Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread Cam Ellison
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:14:06 +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: >They´re not sending their bounces via the list (now? don´t know, have > deleted the mails). Still coming, as of this morning (which helped me discover a bug in the filter). I am simply bouncing them back, now (he says hopefully). Cam

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread Robert Waldner
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:46:46 CDT, will trillich writes: >On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:21:42PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: >> I sent a (friendly) message to the postmaster at my.netvigator.com >> already, informing them of the problem and pointing out directions to >> fix it. You may want to do t

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread will trillich
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:21:42PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: > I sent a (friendly) message to the postmaster at my.netvigator.com > already, informing them of the problem and pointing out directions to > fix it. You may want to do the same. i did too. three weeks ago. and last week. as you

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread Bruce Sass
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:27:13 MDT, Bruce Sass writes: > >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote: > >> Ask our list admins to unsubscribe these incompetents. Since we are > >> only seeing responses to list postings, that will eliminate the > >> problem

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread Robert Waldner
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 16:27:13 MDT, Bruce Sass writes: >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote: >> Ask our list admins to unsubscribe these incompetents. Since we are >> only seeing responses to list postings, that will eliminate the >> problem. > >done I don´t think you´ve got the right (or all

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-21 Thread Robert Waldner
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:19:58 PDT, kmself@ix.netcom.com writes: >On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:21:42PM +0200, Robert Waldner ([EMAIL PROTECTED] >at) wrote: >> Also the RBL is used throughout the internet for *blackholing* all=20 >> IP-connectivity from spammers. If you misconfigured your MTA (or=20 >>

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Bruce Sass
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Oliver Elphick wrote: > >Where is the right place? > > Ask our list admins to unsubscribe these incompetents. Since we are > only seeing responses to list postings, that will eliminate the > problem. done - Bruce

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Oliver Elphick
Bruce Sass wrote: >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: >> The RBL is for spammers, that is, UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), >> UBE (Unsolicited Bulk Email), also, fraud (mailbombing etc) is >> sometimes considered spam. > >They are sending unsolicited and inappropriate me

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Bruce Sass
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: > The RBL is for spammers, that is, UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), > UBE (Unsolicited Bulk Email), also, fraud (mailbombing etc) is > sometimes considered spam. They are sending unsolicited and inappropriate messages to anyone who posts on debian

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread kmself
list reinstated. On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 03:28:50PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:19:58PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > > I'm finding myself with less sympathy for this argument. Broken mailers > > pollute the environment, and should b

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread kmself
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:21:42PM +0200, Robert Waldner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The RBL is for spammers, that is, UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), > UBE (Unsolicited Bulk Email), also, fraud (mailbombing etc) is > sometimes considered spam. > > It is *not* intended for misconfigured/

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Dave Sherohman
Pollywog said: > I just filter [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s messages and I never see them. > Before you complain to RBL, try a complaint to the contact for netvigator.com. > Perhaps they will do something about this. I sent a complaint to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this and stating the name of the user with a

Re: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Robert Waldner
The RBL is for spammers, that is, UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), UBE (Unsolicited Bulk Email), also, fraud (mailbombing etc) is sometimes considered spam. It is *not* intended for misconfigured/-programmed mailers, nor a list of open relays (ORBS http://www.orbs.org/ is doing that). Re

RE: Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Pollywog
I just filter [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s messages and I never see them. Before you complain to RBL, try a complaint to the contact for netvigator.com. Perhaps they will do something about this. -- Andrew On 20-Sep-2000 Osamu Aoki wrote: > I hate stupid MTA causing this problem. I like idea to kick out

Spammer by incompetence, RBL may be an option

2000-09-20 Thread Osamu Aoki
I hate stupid MTA causing this problem. I like idea to kick out my.netvigator.com (looks like chinese free e-mail account. I can not read chinese) from internet mail system. I understand debian ML can not do that. It may be best to report this domain as spammer to RBL (they are spammer by imcom