On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
> For reasons I am still investigating, I did not receive razor-users mail
> for the last two weeks. I just caught up on the censorship thread, which
> I believe is rapidly losing its signal/noise ratio. Shane Williams
> recently posted a nice clarific
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:58:02AM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
> If someone deliberately gamed Razor and used is to flag EFF's email (or
> anyone else's for example) as spam it could be considered a denial of
> service attack.
And what would you do then, Marc?
--
Shawn McMahon | Imagin
On Friday 28 February 2003 12:00 pm, Marc Perkel wrote:
> If I understand it right. All someone would have to do to plack a
> newsletter they didn't like is to subscribe the newsletter to a honeypot
> account.
>
> In the case of a double opt-in system they would create an email alias
> pointing to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vipul Ved
> Prakash
...
> 2) The upcoming SpamNet upgrade has a new feature called "auto-unblock"
>that learns from people's behavior and automatically unblocks
>newsletters/lists people have chos
Hi,
For reasons I am still investigating, I did not receive razor-users mail
for the last two weeks. I just caught up on the censorship thread, which
I believe is rapidly losing its signal/noise ratio. Shane Williams
recently posted a nice clarification, and I'd like to injerject a couple
of poin
Thanks - and - we are talking about adding double opt-in to set a good
example - but I still don't think that's the problem. We are also
working to help craft a technical solution.
Bill Sobel wrote:
Your list management sucks, and if you are unwilling to meet halfway and
fix your crap why
> Your list management sucks, and if you are unwilling to meet halfway and
fix your crap why should anyone here
care to help you?
Not defending Marc, but I do want to point out, even if the list was setup
perfectly some of those 30k users are going to wind up reporting the
newsletter to Razor (som
Jason Borgmann wrote:
> Though I am curious, I haven't seen Jordan or Vipul respond in any way
> to this issue. Does anyone know where they stand? Thanks.
It appears that they recognize Marc for the tedious, clueless fool he is,
and are avoiding the subject. Smart move.
rOD.
--
"I'll hide so
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:11:51PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> This of course is meaningless since it's what the cf level was when it
> came in.
Brain and fingers not communicating fully...
What I meant was "This of course is meaningless. What is important is
what the cf level was when the m
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:58:10PM -0600, Jason Borgmann wrote:
> I have tried to get Marc to send me a copy of EFFector but he seems to
> refuse. I wanted to see what the cf rating was on it.
Well, if I check right now, the last 4 (starting with the most recent):
mail 1.0 e=2 sig=4vSKtqmPMPqAYS
>One of our board members - John Gillmore - (If you've heard of the
>"alt" news groups - John started alt and is one of the founders of
>EFF.) -
>John says:
>Our stated policy is that antispam measures' first goal should be to
>deliver every non-spam message to its destination.
Which is exactly
It cotinues to amaze me that an EFF employee can be som completely
ignorant of the distinction between the authors of the software, the
code itself, and how that code is used by the public. Is this NOT the
very distinction that the EFF is trying to pound into the heads of
Congressmen so that media
If I understand it right. All someone would have to do to plack a
newsletter they didn't like is to subscribe the newsletter to a honeypot
account.
In the case of a double opt-in system they would create an email alias
pointing to themselves, subscrive to the double opt-in list. The point
the
I was just saying that if they are using SA and Razor and all that jazz
to filter spam, and still had 1500 message of which 90% was spam, they
might as well give up on that address and get a new and turn it into a
honeypot.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Getting on the soapbox...
I am not picking on anyone in particular, but the tone of discussion the
last few days largely stinks.
Most of the messages triggered by the "EFF issue" (more properly, the "false
positive issue") read to me as though the most important thing is to
determine whether EFF
Theo Van Dinter said:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:11:58PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > I wonder what percentage of Razor users use it via SpamAssassin. If
> > it's most, EFF could become a bonded sender, assuming they were willing
> > to clean up their act enough to join.
>
> Ditto for Habe
Rose, Bobby said:
> Wow if they come home to 1500 of which 90% is spam and they're bouncing
> mail based on razor results, then they might as well turn that into a
> honeypot account and get an new address. ;-)
Hold on there -- that's exactly one source of all this noise.
If a honeypot account
If someone deliberately gamed Razor and used is to flag EFF's email (or
anyone else's for example) as spam it could be considered a denial of
service attack.
Shawn McMahon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:42:37PM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
I would strongly recommend against deliberately block
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:57:58AM -0500, Jason Englander wrote:
> Can someone please create a "Razor Censoring EFF's Newsletter" list and
> move all of these f*&#^$g posts over to it?
Why not let e.g. procmail put all that 'censor' and 'EFF' *sense
into an extrabox, I'm doing this already for the
Amen, brother.. my delete button is starting to wear out.
Etienne Portier
SysAdmin
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GAT d- s: a C++ ULBS P+++ L+++ E--- W+ N++ o++ K- w---
O- M-- V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+ 5+++ X+ R+++ tv+ b DI+ D++
G++ e* h* r+++ z+++
--END GEEK CODE BLO
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shawn
> McMahon
...
> I have no survey data to back this up, but I suspect that a rather large
> percentage of Razor users don't bother to submit something that's
> already listed as spam. However, it sh
Can someone please create a "Razor Censoring EFF's Newsletter" list and
move all of these f*&#^$g posts over to it?
--
Jason Englander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
394F 7E02 C105 7268 777A 3F5A 0AC0 C618 0675 80CA
---
This sf.net email is sponsored b
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:38:03PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> To continue to repeat myself - show me where the complainer is a person
> who is receiving email that they didn't subscribe to and I will remove
> that person from the list. EFF has an opt-in system and an easy way to
> opt-out.
But
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:05:10PM -0800, Marc Perkel elucidated:
> One of our board members - John Gillmore - (If you've heard of the "alt"
> news groups - John started alt and is one of the founders of EFF.) -
>
> John says:
>
> Our stated policy is that antispam measures' first goal should be
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:04:34PM -0800, Nick Arnett said:
>
> It seems like it would relatively simple for Razor to do a sort of
> double-check on any reported signature to see how many users did not
> consider the related e-mail to be spam. It could even do something like the
Razor's goal is
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:42:37PM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
> I would strongly recommend against deliberately blocking the EFF mailing
> list.
And why is that, Marc? Are you implying some kind of consequence now?
--
Shawn McMahon | Imagine people who are just subscribing coming
Epi
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:05:35PM -0800, Nick Arnett said:
>
> Another thought... wouldn't it be possible to capture the percentage of
> people who received a given e-mail but did not submit it as spam (of the
> people who regularly submit, of course)? Thus, the system could see that
I have no
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Marc Perkel wrote:
> One of our board members - John Gillmore - (If you've heard of the "alt"
> news groups - John started alt and is one of the founders of EFF.) -
That's nothing, I invented pants.
>
> John says:
>
> Our stated policy is that antispam measures' first goal sh
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Except that EFF is not spam. The burden of proof is on Razor. You have
> to show me that is the reason it was listed. If you can't then you are
> merely guessing.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
There's also the confidence factor...even Spamassassin is using that and
scoring based on a cf range. But the cf factor is yet again something
set by the user/sysadmin.
-Original Message-
From: Santiago Vila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 7:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PRO
> Razor2 uses drand48(). I believe the Win32 equivalent is erand48()
Well, for my own PC, I have edited Ephemeral.pm so that it sets the
values of @rel_lineno, @rel_offset1 and @rel_offset2 explicitly rather
than computes them. But this fix will only work as long as all servers
have ep4=7542.
Eug
> > > To continue to repeat myself - show me where the complainer is a person
> > > who is receiving email that they didn't subscribe to and I will remove
> > > that person from the list. EFF has an opt-in system and an easy way to
> > > opt-out.
> >
> > Marc, you do not realize that this is *exact
Marc Perkel wrote:
Except that EFF is not spam. The burden of proof is on Razor. You have
to show me that is the reason it was
That's funny. I got exactly the same claim the other day when someone
wanted to sell me a ps extension. Apparently I was opt-ed in for
that as well. And hispeedem
33 matches
Mail list logo
