Wed, 03 Oct 2001 05:32:49AM -0400):
> > Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would have appreciated
> > having the connection between lists and spam made to me when I signed
> > up, so, I make it now to anyone who might be temp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >= Original Message From Ailbhe Leamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
> >If you post to any mailing list with archives on the web you are likely
> >to have your address harvested by spammers. This is not news.
>
> Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would hav
>This probably isn't news to most people, but I though I'd go on the
>record here with a warning:
>
> If you subscribe to and use Debian mailing lists, you WILL get
> spam.
This is not new I'm afraid.
And warning people _on_ the list is not well thought through.
I imagine the minority of the lis
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on Wed, 03 Oct 2001 05:32:49AM -0400):
> Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would have appreciated
> having the connection between lists and spam made to me when I signed
> up, so, I make it now to anyone who might be tempted to use
> their primary e-mail ad
>= Original Message From Ailbhe Leamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
>If you post to any mailing list with archives on the web you are likely
>to have your address harvested by spammers. This is not news.
Yeah, knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, but I would have appreciated
having the connection betw
On (03/10/01 00:03), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This probably isn't news to most people, but I though I'd go on the
> record here with a warning:
>
> If you subscribe to and use Debian mailing lists, you WILL get
> spam.
If you post to any mailing list with archives on the web you are likely
Hi all,
This probably isn't news to most people, but I though I'd go on the
record here with a warning:
If you subscribe to and use Debian mailing lists, you WILL get
spam.
I know this after getting hit over the last few weeks to an e-mail
account that I *only* use for personal correspondanc
35 matches
Mail list logo
