..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a gun
your way, you do not want the police doing _anything_ about it?
I mean, seriously, I don't like to flame ANYONE, but that has got to be
the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Matter of fact,
I feel dumber
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
lethal (thank God!).
-Shane
yet
it's becoming a distinction without a difference
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:58:16 -0400,
Bill Marcum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:56:59AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a
gun your way, you do not want the police doing _anything_
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
lethal (thank God!).
-Shane
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
yet
it's becoming a distinction
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
lethal (thank God!).
-Shane
On Wednesday
Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
lethal (thank God!).
-Shane
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
yet
it's becoming a distinction without a difference
WTF is this supposed to mean?
Starting to think Tom is on this list for
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:49:09PM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
it's becoming for Tom, sentances without purpose.
Aw, you're just mad because in your circles everybody agrees with you
about the war, and you met somebody who gave you good arguments.
It bugs you, so you attack the person.
--
To
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
lethal (thank God!).
-Shane
On Wednesday
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:12:24PM -0700, Tom Ballard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
it's becoming a distinction without a difference
WTF is this supposed to mean?
Starting to think Tom is on
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
Um. Can't speak for everyone else, but I think that being dead would be
somewhat more disruptive to my normal course of events than having my
mailbox flooded.
You're focusing on the thousands that died in the towers and at the
-Original Message-
From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 1:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on spam
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:58:16 -0400,
Bill Marcum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Oct 20
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
I'm left wondering what kind of person could seriously claim that
there's no significant difference between the deliberate killing of
civilians and junk mail.
Granted, it's a stretch. That's why I said yet -- not what's coming
out
Joyce, Matthew writes:
Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
Marketing is about _convincing_ people to buy stuff.
If it were allowed, some tv stations would use picture-in-picture to
always have ads running while you watch tv.
AFAIK that is entirely legal in the US, and yet it isn't
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:28:57AM +1000, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
Spam is just marketing.
SWEN isn't marketing. Part of this is about SWEN (and other similar
viruses/worms).
Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
Terrorism is about scaring people.
imo we need to move towards a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:28:57AM +1000, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
Spam is just marketing.
SWEN isn't marketing. Part of this is about SWEN (and
other similar viruses/worms).
SWEN is about propogating a spam delivery system.
Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
Terrorism
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
Um. Can't speak for everyone else, but I think that being dead would be
somewhat more disruptive to my normal course of events than having my
mailbox flooded.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:56:59AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a gun
your way, you do not want the police doing _anything_ about it?
How many people have been killed by swen? Should the US shut down all
internet traffic like
On 19 Oct 2003, John Hasler wrote:
Paul E Condon writes:
It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
advocates of spam?
Almost all spam has forged headers. The domains are real and valid but
On Monday 20 October 2003 09:02, Anthony Campbell wrote:
I've realized recently that I'm inadvertently sending out lots of spam.
I'd obviously wish to prevent this but how? I've been to the site you
recommend but I find the information there too complex for me to be sure
how to do it; it
On 20 Oct 2003, Alan Chandler wrote:
On Monday 20 October 2003 09:02, Anthony Campbell wrote:
I've realized recently that I'm inadvertently sending out lots of spam.
I'd obviously wish to prevent this but how? I've been to the site you
recommend but I find the information there too
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:47:57PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
Why does debian.org expose end-users email addresses for spammers or
virus-spreaders to utilize?
Because there are readily available, easily implimented solutions to
both problems that
On Monday 20 October 2003 11:23 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
Stop trying to fix the problem by changing everyone else, instead,
secure your system against these kinds of attacks. Duh.
He is not trying to change everyone else, he's trying to change this list
defaults. I think that the decision of
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 14:03 GMT, Anthony Campbell penned:
The problem has appeared in the last few weeks, since when I've been
seeing an increasing number of messages to say that outgoing mail has
not been delivered (see below for some examples). None of these are
messages I have sent
On 20 Oct 2003, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 14:03 GMT, Anthony Campbell penned:
The problem has appeared in the last few weeks, since when I've been
seeing an increasing number of messages to say that outgoing mail has
not been delivered (see below for some examples).
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:28, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
On Saturday 18 October 2003 03:53, cr wrote:
I'm using Kmail 1.3.2 in KDE 2.2.2. in Woody. I thought that POP
filter was a feature that was only in Kmail 2.
True, true - that version doesn't have POP filters yet IIRC. It's not
KMail
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:20:15 +0800, Pigeon wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 06:57:40PM +0800, Brian Walker wrote:
Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
letting spamassassin get to work?
mailfilter operates on the POP3 mailbox on the remote server, not on
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:23:39PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:56:26AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
What does this have to do with spam? It bemuses and befuddles me to
observe extremely
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:45:40AM -0400, Jeff Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm getting hundreds and hundreds of hits daily. This Earthlink
address is now almost all-swen all-the-time, except for debian and
zaurus email.
I'm a fellow Earthlink subscriber (originally Netcom, through a
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:41:16PM -0400, Jeff Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 11:59 am, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
Not to mention, swen harvests addresses from usenet, not the web archives
(or so I'm told).
I haven't seen these reports. Even if so (and I'm
On Friday 17 October 2003 04:13 am, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
It's a nasty problem that shouldn't be minimized. Many users
won't (or can't)
take heroic steps (spamassassin,mailfilter,etc) but will
abandon the list as a resource instead.
My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per day since my last
post here around six weeks ago. I posted last night (helping
someone fight Swen), and this morning, there were 20+ Swens, over 3
Megabytes. I was *that* close to losing e-mail. Never again.
I get about 2 'real'
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
For the sake of the list, please change the policy of posting
e-mail addresses on the web and in news groups.
For the sake of the open community, for accountability and the benefit
of the Debian community please _do not_ change the
--- klaus imgrund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per
day since my last
post here around six weeks ago. I posted last
night (helping
someone fight Swen), and this morning, there were
20+ Swens, over 3
Megabytes. I was *that* close to
On Sunday 19 October 2003 13:50, Sidney Brooks wrote:
--- klaus imgrund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per
day since my last
post here around six weeks ago. I posted last
night (helping
someone fight Swen), and this morning, there
--- klaus imgrund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 19 October 2003 13:50, Sidney Brooks
wrote:
--- klaus imgrund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one
per
day since my last
post here around six weeks ago. I posted last
night
Dave Harding writes:
Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
providers?
Some of us have no choice as to providers.
Did you write to ... your senator/congressperson (or any elected
officials that are part of your government)?
They are certain to do more harm
It is easy for you to say. I live in a rural area
where we are lucky to have one ISP.
I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many people
are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10 miles from
town and got adsl : -) - hell,we are supposed to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:21:50PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Realize, however, that your security is lost the second someone
manages to post it.
Another reason munging just doesn't work.
I prefer locking down my systems against the crud, but
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 04:13 am, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
It's a nasty problem that shouldn't be minimized. Many users
won't (or can't)
take heroic steps
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
advocates of spam? If we had collections of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they limit us to a
couple of megabytes. Not everyone can afford DSL,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:50:53AM -0700, Sidney Brooks wrote:
Here is a suggested comprise. Let Debian set up two
different debian-user lists, one with and one without
posting of addresses. Let Debian warn new users of the
situation and let them
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 14:20 GMT, David Crane penned:
For the sake of the list, please change the policy of posting e-mail
addresses on the web and in news groups.
We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they limit
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
what extent is this actually true? Or is this just
Sidney Brooks writes:
The price has been the endless spam, almost all which has either MS or
Microsoft in the return addresses.
That's not spam. That's Swen worms. Your ISP could filter it (but
probably won't).
Here is a suggested comprise. Let Debian set up two different debian-user
klaus imgrund writes:
Anyway,some kind of forum kind of deal instead of a mailing list would
probably help but this will not happen.
I certainly hope not. With a shared dialup I would not be able to
participate even if I wanted to.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
what extent is this actually true? Or is this just
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:53:51AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they limit us to a
couple of megabytes. Not
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Tom wrote:
I think a more precise definition might be unsolicited commercial or
organizational email from a source in which I have no interest.
If I respect an organization, I'll read what it sends me. The problem
is too many organizations think
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:03:13PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Sidney Brooks writes:
The price has been the endless spam, almost all which has either MS or
Microsoft in the return addresses.
That's not spam. That's Swen worms. Your ISP could filter it (but
probably won't).
Here is a
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:46:16AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
That the swen volume picked up over a few hours may indicate that
the swen virus writer is actually subscribed to the list and harvesting
email addresses from his own incoming email. Or maybe each copy
of swen is subscribing. It is
Paul E Condon writes:
It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
advocates of spam?
Almost all spam has forged headers. The domains are real and valid but are
being used without the knowledge or
klaus imgrund writes:
I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many
people are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10
miles from town and got adsl
How large is the town you are ten miles from? The population density of
the US is much lower than
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 09:51:43AM -0700, Sidney Brooks wrote:
It is easy for you to say. I live in a rural area
where we are lucky to have one ISP.
You can get email service from a different company than the one that
provides you with dial-up service. This may cost a few dollars a month
but is
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 18:10 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:53:51AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Why not just ask your ISP to reject virus infected email at SMTP time,
or switch to one that does? That's the obvious solution...
Obvious solutions to other peoples'
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:18:57PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Dave Harding writes:
Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
providers?
Some of us have no choice as to providers.
You may have no choice as to who provides your internet connection (e.g.
dialup,
Paul E Condon writes:
What I think is needed is an 'operational' definition of spam, i.e. one
that be coded into an automaton.
Claims to be from a domain which has not authorized the originating IP
number to use it works for me. This would not eliminate all spam, but it
would make the
Paul E Condon writes:
How do you KNOW where Swen is getting the addresses?
By following the link Karsten posted to an article by an anti-virus vendor
who has studied it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Bijan writes:
Heck if you paid me $10-$15 a month I could give you a couple of hundred
megabytes of pop/imap/webmail mail, complete with filtering and all
I cannot afford another $10-$15 a month. I also am not completely
dissatisfied with my ISPs service. They are totally unresponsive, but on
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:52:47PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Bijan writes:
Heck if you paid me $10-$15 a month I could give you a couple of hundred
megabytes of pop/imap/webmail mail, complete with filtering and all
I cannot afford another $10-$15 a month. I also am not completely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:10:47PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
Obvious solutions to other peoples' problems sometimes miss addressing
an issue that was so obvious to the aflicted person that they did not
mention it. Many of us have brain dead ISPs.
Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that
spam is a tool for attacking the U. S. (yes to some
this will seem provincial) by crippling what has
become a major means of communication. It can also be
a tool to repress ideas that you don't agree with,
e.g. if someone writes a message in
On Sunday 19 October 2003 16:44, John Hasler wrote:
klaus imgrund writes:
I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many
people are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10
miles from town and got adsl
How large is the town you are ten miles
Sidney Brooks writes:
Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that spam is a tool for
attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem provincial) by crippling
what has become a major means of communication.
Much if not most spam originates in the US.
yes to some this will seem
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Sidney Brooks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that spam is a tool
for attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem provincial) by
crippling what has become a major means of communication. It can also
be a
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I like this suggestion. I know I don't know a lot about what spam
really is. I sense from reading this thread that others also don't
know a lot. Some do, but many don't. So research that results in firm
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:18:57PM -0500, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Dave Harding writes:
Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
providers?
Some of us have no choice as to providers.
email != connectivity.
If nothing else, find a friend with
--- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sidney Brooks writes:
Surely, I am not the only person who has thought
that spam is a tool for
attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem
provincial) by crippling
what has become a major means of communication.
Much if not most spam
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:23:16 -0400,
Dave Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Tom wrote:
I think a more precise definition might be unsolicited commercial
or organizational email from a source in which I have no interest.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 23:17 GMT, Sidney Brooks penned:
--- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much if not most spam originates in the US.
So what? Where it originates doesn't matter, it is the purpose.
Well, for one thing, I believe it affects the legal recourse and
jurisdiction.
--
This discussion has been enlightening and many of the posters have raised
excellent points. However, I'm still confused on what seems to me to a basic
issue:
Why does debian.org expose end-users email addresses for spammers or
virus-spreaders to utilize?
For the life of me, I don't understand
Sorry Jeff,
..I hit the wrong triggah. ;-)
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:47:57 -0400,
Jeff Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Swen is only the beginning. However, it's the harbinger of things to
come that will destroy the utility of public listservs unless policies
are
On Saturday 18 October 2003 03:53, cr wrote:
I'm using Kmail 1.3.2 in KDE 2.2.2. in Woody. I thought that POP
filter was a feature that was only in Kmail 2.
True, true - that version doesn't have POP filters yet IIRC. It's not
KMail 2, though, they just went on with 1.4 and are now at
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 at 05:27 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I am not a reference material; I am a person who
occasionally, when I have the time and inclination, tries to help out
others on public fora. If someone has a question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:46:53PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
Do you have logs of the addresses you've sent to? If so, is my
address in there? How about any other address at my domain[1]? I've
certainly gotten enough you sent us swen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
I think I do not understand how to make such a determination about where
my mail is actually coming from. I
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:20:08 +0800, Wayne Topa wrote:
Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:24 +0800, John Hasler wrote:
As for getting spamassassin installed, I will fumble a bit in the dark,
despite the instructions, and scream for help in a
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:39:27AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
I think I do not understand how to make such a determination about where
my mail is actually
Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
letting spamassassin get to work? What about the line to add to delete
swen messages?
Yes - see /usr/share/doc/mailfilter/FAQ.gz
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 01:03:10AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 at 05:27 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
I am not a reference material; I am a person who
occasionally, when I have the time and inclination,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:49:57AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
You presume to much about my knowledge. I use mutt. I turn on full headers.
Which line in what I see is the 'envelope from'? Which are the 'Received: headers'?
Are there also headers
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:15:21AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
letting spamassassin get to work? What about the line to add to
This is a bit OT, but here goes ...
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
...
What does this have to do with spam? It bemuses and befuddles me to
observe extremely intelligent people to swatting the air with tools like
spamassassin, when the correct solution lies elsewhere.
Ross Boylan([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:15:21AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 06:57:40PM +0800, Brian Walker wrote:
Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
letting spamassassin get to work?
mailfilter operates on the POP3 mailbox on the remote server, not on
stuff you've already retrieved. You can add 'preconnect
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:49:57AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:39:27AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
I think I do not understand
Sure, if I delete the spam, the spam will be deleted.
But having to delete the spam *is* the problem, not the solution. The
problem is, you go to bed, and in the morning there are 250 154K
messages that have to be downloaded, seeked and erased, or worse, seeked
and erased with a not-too-fast
On Thursday 16 October 2003 10:58 pm, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Sidney Brooks wrote:
If the former, at
what will it have to conceded that the spammers have
made this user organization useless?
You are not being singled out. Neither has this
rendered the list useless. Check the list archives
for
On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2003 10:58 pm, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Sidney Brooks wrote:
If the former, at
what will it have to conceded that the spammers have
made this user organization useless?
You are not being singled out. Neither has
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, if I delete the spam, the spam will be deleted.
But having to delete the spam *is* the problem, not the solution. The
problem is, you go to bed, and in the morning there are 250 154K
messages that have to be downloaded, seeked and
On Friday 17 October 2003 11:50, cr wrote:
Sounds like you have a POP account? I had to go the webmail
route a couple of times when Kmail showed there was 2MB of mail
in my account. A pox on
But KMail has POP filters that do the exact same thing that you
described for that pop3browser
On Friday 17 October 2003 4:13 am, klaus imgrund wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2003 10:58 pm, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Sidney Brooks wrote:
If the former, at
what will it have to conceded that the spammers have
made this user organization
take heroic steps (spamassassin,mailfilter,etc) but will abandon the
list as a resource instead.
Nothing heroic about installing spamassassin.If I can do it nobody else
should have a problem with it.
Klaus
I agree that it's not that difficult. Perhaps heroic was a bad choice of
On Friday 17 October 2003 12:53, Jeff Elkins wrote:
I agree that it's not that difficult. Perhaps heroic was a bad
choice of words, but I'll still wager that a significant percentage
of newbies won't take the time to set up an aggressive anti-spam
system, but will migrate away from this (and
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2003 12:53, Jeff Elkins wrote:
...
Unfortunately, using a good anti-spam system is a necessity today, and
...
I read this book called The Illusion of Technique by William Barret
which taught me about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
What does this have to do with spam? It bemuses and befuddles me to
observe extremely intelligent people to swatting the air with tools like
spamassassin, when the correct solution lies
Filters will not solve the problem. The problem is
that so much spam is coming in that it overloads the
allocated mailbox space and then Yahoo, and I presume
other services, refuse to accept more email. A filter
can divert spam into trash, but trash counts against
your quota until you delete it.
On Friday 17 October 2003 12:47, klaus imgrund wrote:
the whole stuff many people don't even know existed over there
while it is pretty easy to make spamassasin work with the likes of
evolution and kmail.
As described here for KMail:
http://kmail.kde.org/tools.html#antispam
--
--- Magnus
Klaus writes:
Nothing heroic about installing spamassassin.If I can do it nobody else
should have a problem with it.
I have it and other measures installed, but the spam is still a major PITA.
Most newbies are not going to be able to get spamassassin working. and
won't try. I no longer
On Friday 17 October 2003 14:36, Tom wrote:
The correct
solution is to merely enlighten all of humanity not to send spam.
Sounds stupid right? Read the book to read why it's the *only*
solution, and all technical solutions are doomed to failure...
Uhm, if you knew me, you would know I've
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
