Hello,
âAlthough I have 25 + years of unix/linux experience, this is my first
encounter with OpenBSD.â I have learned a lot over the past weeks, but the
issue below is puzzling me:
I have a question regarding the differences between spamd-
âsyncâ
on OpenBSD 5.0 and OpenBSD 5.9.
â I
and called the
> spamd-setup to take effect. At this point the grey entries shouldnt be
> delivered in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Am 22.07.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Peter Hessler:
> >Greytrap addresses only trap the systems when it has not been seen
> >before. In your case, t
This seems flawed , because when I see a spammer sending a mail to 10
addresses and I trap the spammer IP the grey entries shouldn't over ride
the Trap entry at all. I even put the ip on my personal blacklist and
called the spamd-setup to take effect. At this point the grey entries
should
Greytrap addresses only trap the systems when it has not been seen
before. In your case, they arlready have a GREY entry, so they have
been seen and the trapping won't take effect.
On 2016 Jul 21 (Thu) at 17:34:37 +0200 (+0200), Markus Rosjat wrote:
:Hi there,
:
:I noticed that a trapped ip gets
Hi there,
I noticed that a trapped ip gets whitelisted when there are still
greylisted messages. this shouldn't happen when I use the -a -t switches
to trap the ip or do I miss something here ?
Regards
--
Markus Rosjatfon: +49 351 8107223mail: ros...@ghweb.de
G+H Webservice GbR Gorz
Hi Chris,
On 2016-07-08 Fri 11:10 AM |, Chris Bennett wrote:
> I already have a script with regex's for blacklisting IP's but I am
> getting several repeat spam emails to many of my email addresses, same
> senders, but from Gmail especially.
>
Is this spam actually coming from Google IP addresse
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:10:02AM -0500, Chris Bennett wrote:
> I already have a script with regex's for blacklisting IP's but I am
> getting several repeat spam emails to many of my email addresses, same
> senders, but from Gmail especially.
>
> I can't blacklist those since gmail has so many MX
I already have a script with regex's for blacklisting IP's but I am
getting several repeat spam emails to many of my email addresses, same
senders, but from Gmail especially.
I can't blacklist those since gmail has so many MX's, which would
interfere with good emails too. Gmail probably wouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi folks,
last information I have about spamd with IPv6 support is WIP.
Is there any code I could try? Maybe I can help, at least in
running tests?
Please mail
Harri
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWwJVyAAoJEAqeKp5m04HLJxMH/jF6nBeBn0gYe5HQj73vDgWL
I know this is not in the map page, so out of the box it's possible.
But is there any trick for example to have something like this
reject from any for domain recipient ! set pftable "spamd"
in smtpd.conf and have it add the source IP into the spamd table of pf?
So, instead
Op Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:55:27 +0200 schreef Stuart Henderson
:
On 2015-10-13, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Op Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:06:45 +0200 schreef Markus Rosjat :
Hi there,
I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
that I update manually. So far so good
On 2015-10-13 Tue 18:55 PM |, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> It's totally possible. Blacklist mode by default returns a temporary failure
> so a standard MTA would keep trying, whereas with greylisting or no spamd
> it would stop after the mail is accepted. And in stuttering mo
On 2015-10-13, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> Op Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:06:45 +0200 schreef Markus Rosjat :
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
>> that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a qu
On 10/13/15 16:00, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Op Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:06:45 +0200 schreef Markus Rosjat :
Hi there,
I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a quite
radical adding to my blacklist :) and I
Op Thu, 08 Oct 2015 11:06:45 +0200 schreef Markus Rosjat :
Hi there,
I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a quite
radical adding to my blacklist :) and I noticed my outgoing traffic
jumped from
Hi there,
I have a spamd running in greylisting mode and maintain my own blacklist
that I update manually. So far so good yesterday I just did a quite
radical adding to my blacklist :) and I noticed my outgoing traffic
jumped from around 500mb per day to 3,2gb per day. I checked the traffic
> except as ip disconnected after 19 seconds
oops 3 seconds... I have -s 3 spamd flag
Anyone else receiving from microsoft, maybe it's a configuration
combination such as a timeout only applied to TLS by microsoft but I
would have thought the same TCP would just be encapsulated and behave
On a machine just after 5.7 bumped to get spamd TLS support where
changes to spamd have been minimal since (I have tested the compat mode
diff with no effect).
I've had reports of mails not coming through and they have been quite
tricky to find (traffic logs of known incoming mail) as they d
On 09/02/2015 09:07 AM, Renaud Allard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed some strange behavior from spamd in 5.7-stable.
> It has been started with '-5 -S 15 -s 1 -G6:24:864' but it seems to add
> to the whitelist every server which connects for the second time,
> independen
Hello,
I noticed some strange behavior from spamd in 5.7-stable.
It has been started with '-5 -S 15 -s 1 -G6:24:864' but it seems to add
to the whitelist every server which connects for the second time,
independently from the first parameter in -G.
Here is an example:
# zgrep 217.1
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28:06PM -0400, Steve Shockley wrote:
> In spamd.8, it shows:
>
> BLACKLIST-ONLY MODE
> [...]
>
> table persist
> pass in on egress proto tcp from to any port smtp \
> divert-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd
>
> However, it appears pf req
On 2015-08-12, Steve Shockley wrote:
> In spamd.8, it shows:
>
> BLACKLIST-ONLY MODE
> [...]
>
> table persist
> pass in on egress proto tcp from to any port smtp \
> divert-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd
>
> However, it appears pf requires inet when diverting to a t
In spamd.8, it shows:
BLACKLIST-ONLY MODE
[...]
table persist
pass in on egress proto tcp from to any port smtp \
divert-to 127.0.0.1 port spamd
However, it appears pf requires inet when diverting to a table[1]:
pass in on egress inet proto tcp from to any port smtp \
divert-to
lman.theapt.org/listinfo/bgp-spamd
what kind of additional memory/disk/cpu usage is
:incurred through the use of a bgp-spamd client? Is this something that is
:likely able to run on a low end device like a Soekris 5501, or is
:it something more suited to a Real Server?
:
:(I don't see any dedicated mailing list on the bgp-spamd.ne
In general terms, what kind of additional memory/disk/cpu usage is
incurred through the use of a bgp-spamd client? Is this something that is
likely able to run on a low end device like a Soekris 5501, or is
it something more suited to a Real Server?
(I don't see any dedicated mailing li
Hi Joshua,
On 2015-06-16 Tue 16:53 PM |, Joshua Lokken wrote:
> On Jun/13 08:51PM, Craig Skinner wrote:
> > On 2015-06-12 Fri 15:24 PM |, Joshua Lokken wrote:
> > >
> > > I also see, in /var/log/spamd, whenever obspamd is started:
> > >
> > > Jun 12 1
On Jun/16 10:06PM, Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
>
> *spamd* regularly scans the//var/db/spamd/ database and configures all
> whitelist addresses as the pf(4)
> > table, allowing connec-
> tions to pass to the real MTA. Any addresses not found in
> ar
On 06/16/15 18:53, Joshua Lokken wrote:
> On Jun/13 08:51PM, Craig Skinner wrote:
>> On 2015-06-12 Fri 15:24 PM |, Joshua Lokken wrote:
>>> I also see, in /var/log/spamd, whenever obspamd is started:
>>>
>>> Jun 12 13:35:14 fusor spamd[21599]: greyreader
On Jun/13 08:51PM, Craig Skinner wrote:
> On 2015-06-12 Fri 15:24 PM |, Joshua Lokken wrote:
> >
> > I also see, in /var/log/spamd, whenever obspamd is started:
> >
> > Jun 12 13:35:14 fusor spamd[21599]: greyreader failed (No such file or
directory)
>
> > %
On 2015-06-12 Fri 15:24 PM |, Joshua Lokken wrote:
>
> I also see, in /var/log/spamd, whenever obspamd is started:
>
> Jun 12 13:35:14 fusor spamd[21599]: greyreader failed (No such file or
> directory)
> % ll /var/db/override.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 _spamd _spamd 382
Hello list,
I'm using obspamd on FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p11
spamd-4.9.1_2
It appears to be working, for the most part. obspamd is grey and
whitelisting addresses, however, it does not seem to be honoring
my whitelist. /usr/local/etc/spamd/spamd.conf has:
# $OpenBSD: spamd.conf,v 1.3 2007/
Edgar Pettijohn III
>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Okan Demirmen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed 2015.06.10 at 15:43 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
>>>>> I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf
&g
:
>>
>>> On Wed 2015.06.10 at 15:43 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
>>>> I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf
>>>> and noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
>>>>
>>>> tab
Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
>>> I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf
>>> and noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
>>>
>>> table persist
>>> table persist file "/etc/mail/nospamd"
>
On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Okan Demirmen wrote:
> On Wed 2015.06.10 at 15:43 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
>> I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf and
>> noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
>>
>>
On Wed 2015.06.10 at 15:43 -0500, Edgar Pettijohn III wrote:
> I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf and
> noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
>
> table persist
> table persist file "/etc/mail/nospamd"
>
I've been using spamd for a while now. I was looking through my pf.conf and
noticed that I had the following rules in regards to spamd.
table persist
table persist file "/etc/mail/nospamd"
pass in log on egress proto tcp from any to any port smtp \
rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port s
s I seem to
> remember thinking it was typical that microsoft were ignorant of the
> RFC's and stopped trying after hours.
>
For the last few years, MS has been playing by the rules - for sending.
They now honour MX record precedence, & pass greylisting in under a day
On 2015-05-28, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2015 17:39:11 +0100
> Craig Skinner wrote:
>
>> RFC 5321, in section "4.5.4.1. Sending Strategy" has:
>>
>>
>> ...
>> ..
>>
>>Retries continue until the message is transmitted or the sender gives
>>up; the give-up time generally
On Mon, 18 May 2015 17:39:11 +0100
Craig Skinner wrote:
> RFC 5321, in section "4.5.4.1. Sending Strategy" has:
>
>
> ...
> ..
>
>Retries continue until the message is transmitted or the sender gives
>up; the give-up time generally needs to be at least 4-5 days. .
>
>
> > Are
Oh god forgive me :-/ sorry
pfctl -t spamd -Ts ...
On 28 May 2015 at 15:46, Didier Wiroth wrote:
> Hello,
> I installed a new machine a few hours ago with a current snapshot.
> I'm running spamd in blacklist mode but I look like "spamd-setup -b"
> does not updat
Hello,
I installed a new machine a few hours ago with a current snapshot.
I'm running spamd in blacklist mode but I look like "spamd-setup -b"
does not update the spamd table.
May be I miss something ...
My rc.conf.local contains the following line:
spamd_flags="-v -b"
$
Hi OpenBSD Team,
are there any news about spamd and IPv6?
OpenSMTPD is working fine with IPv6. So there is a usecase for spamd and
IPv6 too.
This is the last status I found:
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20131022072601
Could you give me a status update?
Thank you in adv
p?
>
I didn't make notes on that, sorry.
>From memory, they honour the 4 day rule.
While 1 day greyexp time wasn't enough,
2 days works here for the big free mail providers.
If that doesn't work for you, increase it to 3 days & try again.
Once even a low (but regular)
.
> On 2015-05-18 Mon 09:26 AM |, Alex Greif wrote:
> >
> > I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
> > and have have problems with large sites that have several
> > SMTP servers but no SPF ip-address ranges.
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Bump
On 2015-05-18 Mon 09:26 AM |, Alex Greif wrote:
>
> I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
> and have have problems with large sites that have several
> SMTP servers but no SPF ip-address ranges.
Hi Alex,
Bumping up the spamd(8) greyexp time to 2-4 days wo
On Mon, 18 May 2015 09:26:13 +0200
Alex Greif wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
> and have have problems with large sites that have several
> SMTP servers but no SPF ip-address ranges.
> Sometimes I have more than 10 mail server IPs in
at the SMTP servers often change, so that IPs
> > get
> > obsolete, or new ones are set up.
>
> Again, unless they jump to addresses in totally unrelated ranges, something
> like
> the nospamd example in the spamd man page should do the trick. (I make my
> nospamd
>
dresses in totally unrelated ranges, something like
the nospamd example in the spamd man page should do the trick. (I make my
nospamd
file available at http://www.bsdly.net/~peter/nospamd if you want to start from
a
working examplei in addition to the rules from the man page)
--
Peter N. M. Hanst
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:46:19AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:26:13AM +0200, Alex Greif wrote:
> > I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
> > and have have problems with large sites that have several
> > SMTP
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:26:13AM +0200, Alex Greif wrote:
> I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
> and have have problems with large sites that have several
> SMTP servers but no SPF ip-address ranges.
> Sometimes I have more than 10 mail server IPs in th
Hi,
I am using spamd on a current installation in greylisting mode,
and have have problems with large sites that have several
SMTP servers but no SPF ip-address ranges.
Sometimes I have more than 10 mail server IPs in the greylisted
in spamdb, from the same (friend) email address, and the the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:50:52PM +, Craig Skinner wrote:
| Don't trust SPF;- last time I looked, Google listed about 78,000 ips.
| Liars. Their HR PCs, routers, web servers, tape silos, visitor lobby
| Wifi zones aren't valid senders.
Only 78000 IPs? I think you're off by either a factor of
On 2015-02-23 Mon 22:38 PM |, F Bax wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I whitelisted the ip addresses for mta[567].
> am0.yahoodns.net ; but email from yahoo still gets bounced.
>
Email is not instant messaging.
I don't bother with whitelisting, but rather set the spamd(8) grey
On February 23, 2015 10:38:37 PM EST, F Bax wrote:
>Thanks for the suggestion. I whitelisted the ip addresses for mta[567].
>am0.yahoodns.net ; but email from yahoo still gets bounced. Is there
>an
>easy way to find all the other sources at yahoo?
>
>The message bounced back to yahoo contains...
Thanks for the suggestion. I whitelisted the ip addresses for mta[567].
am0.yahoodns.net ; but email from yahoo still gets bounced. Is there an
easy way to find all the other sources at yahoo?
The message bounced back to yahoo contains...
Received: from [66.196.81.173] by nm34.bullet.mail.bf1.yah
of the published "greylisting whitelists"
were refusing to accept submitted /24's.
spamd doesn't do this, it does a full match on the IP address,
so this type of sender configuration introduces bigger delays
(and sometimes total failures) with spamd, especially on smaller
receiv
Am 2015-02-21 23:51, schrieb F Bax:
In this archived message; Peter explains here how to get ip address for
various gmail servers - which can then be added to whitelist...
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=136449396910976&w=2
When I try this process for yahoo.com; I get
Why you'd like to whi
> Just because you send mail to Yahoo through those IPs doesn't mean they
> send mail to you from those IPs. It's not unheard of for incoming and
> outgoing mail to go through different servers once you get to a certain
> size.
Exactly. Some institutions even delegate
both incomming and outgoing m
On 02/21/15 18:29, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
On 02/21/15 18:09, trondd wrote:
On 2015-02-21 18:57, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
That doesn't mean you can't find the information somewhere else.
I just did this for gmail by simply sending a couple emails, letting
gmail retr
Edgar Pettijohn wrote:
> On 02/21/15 18:09, trondd wrote:
> > On 2015-02-21 18:57, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
> >> That doesn't mean you can't find the information somewhere else.
> >>
> >
> > I just did this for gmail by simply sending a couple emails, letting
> > gmail retry for a couple hours an
On 02/21/15 18:09, trondd wrote:
On 2015-02-21 18:57, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
That doesn't mean you can't find the information somewhere else.
I just did this for gmail by simply sending a couple emails, letting
gmail retry for a couple hours and grabbing the IPs out of spamdb.
Tim.
$
On 2015-02-21 18:57, Martin Brandenburg wrote:
That doesn't mean you can't find the information somewhere else.
I just did this for gmail by simply sending a couple emails, letting
gmail retry for a couple hours and grabbing the IPs out of spamdb.
Tim.
> From owner-misc+M146963=martin=martinbrandenburg@openbsd.org Sat Feb 21
> 23:48:17 2015
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:51:28 -0500
> Message-ID:
>
> Subject: spamd whitelist
> From: F Bax
> To: OpenBSD
> List-ID:
>
> In this archived message; Peter explai
In this archived message; Peter explains here how to get ip address for
various gmail servers - which can then be added to whitelist...
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=136449396910976&w=2
When I try this process for yahoo.com; I get
$ host -ttxt yahoo.com
yahoo.com descriptive text "v=spf1 re
> Oops. I see that now. Then how do I see what IPs are blacklisted
> without becoming a human version of spamd-setup(8)?
If running spamd in default mode ...
1. spamdb(8), TRAPPED entries.
2. The spamd.conf(5) file is read by spamd-setup(8) to configure
blacklists for spamd(8).
I
urse that only produces limited results until
backfilled with operational experience.
spamdb(8) indicates 4 different entry types.
"BLACK" is not an entry type.
Oops. I see that now. Then how do I see what IPs are blacklisted
without becoming a human version of spamd-setup(8)?
I would
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:11:23 -0500
> From: Adam Thompson
> To: OpenBSD-misc list
>
> I've finally started using spamd on a new mail server, and am seeing
> some results that I don't understand. (I'm also using smtpd(8) now, so
> this is all new softwar
I've finally started using spamd on a new mail server, and am seeing
some results that I don't understand. (I'm also using smtpd(8) now, so
this is all new software to me...)
1 - spamdb(8) shows nothing but WHITE-listed entries
2 - but spamd(8) (running with -v -G 2:4:864) lo
Hi,
I'm using spamd in greylisting mode to fight against spam. I saw in
my /var/log/daemon that it couldn't go through spamd and keep being
rejected (and then go through my MX2).
It's just to let you know in case you changed something on it recently
(sendmail -> smtpd ?). I
t contains addresses of legitimate hosts that temporarily
send spam. (I've found that keeping these addresses tarpitted longer is
counterproductive.)
This blacklist specifies single addresses (not blocks), so I could
add/update all these addresses as TRAPPED entries in /var/db/spamd, but
that would ma
On 12/11/13 21:23, Maurice Janssen wrote:
On 12/11/13 21:06, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 12/10/13 21:38, Maurice Janssen wrote:
How about this (and of course remove the spamd-setup bits from /etc/rc):
--- spamd.orig Tue Dec 10 21:24:48 2013
+++ spamd Tue Dec 10 21:24:14 2013
@@ -15,4
On 12/11/13 21:06, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 12/10/13 21:38, Maurice Janssen wrote:
How about this (and of course remove the spamd-setup bits from /etc/rc):
--- spamd.orig Tue Dec 10 21:24:48 2013
+++ spamd Tue Dec 10 21:24:14 2013
@@ -15,4 +15,12 @@
return 0
}
+rc_start
uot;NO" ]; then
/usr/libexec/spamd-setup -D
fi
Indeed, please suggest a diff.
Maybe we should just incorporate that into /etc/rc.d/spamd instead?
This has worked OK for me for a few months:
Index: rc
===
RCS file: /cvs/src
On 12/10/13 14:03, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
On 2013-12-10 Tue 09:26 AM |, Alexander Hall wrote:
The OP is referring to this part of /etc/rc, which has nothing to do
with neither crontab nor /etc/rc.d/*.
if [ X"${spamd_flags}" != X"NO" ]; then
/usr/libexec/spamd
On 12/10/13 14:03, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
On 2013-12-10 Tue 09:26 AM |, Alexander Hall wrote:
The OP is referring to this part of /etc/rc, which has nothing to do
with neither crontab nor /etc/rc.d/*.
if [ X"${spamd_flags}" != X"NO" ]; then
/usr/libexec/spamd
On 2013-12-10 Tue 09:26 AM |, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> The OP is referring to this part of /etc/rc, which has nothing to do
> with neither crontab nor /etc/rc.d/*.
>
> if [ X"${spamd_flags}" != X"NO" ]; then
> /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -D
&
On 12/10/13 08:28, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:35:36PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
On 12/09/13 08:41, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Hi,
If I understand the man pages correctly, you should start both spamd and
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:35:36PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
> On 12/09/13 08:41, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>If I understand the man pages correctly, you should start both s
On 12/09/13 08:41, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Hi,
If I understand the man pages correctly, you should start both spamd and
spamd-setup with the -b option when you want to use spamd in blacklist only
mode.
In /etc/rc.d/spamd, the -b
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Maurice Janssen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I understand the man pages correctly, you should start both spamd and
> spamd-setup with the -b option when you want to use spamd in blacklist only
> mode.
> In /etc/rc.d/spamd, the -b option is
Hi,
If I understand the man pages correctly, you should start both spamd and
spamd-setup with the -b option when you want to use spamd in blacklist
only mode.
In /etc/rc.d/spamd, the -b option is set when you have spamd_black=yes
in your rc.conf.local.
However, spamd-setup is always started
On 24.11.2013, at 15:40, Mihai Popescu wrote:
...
> As for the original poster, the author tried to find out a repulsive
...
We all got it and there's is no need to continue with this annoying thread.
OK? Thanks.
Reyk
ly from a hard one or USB "sticks" is awkward.
And the list can continue.
As for the original poster, the author tried to find out a repulsive
address since this is about spamd( i. e. spammers are using "get quick
attention" email addresses. People find sex and religion very annoying
on internet, hence the author made out a mix of the two. Big deal.
Mihai Popescu [mih...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Is it over? So soon?
Mihai,
I find your name quite offensive. Can you please change it
in future mailings to this list. Perhaps "Mihai Humpingforjesus" ?
That would make me feel much better.
Is it over? So soon?
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
>>
>>> Il 22/nov/2013 19:07 "J. Lewis Muir" ha scritto:
>>>> On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>>>>> If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd m
On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with
the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life
happy. Remember to always take this pill again on 1st of May, and 1st
of November, every year.
Hi, Giancarlo.
Wel
> It looks like a pretty one-sided deal you're proposing:
> passive-aggressive moves to control the speech of those who have
> respected your freedom to express your opinion and be heard. Pretty
> damned selfish behavior on your part as far as I can tell.
Michael -- well said.
On Nov 22, 2013, at 10:06 AM, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>> If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with
>> the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life
>> happy. Remember to always take
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> > If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with
> > the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life
> > happy. Remember to always take thi
On 22 November 2013 10:06, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> On 11/22/13 11:17 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>> If it's offensive for you, compile your own spamd man page with
>> the diff you so happily provided, and live the rest of your life
>> happy. Remember to always take thi
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:48:02PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure Bob has noticed (and likely quite some time ago
> ignored) this conversation.
>
> You made your point and argumented for it. It does not apply here
> though, so stop. Now. Please.
>
Actually, the longer it runs,
that the author has used the "offensive" language ON PURPOSE.
I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need
to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need
to read in order to understand how to use spamd. And if the author of
the s
J. Lewis Muir wrote:
If it's somehow offensive to them
and can be changed in a small way not to be, then I would accept the
patch to change it. Everybody wins--no big deal.
If everybody adapts what they say, to what they think others want to
hear, then we no longer have freedom of speach. Eve
On Nov 21 20:04:32, gil...@poolp.org wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, za...@gmx.com wrote:
> > Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it
> > would be better to remove anything that is controversial, for
> > whatever reason
You emails are controversial, ap
> > I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need
> > to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need
> > to read in order to understand how to use spamd.
>
> Let me fix that for you:
>
> "The spamd(8
> 2) OpenBSD is the ultimate volunteer effort -- the developers do it in
> their "free" time FOR PERSONAL FUN. Many of them have made it very
> clear that they would cease development if it stops being fun. Your
> original message (title and intro) goes to the heart of this issue. Its
> tone an
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:09:36PM -0600, J. Lewis Muir wrote:
> I don't see it that way. Huckleberry Finn is a book, and I don't need
> to read it unless I want to. The spamd(8) man page is a man page I need
> to read in order to understand how to use spamd.
Let me fix
201 - 300 of 1547 matches
Mail list logo
