Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-07 Thread Eric Cox
clemensF wrote: > > > wolfgang zeikat: > > > http://spamcop.net offers handy online forms > > i have used all sorts of anti-spam tricks, but presently i just look at the > headers of a spam-mail trying to spot from which domain it really originated > by scanning the recieved-lines and use "[EMA

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-06 Thread clemensF
> David Benfell: > As I recall, the argument is that by responding, you confirm that the > e-mail address is valid. I can't say I've dealt with enough spam to > have relevant experience. i've had spamming for just surfing around the 'net, and it grew worse occasionally when i tried to avoid it

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread David Benfell
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 09:41:50PM +0200, clemensF wrote: > > that's dangerous. my experience told me never to answer suspect spammers. > As I recall, the argument is that by responding, you confirm that the e-mail address is valid. I can't say I've dealt with enough spam to have relevant expe

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread clemensF
> Cyril Bitterich: > But there is a good Point in you proposal. Maybe you just wanted to > reject the mail with a notification that you do not accept this mail > because they are not sent via Hotmail. that's dangerous. my experience told me never to answer suspect spammers. clemens

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread clemensF
> Rogerio Brito: > For instance, all my e-mails use iname.com as the envelope and > as the From: field, but I don't send mail from them (in fact, > they are in another country); I use my ISP's relays. my spam peeked up when i got myself an iname.com-account. i think they sell

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread clemensF
> wolfgang zeikat: > http://spamcop.net offers handy online forms i have used all sorts of anti-spam tricks, but presently i just look at the headers of a spam-mail trying to spot from which domain it really originated by scanning the recieved-lines and use "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as well as postmas

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread Paul Jarc
Cerberus - the Guardian of Hades writes: > i need to unsubscribe: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > from this list as he is no longer a user at this server. please help. 0. Arrange for mail to those addresses to be delivered somewhere where you can get to it.

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread Rogerio Brito
On Jul 04 2000, Markus Stumpf wrote: > But this is exactly the point. > Valid (e.g.!!!) hotmail.com eMails should come from an outgoing > hotmail.com smtp server. If they don't they're most probably faked > sender addresses used by spammers. No, they should not. For instance, all

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread Cerberus - the Guardian of Hades
i need to unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] from this list as he is no longer a user at this server. please help. regards, mark On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Erwin Hoffmann wrote: > Hi again, > > At 22:37 4.7.2000 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >Erwin Hoffmann wrote:

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread wolfgang zeikat
this is a bit off topic, but i consider it useful anyway ... http://spamcop.net offers handy online forms that process spam mails (do whois / dns lookups) and prepare a ready-to-send complaint emails with choices which ISP/Mail Server to send them to ... i use it a lot with spam arriving in our d

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-05 Thread Erwin Hoffmann
Hi again, At 22:37 4.7.2000 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >Erwin Hoffmann wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> since I'm dealing with the SPAMCONTROL patch, I would like to comment your >> problem: >> >> 1. You are right. Within the filtering mechanisms a logical "AND" scheme is >> missing. To implement thi

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread John Conover
Hi Markus. Or, your users can put the following in their individual ~/.procmailrc: :0 * ? test -f "${HOME}/.procmail.reject" * ? formail -c -x received: | fgrep -i -s -f "${HOME}/.procmail.reject" /dev/null where ${HOME}/.procmail.reject is a record list of the form: [123.32

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Eric Cox
Markus Stumpf wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 01:17:46PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > > This would block a lot of valid mail as well. I frequently send mail from > > a given machine using a different (but valid) envelope sender -- and I will > > sometimes use my Hotmail address if I am a

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Cyril Bitterich
Hi Marcus, > existance of e.g. >/var/qmail/control/knownsmpt/hotmail.com > in case the sender domain is hotmail.com, read from the file a list > of IP addresses and accept the mail, if TCPREMOTEIP is on the list > or deny it otherwise (hard or temporary, one's milleage may vary). [...] > Any

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Markus Stumpf
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 01:17:46PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > This would block a lot of valid mail as well. I frequently send mail from > a given machine using a different (but valid) envelope sender -- and I will > sometimes use my Hotmail address if I am afraid that I might end up on > the

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Andre Oppermann
Erwin Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > since I'm dealing with the SPAMCONTROL patch, I would like to comment your > problem: > > 1. You are right. Within the filtering mechanisms a logical "AND" scheme is > missing. To implement this requires some attention. > > 2. Principally the following checks

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Erwin Hoffmann
Hi, since I'm dealing with the SPAMCONTROL patch, I would like to comment your problem: 1. You are right. Within the filtering mechanisms a logical "AND" scheme is missing. To implement this requires some attention. 2. Principally the following checks could be applied: Logic: a) The envelope's

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Charles Cazabon
Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But this is exactly the point. > Valid (e.g.!!!) hotmail.com eMails should come from an outgoing > hotmail.com smtp server. If they don't they're most probably faked > sender addresses used by spammers. > There is not any switch of tcpserver that helps

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Markus Stumpf
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 11:23:05AM -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote: > You might want to look at MAPS RSS and MAPS DUL too. We use > RBL+RSS+DUL. This was an example. Ok... they use a relay open mailserver that is on no list yet. > See the tcpserver man page at http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.htm

Re: spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Ronny Haryanto
On 04-Jul-2000, Markus Stumpf wrote: > we have the problem that we receive a lot of spam with sender addresses > e.g. @hotmail.com but the mail is relayed via open relay mailservers > (not on e.g. mail-abuse RBL). You might want to look at MAPS RSS and MAPS DUL too. We use RBL+RSS+DUL. > I think

spam and well known smtp servers

2000-07-04 Thread Markus Stumpf
Hoi folx, we have the problem that we receive a lot of spam with sender addresses e.g. @hotmail.com but the mail is relayed via open relay mailservers (not on e.g. mail-abuse RBL). I think it would not be too hard to hack qmail-smtpd to check for the existance of e.g. /var/qmail/control/known