> Interestingly enough, the first email I read this morning had a link to
> this:
>
>
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/12/2339209/Google-Tells-Congress-It-Disclosed-Wi-Fi-Sniffing
>
> And that is just the tip of the ice burg.
>
> --
> Jerry
OMG!! Google is stealing and archiving pictures of m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:58:19 -0500
Sonja Michelle Lina Thomas articulated:
> > I would not trust Google with your data, far less mine. They have
> > all ready been accused of illegally pilfering through user data and
> > mining for user wireless info
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Saturday 12 June 2010 at 12:37:08 PM, in
, Jerry wrote:
> I would not trust Google with your data, far less mine.
The problem is that you never know if your contact will forward things
to a google account...
- --
Best regards
MFPA
Jerry wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:22:47 -0500
Sonja Michelle Lina Thomas articulated:
I use gmail for my SMTP needs. I have accounts on a couple of unix
machines, yahoo, gmail, aim, my business hosted via godaddy and I
choose gmail as the default SMTP server for all of them. Works like a
ch
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:39:00 -0400
Jean-David Beyer articulated:
> Yes, I did. They will not accept anything from my MTA even when I use
> the smarthost feature. I can use either their web site server (that I
> detest) or Firefox, but they will not allow sendmail even with
> smarthost.
Please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I would not trust Google with your data, far less mine. They have all
> ready been accused of illegally pilfering through user data and mining
> for user wireless information. I avoid them like the plague whenever
> possible.
Pffft, they can't get t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:22:47 -0500
Sonja Michelle Lina Thomas articulated:
> I use gmail for my SMTP needs. I have accounts on a couple of unix
> machines, yahoo, gmail, aim, my business hosted via godaddy and I
> choose gmail as the default SMTP se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I use gmail for my SMTP needs. I have accounts on a couple of unix
machines, yahoo, gmail, aim, my business hosted via godaddy and I choose
gmail as the default SMTP server for all of them. Works like a charm.
http://lifehacker.com/66/how-to-use-g
MFPA wrote:
The Spamhaus PBL might very well list you.
76.185.38.113 is listed in the PBL
Mailservers using this blocklist would probably block mail from
you.
Of course, even Spamhaus's own website says the PBL is not a
blacklist and that you can remove your IP address from their list i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 11 June 2010 at 2:34:44 PM, in
, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> If there is such an RFC, it's rubbish;
I think there is no such RFC, just an assertion from a messaging
industry lobbying group that it's the "best" practice to block mail
from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 11 June 2010 at 8:00:09 PM, in
, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0500 John Clizbe
> articulated:
>> Mark H. Wood wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at
>> 05:57:50PM +0200, Joke de Buhr wrote: >> You do not
>> sacrifice legi
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0500
John Clizbe articulated:
> Mark H. Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> >> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an
> >> RFC that clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 4:53:43 PM, in
, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:32:05 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>> And i should probably add that it is indeed an infinitesimal drop in the
>> bucket compared to the other
Mark H. Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Joke de Buhr wrote:
>> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an RFC that
>> clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP addresses.
>> Therefore
>> they can not be considered valid.
>
> If ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 4:39:46 PM, in
, Hauke Laging
wrote:
> But that is the wrong argument. The correct argument is
> about the key server share of spam in a world in which
> nearly everyone has a public key. Of course, in that
> world
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:57:50PM +0200, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an RFC that
> clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP addresses.
> Therefore
> they can not be considered valid.
If there is such an RFC, it's rubbish
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:15:56 +0200
Werner Koch articulated:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:16, expires2...@ymail.com said:
>
> > delete them if they don't. Or one message to everybody with a
> > customised subject line for each. Alternatively, those of us who are
>
> That is a good idea. I was think
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:16, expires2...@ymail.com said:
> delete them if they don't. Or one message to everybody with a
> customised subject line for each. Alternatively, those of us who are
That is a good idea. I was thinking of bisecting the mailing list to
make sure that test mails receive the
On 6/10/2010 8:16 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Whenever I post to this list these days I get one of their
> auto-replies, and they always spoof the from address to whatever I had
> in the "to" field of my message to the list.
[lots of discussion deleted]
I think it's safe to say the list moderators are now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 6:04:37 PM, in
, Hauke Laging
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 10 Juni 2010 18:39:25 schrieb Jameson
> Rollins:
>> Speaking of spam, I'm getting more spam from some sort of automated
>> ticketing system that seems to be subsc
On -10/01/37 20:59, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an RFC that
> clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP addresses.
> Therefore
> they can not be considered valid.
Which RFC would this be?
I could not find the word "dynami
Am Donnerstag 10 Juni 2010 18:39:25 schrieb Jameson Rollins:
> Speaking of spam, I'm getting more spam from some sort of automated
> ticketing system that seems to be subscribed to this list that I ever
> have from a keyserver. The mail seems to come from:
>
> secure.mpcustomer.com
>
> and it of
Speaking of spam, I'm getting more spam from some sort of automated
ticketing system that seems to be subscribed to this list that I ever
have from a keyserver. The mail seems to come from:
secure.mpcustomer.com
and it often sets the From: to be from someone else. This is totally
uncool. Is th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 4:57:50 PM, in
, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> One of the addresses of my key is totally unprotected
> against spam. Nothing is blocked or scanned there. And
> it doesn't get any spam at all.
Fair enough.
> As far as I
On 06/10/2010 11:57 AM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> You do not sacrifice legitimate incoming mail because there is an RFC that
> clearly states mailservers do not operate from dynamic IP addresses.
> Therefore
> they can not be considered valid.
Please cite this RFC. All IP addresses are "dynamic" i
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:32:05 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> And i should probably add that it is indeed an infinitesimal drop in the
> bucket compared to the other spam i receive; i'm not concerned about it.
Not to mention that the bother of a couple of extra spams is completely
dwarfed by
On Thursday 10 June 2010 17:29:18 MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 3:35:34 PM, in
>
> , Joke de Buhr wrote:
> > I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and
> > my public keys with a valid mail address were published
> > year ago.
>
> In order to *know* you have nev
Am Donnerstag 10 Juni 2010 16:00:18 schrieb David Shaw:
> Periodically there is a discussion on this list about whether having your
> key on a keyserver will result in more spam. My feeling on this is that
> you might get more spam, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the
> usual onslaug
Hi Joke--
On 06/10/2010 11:22 AM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> I never said this particular spam message was not caused by someone scanning
> the keyserver. I only stated it isn't that common and never happened to me.
>
> The chance someone harvesting your email address through keyserver scanning
> is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 3:35:34 PM, in
, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and
> my public keys with a valid mail address were published
> year ago.
In order to *know* you have never received any ke
I never said this particular spam message was not caused by someone scanning
the keyserver. I only stated it isn't that common and never happened to me.
The chance someone harvesting your email address through keyserver scanning is
less common than harvesting archives of mailing lists.
Keyserve
> On Thursday 10 June 2010 16:00:18 David Shaw wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Periodically there is a discussion on this list about whether having your
>> key on a keyserver will result in more spam. My feeling on this is that
>> you might get more spam, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to th
I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and my public keys with a
valid mail address were published year ago.
I think it's more likely you will get spam because you are posting to a
mailing list which does have a html archive (liks this one).
If you want to get rid of most spam, jus
Hi everyone,
Periodically there is a discussion on this list about whether having your key
on a keyserver will result in more spam. My feeling on this is that you might
get more spam, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the usual onslaught
that streams in daily.
That being said, I just
34 matches
Mail list logo
