Is anyone else getting these spam-generating "spam blockers" from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I get one for every message I send to the list.
--
Jeff
--- Begin Message ---
Your mail has been rejected for the following reason(s):
Fake IP address found
The mail message sent contained an illegally formed IP address.
If you have a legitimate reason to contact me, you may get your
mail through the filter by using the following subject:
I AM NOT SPAM
I will then add you to my 'okay' list so future mail will not be
rejected. NOTE: If you reply to this letter, it will *NOT* go to me.
You must send a new piece of mail or forward your original piece of
mail to my address. This has been to avoid receiving autoresponse messages
from these rejection letters.
If the email you sent to me was a piece of unsolicited commercial email,
you should be aware that in addition to being rude, UCE is also illegal:
From: http://www.ca-probate.com/faxlaw.htm
Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement"
to any "equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or
images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular
telephone line onto paper." The law allows individuals to sue the sender
of such illegal "junk mail" for $500 per copy. Most states will permit
such actions to be filed in Small Claims Court.
NAGS Email Filter v3.B2
A service of Netizens Against Gratuitous Spamming
http://www.nags.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The text of the rejected email follows:
---------------------------------------
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 4 13:55:39 2003
> Received: from onion.perl.org (onion.valueclick.com [64.70.54.95])
> by zeta2.zai.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with SMTP id h54HtbA4006608
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:55:38 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: (qmail 74794 invoked by uid 1005); 4 Jun 2003 18:02:18 -0000
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 74760 invoked by uid 76); 4 Jun 2003 18:02:17 -0000
> Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (HELO ran-out.mx.develooper.com) (64.81.84.115) by
> onion.perl.org (qpsmtpd/0.26-dev) with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:02:17 -0700
> Received: (qmail 26860 invoked by uid 225); 4 Jun 2003 18:02:13 -0000
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 26855 invoked by uid 507); 4 Jun 2003 18:02:13 -0000
> Received: from mail14.speakeasy.net (HELO mail.speakeasy.net) (216.254.0.214) by
> one.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.26-dev) with SMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:02:10 -0700
> Received: (qmail 20239 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 18:02:05 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO vpservices.com) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) by mail14.speakeasy.net
> (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 4
> Jun 2003 18:02:05 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:58:22 -0700
> From: Jeff Zucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> CC: dbi-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SQL Extensions for SQL::Statement [Long]
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.26-dev, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
> X-Spam-Check-By: one.develooper.com
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=7.0
> tests=CARRIAGE_RETURNS,IN_REP_TO,MISSING_HEADERS,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,X_ACCEPT_LANG
> version=2.44
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.26-dev, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> [reply-to dbi-users only please, sorry for the cross post]
>
> Dean Arnold wrote:
>
> >1) How many joins per stmt allowed ?
> >
> >2) outer join support ?
> >
> For the moment, joins won't be changing from what they currently are -
> two tables with explicit joins (including outer joins) or unlimited
> tables with implicit joins (but those require an equijoin condition in
> the where clause for each table).
>
> >3) re: performance: have you considered collecting COUNT(*) from each
> >datasource
> >
> Interesting idea. At the moment I am not doing much to optimize.
>
> >4) I concur that SQL extensions are better than DBI; have you considered
> >a DBIx subclass implementation, ala DBIx::Chart ?
> >
> I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be over keeping it in
> SQL::Statement, please clue me in if I'm missing something.
>
> >5) Distributed INSERT ... SELECT, UPDATE..FROM, or DELETE ... WHERE x IN
> >(SELECT...)
> >supported ? (possible transactional issues, I suppose...)
> >
> The only subqueries I'm contemplating so far are CREATE INTO x FROM y
> ... and SELECT INTO x FROM y, basically a way to dump from one rdbms to
> another rather than the kind of fine tuning you are talking about, but
> maybe in the future.
>
> >6) Any minimum i/f requirements from the underlying DBD's ?
> >
>
> I don't think so, it will just essentially create a $dbh using the DBD
> and keep that stored in a lookup table.
>
> --
> Jeff
>
>
--- End Message ---
