qmail Digest 29 Oct 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1168
Topics (messages 51252 through 51312):
fetchmail and timers and control-dir
51252 by: romeo kienzler
51274 by: Robin S. Socha
people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on this list...
51253 by: Martin Jespersen
51254 by: Brett Randall
51256 by: Alexander Jernejcic
51260 by: James T. Perry
51261 by: markd.bushwire.net
51263 by: Brett Randall
51266 by: markd.bushwire.net
51267 by: Brett Randall
51273 by: Robin S. Socha
51276 by: markd.bushwire.net
51277 by: Brett Randall
51279 by: markd.bushwire.net
51280 by: David Dyer-Bennet
51283 by: Alex Pennace
51287 by: Martin Jespersen
51290 by: Martin Jespersen
51292 by: Felix von Leitner
51293 by: Russ Allbery
51295 by: Austad, Jay
51298 by: Felix von Leitner
51304 by: Jack McKinney
51312 by: markd.bushwire.net
Re: fixcrio
51255 by: Alexander Jernejcic
51281 by: Andrew Richards
51286 by: Alexander Jernejcic
Re: is there any way to move messages to the front of qmail's queue?
51257 by: Greg Cope
51258 by: Olivier M.
Re: qmail-queue patch
51259 by: Chris Hackman
51272 by: Robin S. Socha
51278 by: Brett Randall
qmail-local killed
51262 by: Joomy Studio
51264 by: Brett Randall
Re: unsubscribe qmail
51265 by: markd.bushwire.net
51268 by: Jarle Hammen Knudsen
51269 by: Brett Randall
51270 by: markd.bushwire.net
Re: How to customize bounced back messages
51271 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: problem with supervise
51275 by: Robin S. Socha
traffic control and qmail-pop3d
51282 by: Leif Hartmann
51289 by: Mira Temp�r
Spam elimination solution based on References header
51284 by: Brett Randall
51291 by: Brett Randall
51294 by: Felix von Leitner
51299 by: Russ Allbery
51300 by: Brett Randall
51302 by: Brett Randall
Re: SPAM touble.
51285 by: JuanE
=local entries in qmail-users
51288 by: James Browning
OT : Mail Clients, What Do You Use???
51296 by: jsunday.parview.com
51297 by: Brett Randall
FILTERING ATTACHEMENTS
51301 by: Anthony Abby
Re: SPAM - Help!
51303 by: Jack McKinney
51308 by: Greg White
51309 by: Jack McKinney
51310 by: Greg White
51311 by: Russ Allbery
Listar
51305 by: Anthony Abby
51306 by: Brett Randall
51307 by: Brett Randall
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All !!
I have some problems to deliver mail from fetchmail to qmail.
I tried some option with the -mua -switch, but without success.
I have to deliver the fetched mail in that way, that I can recieve it via pop3
from other clients, any ideas ?
an other problem ist, that I dont know how to modify some timerparameters
(interval of sending mail for example)
can you tell me, where I have to modify it ?
thanks a lot !
yours romeo
--
" R o m e o K i e n z l e r "
Am Grosshausberg 2-9-3 >< 78120 Furtwangen
Fon 0170/6015062 >< Fax 01805/05255377249
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >< "www.ormium.de"
* romeo kienzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have some problems to deliver mail from fetchmail to qmail.
> I tried some option with the -mua -switch, but without success.
,----[ Works For Me(tm) ]
| server yourserver.com
| proto pop3
|
| user romeo
| pass geheim
|
| fetchall
| flush
| mda /usr/bin/procmai
`----
> I have to deliver the fetched mail in that way, that I can recieve it
> via pop3 from other clients, any ideas ?
You need a local pop3d capable of reading maildir, methinks. You /do/
want to fetch from yourserver.com and prostitute the mail to your lusers
on ormium.de, right?
> an other problem ist, that I dont know how to modify some timerparameters
> (interval of sending mail for example) can you tell me, where I have to
> modify it ?
Have you considered doing cron based thingies with serialmail? qmail
will deliver directly by default AFAIK.
> --
It's actually "^-- \n", not " ^-- \n".
--
Robin S. Socha
Now optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer: <http://socha.net/>
Hi all
I have now gotten spam to two of my adresses that i have only used publicly on this
list.
is there any chance that the list's admin would consider removing the header info that
shows the
adress of the sender before sending it on to the list?
/Martin
>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Jespersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Hi all I have now gotten spam to two of my adresses that i
Martin> have only used publicly on this list.
Ditto...and only in the last month. I am getting some degree of spam
now.
Martin> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider
Martin> removing the header info that shows the adress of the sender
Martin> before sending it on to the list?
I wouldn't recommend this...how then can we do personal replies when a
list reply is not necessary? We will have to do it usenet-style and
put "Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove _nospam)" in our
signature files. Lucky for us Gnus users we can make those be
processed automatically, but it is still messy.
A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who) that
only lasts like a week, and then its gone. This gives most ppl enuf
time to reply. This won't cut down your bandwidth, however, but it
will cut down the spam in your inbox (instead of getting bigger and
bigger, it will remain constantly low).
That's my few words for the day...
--
"Give no sleep to your eyes,
Nor slumber to your eyelids."
- Proverbs 6:4, NKJV
hi,
only for my interest: was this from Money Maker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?
i received that today.
;) a
==============================================
Alexander Jernejcic
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin LOVE-LETTER-UND-NIX-DAZUGELERNT.txt.vbs
I am a Signature, not a Virus!
end
==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Jespersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 1:21 PM
> To: Qmail mailing list
> Subject: people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on this
> list...
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I have now gotten spam to two of my adresses that i have only used publicly on this
>list.
>
> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider removing the header info
>that shows the
> adress of the sender before sending it on to the list?
>
> /Martin
>
>
Alexander Jernejcic wrote:
>
> hi,
> only for my interest: was this from Money Maker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?
> i received that today.
>
> ;) a
YUP!
cheers,
jamie
ps
maybe I should start including all spam-email addresses I have received
in the past in my signature so they could harvest their own crap into
themselves :) but OTHO, that will probably create mass havoc too,
since most of the sources wont resolve to a legit mailbox.
gee, i don't know...
Received: from Money (adsl-214-23-94.asm.bellsouth.net [209.214.23.94])
[snip]
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:42:24 +0900 (JST)
From: Money Maker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#
-- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room,
I will call them a Saint...
GUI == Graphical User Interference
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 10:28:51PM +1100, Brett Randall wrote:
> Martin> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider
> Martin> removing the header info that shows the adress of the sender
> Martin> before sending it on to the list?
> I wouldn't recommend this...how then can we do personal replies when a
> list reply is not necessary? We will have to do it usenet-style and
> put "Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove _nospam)" in our
> signature files. Lucky for us Gnus users we can make those be
> processed automatically, but it is still messy.
Hmm. Lemme get this right. You're telling me that people modify
their email addresses so that spammers cannot automatically harvest
them yet you then say that Gnus has code that automatically processes
them? Are all harvester programmers too dumb to make this connection?
I doubt it.
In other words I'm sceptical of some of these strategies. If I were a
harvest programmer I'd be more than happy to slice and dice such addresses
to get all reasonable permutations. If a harvest gets a few bogus
addresses out of it, do they care? I doubt it.
> A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
> address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who) that
> only lasts like a week, and then its gone. This gives most ppl enuf
Indeed this is an excellent strategy - if done properly. The problem
is, a lot of people don't have the ability to capture all addresses
in a domain - and of course user-random@domain is trivially defeated by
a competent slicer and dicer if user@domain is valid. So this strategy
only truly works for personal domains.
> time to reply. This won't cut down your bandwidth, however, but it
If you can control your DNS you can apply a similar strategy to your
domain by generating a reply address of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where @domain is not a valid mail target. But again, the number of
people who have the opportunity, or capability to do this, are low.
Regards.
>>>>> "markd" == markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
markd> Hmm. Lemme get this right. You're telling me that people
markd> modify their email addresses so that spammers cannot
markd> automatically harvest them yet you then say that Gnus has code
markd> that automatically processes them? Are all harvester
markd> programmers too dumb to make this connection? I doubt it.
Well, true, some harvester programmers have half a grain of sense
somewhere in their rotten minds that allows them to use a whole lot of
regex's to defeat regular nospam e-mail addresses which people like
myself modify automatically through our MUA when we reply. But there
is no reason someone can't put "Reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove biteme from domain)" in their sig which is totally unusual,
and annoying to have to cut and edit for a personal reply, but it
works. And since you but in a fake domain it bites the pants off the
people sending the spam... I would put up with people using this
method since I understand the frustations of spam...
>> A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
>> address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who)
>> that only lasts like a week, and then its gone. This gives most ppl
>> enuf
markd> Indeed this is an excellent strategy - if done properly. The
markd> problem is, a lot of people don't have the ability to capture
markd> all addresses in a domain - and of course user-random@domain
markd> is trivially defeated by a competent slicer and dicer if
markd> user@domain is valid. So this strategy only truly works for
markd> personal domains.
Here's a crazy idea: And it puts the pressure on crap MUA's, too :)
Use the user-random@domain format, but have the e-mail piped through a
command that checks the References in the e-mail, and if it contains a
valid reference to an e-mail that was posted from your own mail relay,
then it passes it, otherwise, it bounces it (or trashes it). How does
that sound? Have I missed anything?
>> time to reply. This won't cut down your bandwidth, however, but it
markd> If you can control your DNS you can apply a similar strategy
markd> to your domain by generating a reply address of
markd> [EMAIL PROTECTED] where @domain is not a valid mail
markd> target. But again, the number of people who have the
markd> opportunity, or capability to do this, are low.
True, but there are domain hosters out there who will host your domain
for $99 per year (sorry I don't know their names, I just remember
coming across them on occasion) that will let you modify your DNS at
will. Not as elegant as your own BIND server (which is what I have,
and I highly advise it for anyone serious about control), but if you
can work out some type of automation, it could do the job.
Regards
--
"Win95 not found, [P]arty, [C]elebrate, [D]rink ?"
> Here's a crazy idea: And it puts the pressure on crap MUA's, too :)
> Use the user-random@domain format, but have the e-mail piped through a
> command that checks the References in the e-mail, and if it contains a
> valid reference to an e-mail that was posted from your own mail relay,
> then it passes it, otherwise, it bounces it (or trashes it). How does
> that sound? Have I missed anything?
That's not a bad idea. Allbut the original harvester will not have that
information - assuming most lists are sold/shared sans original content.
As you say, it relies on MUAs faithfully reproducing References. Fortunately
for us .qmail types, mess822 provides reliable access to header fields
for those who want to implement that idea.
Spammers tend not to use the Subject line either, so a little pattern
matching would catch that. Though why spammers tend not to use harvested
subject lines is beyond me - i think it'd work a lot better than "MAKE
MONEY FAST".
> markd> If you can control your DNS you can apply a similar strategy
> markd> to your domain by generating a reply address of
> markd> [EMAIL PROTECTED] where @domain is not a valid mail
> markd> target. But again, the number of people who have the
> markd> opportunity, or capability to do this, are low.
>
> True, but there are domain hosters out there who will host your domain
> for $99 per year (sorry I don't know their names, I just remember
> coming across them on occasion) that will let you modify your DNS at
> will. Not as elegant as your own
Yep. That'd be a pain as you have to change on something like a weekly,
rotation.
> BIND server (which is what I have,
Well heck pardner, round this neck of the woods some people might see
them as fightin' words! If you'd said use djbdns, then, well, yes,
we'd understand :>
Regards.
>>>>> "markd" == markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
markd> As you say, it relies on MUAs faithfully reproducing
markd> References. Fortunately for us .qmail types, mess822 provides
markd> reliable access to header fields for those who want to
markd> implement that idea.
I might even look into implementing this...but first, what is mess822?
:)
markd> Spammers tend not to use the Subject line either, so a little
markd> pattern matching would catch that. Though why spammers tend
markd> not to use harvested subject lines is beyond me - i think it'd
markd> work a lot better than "MAKE MONEY FAST".
Hehe good point, except subject matching is a hard one... You'd have
to watch all outgoing mail and capture all subjects that you send. I
think References is more failsafe, except crappy clients like Outlook
(hehe I can talk coming from an Outlook background :) dump all
References headers...but then again considering that I'm on mainly
*nix-based groups, anyone that is using Outlook should be shot like I
was several times in the past...
>> BIND server (which is what I have,
markd> Well heck pardner, round this neck of the woods some people
markd> might see them as fightin' words! If you'd said use djbdns,
markd> then, well, yes, we'd understand :>
Hehe I haven't ever used djbdns so the idea didn't occur to
me. Apologies DJB fans!
--
FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: Press F13 to continue...
>>>>>> "Brett" == Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Jespersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider
Martin> removing the header info that shows the adress of the sender
Martin> before sending it on to the list?
That's a *very* stupid idea.
Brett> I wouldn't recommend this...how then can we do personal replies
Brett> when a list reply is not necessary?
Not at all. If you want this sort of anonymity, use a remailer or a
trash account.
Brett> We will have to do it usenet-style and put "Please reply to
Brett> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove _nospam)" in our signature
Brett> files.
Yeah, right...
,----
| (defvar js-gnus-nospam-regexp
| (concat "^\\(To\\|Cc\\):[^_]*\\("
| "no\\.spam\\.?\\|"
| "NOSPAM\\.?\\|"
| "_?no.?spam_?\\|"
| "_?remove.?to.?r.?ply_?\\|"
| ".?remove.?"
| "\\)")
| "Used by js-gnus-remove-nospam-from-email-address")
| ;
| (defun js-gnus-remove-nospam-from-email-address ()
| "Remove NOSPAM shit - fuck you, luser..."
| Should be added to message-signature-setup-hook."
| (interactive) ; !?
| (beginning-of-buffer)
| (if (search-forward-regexp js-gnus-nospam-regexp nil t)
| (delete-region (match-beginning 2) (match-end 2)))
| (end-of-buffer)
| )
`----
I've got the same for procmail somewhere here. So there.
Brett> Lucky for us Gnus users we can make those be processed
Brett> automatically, but it is still messy.
Errr... how would you want to that, Brett?
Brett> A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
Brett> address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who)
Brett> that only lasts like a week, and then its gone. This gives most
Brett> ppl enuf time to reply. This won't cut down your bandwidth,
Brett> however, but it will cut down the spam in your inbox (instead of
Brett> getting bigger and bigger, it will remain constantly low).
Two major annoyances on the net: people who Bcc: you (man OutlookExpress
for a particularly braindamaged example) and people "answering" after a
couple of years...
,----[ .qmail-robin-usenet-default ]
| |/var/qmail/bin/bouncesaying 'I *read* this group, fuckstain...' except iftocc
|usenet-$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |/var/qmail/bin/bouncesaying 'Time's up, luser...' except ./usenet'
| ./Maildir/
`----
where usenet is a small tool that checks for an expired date. Setup
courtesy of Fefe. Then you also need an MUA/NR that can say something
along the lines of (for slrn):
,----[ fefe-timer.sl ]
| define make_from_string_hook ()
| {
| variable date;
| date = localtime(_time());
| return sprintf("Robin S. Socha
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>",date.tm_year+1900,date.tm_mon+1,date.tm_mday);
| }
`----
Brett> That's my few words for the day...
Right. Now, Brett, less talk and more (setq sc-nested-citation-p t).
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 12:32:47AM +1100, Brett Randall wrote:
> >>>>> "markd" == markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> markd> As you say, it relies on MUAs faithfully reproducing
> markd> References. Fortunately for us .qmail types, mess822 provides
> markd> reliable access to header fields for those who want to
> markd> implement that idea.
>
> I might even look into implementing this...but first, what is mess822?
cr.yp.to/mess822.htmlllllllllll
> markd> Spammers tend not to use the Subject line either, so a little
> markd> pattern matching would catch that. Though why spammers tend
> Hehe good point, except subject matching is a hard one... You'd have
> to watch all outgoing mail and capture all subjects that you send. I
> think References is more failsafe, except crappy clients like Outlook
Correct. Thus the allusion to pattern matching and I'd only use it as
an additionaltest to Rreference in the event of Reference munging MUAs.
> >> BIND server (which is what I have,
>
> markd> Well heck pardner, round this neck of the woods some people
> markd> might see them as fightin' words! If you'd said use djbdns,
> markd> then, well, yes, we'd understand :>
>
> Hehe I haven't ever used djbdns so the idea didn't occur to
> me. Apologies DJB fans!
Ok. Your horse lives - this time.
Regards.
>>>>> "markd" == markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here's a crazy idea: And it puts the pressure on crap MUA's, too :)
>> Use the user-random@domain format, but have the e-mail piped
>> through a command that checks the References in the e-mail, and if
>> it contains a valid reference to an e-mail that was posted from
>> your own mail relay, then it passes it, otherwise, it bounces it
>> (or trashes it). How does that sound? Have I missed anything?
markd> That's not a bad idea. Allbut the original harvester will not
markd> have that information - assuming most lists are sold/shared
markd> sans original content.
My Perl is a bit rusty and I'm not game to try this just yet, but how
does the following look for a .qmail-random file that rejects e-mail
directed to it if my message ID isn't in the References header? I
don't know awk, but this might be neater if someone can rewrite it in
that... BTW If you are worried about losing personal e-mail sent to
your random address, then just have one e-mail account for all your
mailing lists that uses this .qmail-random format (btw, if you are
lost about what I mean about random, read my previous posts in this
thread), and another e-mail address that you use for all other
non-list e-mail.
| perl -we "$valid = 0; while (<>) { if ( /^References\:.*<schultz\S+@ipsware\.com>/ )
|{ $valid = 1; last; } } exit 99 if ($valid == 0); exit 0;"
./Maildir/
Do these exit functions pass the value back to qmail-local? Comments,
ideas and flames are most welcome.
--
"Reach out and grep someone."
- Bell Labs Unix
> >> through a command that checks the References in the e-mail, and if
> markd> That's not a bad idea. Allbut the original harvester will not
> markd> have that information - assuming most lists are sold/shared
> markd> sans original content.
>
> My Perl is a bit rusty and I'm not game to try this just yet, but how
I was more thinking of storing the generate Messsage-IDs in a database
so the test is a simple lookup.
Regards.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 28 October 2000 at 07:48:59 -0700
> > >> through a command that checks the References in the e-mail, and if
>
> > markd> That's not a bad idea. Allbut the original harvester will not
> > markd> have that information - assuming most lists are sold/shared
> > markd> sans original content.
> >
> > My Perl is a bit rusty and I'm not game to try this just yet, but how
>
> I was more thinking of storing the generate Messsage-IDs in a database
> so the test is a simple lookup.
That's more elegant in some ways, but actually I think the simply
regexp match is a better design. It means I don't have to keep my
Message ID database up-to-date, for example. It *is* more easily
spoofed, but I doubt enough people will use this technique to even
appear on the radar of the spammers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:37:08PM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
> Alexander Jernejcic wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> > only for my interest: was this from Money Maker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?
> > i received that today.
> >
> > ;) a
>
> YUP!
Ditto.
PGP signature
"Robin S. Socha" wrote:
>
> Martin> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider
> Martin> removing the header info that shows the adress of the sender
> Martin> before sending it on to the list?
>
> That's a *very* stupid idea.
>
Sorry for pointing this out to your ego, but that is your opinion Robin, not mine.
I'd love never to receive answers anywhere than on the list and never to my private
addresses.
I use several different reply adresses depending on where i am located at the time i
write the mail
(home, work, etc.) and thus i don't get the answers the place i want it all the time,
which is in my
dedicated qmail list mail folder where mails sent to the list ends up.
It is not really an option to change the way my MUA is configured everytime i send a
mail depeding
on where my mail is heading, so for me it would be ideal if the list would auto-remove
my
From/Mail-from/Reply-to.
I don't see why this is stupid, since you NEVER would be in need of my personal
address unless i
gave it to you.
/Martin
Nice to see that people are able to be constructive around here *pats Felix on his
little head*
Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> Thus spake Martin Jespersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Martin> is there any chance that the list's admin would consider
> > > Martin> removing the header info that shows the adress of the sender
> > > Martin> before sending it on to the list?
> > > That's a *very* stupid idea.
> > Sorry for pointing this out to your ego, but that is your opinion Robin, not mine.
> > I'd love never to receive answers anywhere than on the list and never to my
>private addresses.
>
> Martin, the one with the overinflated ego is you.
>
> If you don't want people to know your email address, then DON'T USE IT.
>
> > I use several different reply adresses depending on where i am located at the time
>i write the mail
> > (home, work, etc.) and thus i don't get the answers the place i want it all the
>time, which is in my
> > dedicated qmail list mail folder where mails sent to the list ends up.
>
> What kind of egomanic loser are you, anyway?
>
> Who cares about the reasons for your incompetence?
> You _are_ too incompetent to post from only one address, and that is
> _your_ problem. Not mine, not Dan's, not Robins.
>
> > It is not really an option to change the way my MUA is configured everytime i send
>a mail depeding
> > on where my mail is heading, so for me it would be ideal if the list would
>auto-remove my
> > From/Mail-from/Reply-to.
>
> Oh, it is not an option. Right.
>
> If you can't be bothered to read the fucking manual and get a grip of
> your email setup, how in the seven hells can you expect _others_ to work
> around your fscking incompetence?
>
> Your impertinence is breathtaking!
>
> > I don't see why this is stupid, since you NEVER would be in need of my personal
>address unless i
> > gave it to you.
>
> Fuck off and die, pathetic whiner.
>
> But before that: please fix your mail software to not use lines >72
> chars.
>
> Felix
Thus spake Martin Jespersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Nice to see that people are able to be constructive around here *pats Felix on his
>little head*
While we are talking about "constructive", please construct yourself a
gut and shoot yourself, idiot.
Felix
markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed this is an excellent strategy - if done properly. The problem is,
> a lot of people don't have the ability to capture all addresses in a
> domain - and of course user-random@domain is trivially defeated by a
> competent slicer and dicer if user@domain is valid.
There's a simple solution to that. Use user@domain as another spam trap
and have your *real* address that you give out to people who you want to
have a stable address be user-<something>@domain and be careful about
revealing that <something>. :)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Why are you such an asshole?
Who's the owner of this list? I'm getting sick of hearing Felix's shit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 6:56 PM
To: Qmail mailing list
Subject: Re: people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on
this list...
Thus spake Martin Jespersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Nice to see that people are able to be constructive around here *pats
Felix on his little head*
While we are talking about "constructive", please construct yourself a
gut and shoot yourself, idiot.
Felix
Thus spake Austad, Jay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Why are you such an asshole?
Excuse me?
He has a "theory" about spam protection that does not work and has the
audacity to tell the whole list that they should reconfigure their
software so he can avoid reading the manual of his software?!
And you call _me_ an asshole for telling him to go away?
Get a life, man.
By the way: Dan's position on anti-spam features is well-known and
conflicts with his drivel, too.
> Who's the owner of this list? I'm getting sick of hearing Felix's
> shit.
Then install a mail software that can filter.
Oh, and please _do_ learn how to quote. Finally.
It's not that difficult, really.
http://learn.to/quote will tell you exactly what you need to do.
Felix
PS: If anyone is interested in a mailing list about technical qmail
issues, please tell me. I am considering starting a qmail mailing list
where Outlook users can subscribe in the first place and were emails
from people who can't quote are rejected. Then we could stop wasting
time with whining lusers who couldn't even install qmail themselves if
their life depended on it and discuss some issues.
Big Brother tells me that Brett Randall wrote:
> >>>>> "Martin" == Martin Jespersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
> address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who) that
That would be I. For mailing lists, it is even better:
1. [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounces emails sent to it with a message indicating
that the address has expired. The return address of this message has an
encrypted timestamp, such as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Encrypted addresses such as above have their timestamp verified as recent.
Old messages are bounced exactly as in #1.
These two steps prevent 'cold call' emails. Your email to me must be
a response to an email from me. Very soon, I will have this patched so that
emails with a valid signature from a key on my ring are always accepted.
Also, I allow certain addresses in under certain criteria.
For mailing lists, I do the following:
3. I subscribe to each list as a different address, such as the one for this
list, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. Email coming to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has its headers checked to see if
it was processed by the appropriate list server.
5a. Mail passing #4 is put into my qmail folder (I have over 200 hundred
folders). I have a shell script for reading each of these folders (or
specifed ones), which set MAILUSER and MAILHOST.
5b. Mail not passing #4 is redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; see step #1.
So far, I have not seen any spam to my qmail address 8-).
--
"Restore your inalienable human rights. Jack McKinney
Vote Libertarian. http://www.lp.org http://www.lorentz.com
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/D68F2C07 4096g/38AEF076
PGP signature
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 04:55:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> markd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Indeed this is an excellent strategy - if done properly. The problem is,
> > a lot of people don't have the ability to capture all addresses in a
> > domain - and of course user-random@domain is trivially defeated by a
> > competent slicer and dicer if user@domain is valid.
>
> There's a simple solution to that. Use user@domain as another spam trap
> and have your *real* address that you give out to people who you want to
> have a stable address be user-<something>@domain and be careful about
> revealing that <something>. :)
That's a good idea Russ.
Regards.
hi,
i am using a little shell-wrapper:
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtp.sh:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/local/bin/fixcr | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
and call it with tcpserver instead of qmail-smtpd. just one way of doing it...
;) a
==============================================
Alexander Jernejcic
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin LOVE-LETTER-UND-NIX-DAZUGELERNT.txt.vbs
I am a Signature, not a Virus!
end
==============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:10 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: fixcrio
I'm calling tcpserver with this line:
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503 0
smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 |
/var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
I need to use fixcrio to fix stupid emailers that put stray <lf>'s in their messages.
How do I integrate fixcrio into this? Do I
just do:
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503 0
smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Jay
Jay / Alexander,
No!! Don't use fixcr (ucspi-tcp-0.84 and others), because fixcrio (ucspi-tcp-0.88
and others), its replacement, is *much* nicer: fixcr needs a shell call (as per
Alexander's post), whereas fixcrio uses an exec call, much like the
qmail-popup/checkpassword/qmail-pop3d sequence for POP3 that you may
be using for POP3.
Going back to Jay's command line, change,
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com
-R -u 503 -g 503 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
to
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com
-R -u 503 -g 503 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
(all that's changed is that the pipe symbol has been removed). I'm assuming that the
above is all one line, by the way, or if not, that continuation characters are added
at the end of lines.
cheers,
Andrew.
----------
From: Alexander Jernejcic[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 October 2000 12:31
To: Qmail
Subject: RE: fixcrio
hi,
i am using a little shell-wrapper:
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtp.sh:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/local/bin/fixcr | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
and call it with tcpserver instead of qmail-smtpd. just one way of doing it...
;) a
==============================================
Alexander Jernejcic
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin LOVE-LETTER-UND-NIX-DAZUGELERNT.txt.vbs
I am a Signature, not a Virus!
end
==============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:10 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: fixcrio
I'm calling tcpserver with this line:
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503 0
smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 |
/var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
I need to use fixcrio to fix stupid emailers that put stray <lf>'s in their messages.
How do I integrate fixcrio into this? Do I
just do:
tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503 0
smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Jay
hi,
seems as i have to update - but changing a running system ;)
==============================================
Alexander Jernejcic
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin LOVE-LETTER-UND-NIX-DAZUGELERNT.txt.vbs
I am a Signature, not a Virus!
end
==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Richards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:34 PM
> To: Qmail; 'Alexander Jernejcic'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: fixcrio
>
>
> Jay / Alexander,
>
> No!! Don't use fixcr (ucspi-tcp-0.84 and others), because fixcrio (ucspi-tcp-0.88
> and others), its replacement, is *much* nicer: fixcr needs a shell call (as per
> Alexander's post), whereas fixcrio uses an exec call, much like the
> qmail-popup/checkpassword/qmail-pop3d sequence for POP3 that you may
> be using for POP3.
>
> Going back to Jay's command line, change,
> tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com
> -R -u 503 -g 503 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio |
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
> to
> tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com
> -R -u 503 -g 503 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
> (all that's changed is that the pipe symbol has been removed). I'm assuming that the
> above is all one line, by the way, or if not, that continuation characters are added
> at the end of lines.
>
> cheers,
>
> Andrew.
>
> ----------
> From: Alexander Jernejcic[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 October 2000 12:31
> To: Qmail
> Subject: RE: fixcrio
>
> hi,
> i am using a little shell-wrapper:
>
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtp.sh:
> #!/bin/bash
> /usr/local/bin/fixcr | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> and call it with tcpserver instead of qmail-smtpd. just one way of doing it...
>
> ;) a
>
> ==============================================
> Alexander Jernejcic
> email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> begin LOVE-LETTER-UND-NIX-DAZUGELERNT.txt.vbs
> I am a Signature, not a Virus!
> end
>
> ==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austad, Jay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:10 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: fixcrio
>
>
> I'm calling tcpserver with this line:
> tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503
>0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 |
> /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
>
>
> I need to use fixcrio to fix stupid emailers that put stray <lf>'s in their
>messages. How do I integrate fixcrio into this? Do I
> just do:
>
> tcpserver -q -c 500 -x /etc/smtp.cdb -H -l mail.marketwatchmail.com -R -u 503 -g 503
>0 smtp /usr/local/bin/fixcrio |
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
Greg Jorgensen wrote:
>
> Sometimes we have our mail server busy sending out a lot of newsletters. While
> it's doing that any other mail sent through the server has to wait in the
> queue. Is there any way to tell qmail that some messages should be processed
> and sent before others? Thanks.
As far as I am aware - No.
we use Two queues and two implementations if we want faster mail for
certain things - as one queue is nearlly always buzy sending newsletters
as well.
Greg
>
> =====
> Greg Jorgensen
> Deschooling Society
> Portland, Oregon, USA
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 11:38:50AM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> Greg Jorgensen wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes we have our mail server busy sending out a lot of newsletters. While
> > it's doing that any other mail sent through the server has to wait in the
> > queue. Is there any way to tell qmail that some messages should be processed
> > and sent before others? Thanks.
>
> As far as I am aware - No.
Just an idea: what about "touching" the file in the queue, with a
timestamp higher than any other mail in the queue ? (not tested)
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
PGP signature
It's officailly documented as this :
root:/usr/local/src/qmail-1.03# patch -p1 < /path/to/qmail-103.patch
from the qmail-howto. But this command did not work for me, who knows, maybe I
did something wrong.
regards
chris
* lkhanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> can anybody tell me how can i apply qmail-queue patch on existing
> running qmail-1.03, qmail patch ois available on qmail.org site but i
> don't know how to aply that , bcoz its neither a tar file nor a rpm,
> So could u pl help me in applying that
u nd t rd th fckng mn pg fr ptch nd ptch th qml srcs, rcmpl, stp qml nd
rnstll. And IYAM, this shorthand thingy is kind hrd t rd.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
>>>>> "Robin" == Robin S Socha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robin> u nd t rd th fckng mn pg fr ptch nd ptch th qml srcs, rcmpl,
Robin> stp qml nd rnstll. And IYAM, this shorthand thingy is kind hrd
Robin> t rd.
"f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng."
- Anonymous, 19alongtimeago
Sorry, couldn't resist that quote.
--
"BUG, n.: An undesirable, poorly-understood undocumented feature."
- The Devil's Dictionary to Computer Studies
Hi,
My redhat6.2 + qmail(rpm) box was panic and I saw this line in syslog.
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Bad pmd in pte_alloc: 448b5008
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: VM: killing process qmail-local
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Unable to handle kernel paging request at
virtual address 1309a3ce
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: current->tss.cr3 = 154ea000, %cr3 = 154ea000
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: *pde = 00000000
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Oops: 0002
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: CPU: 0
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: EIP: 0010:[move_addr_to_kernel+30/56]
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: EFLAGS: 00010202
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: eax: 1309a3ce ebx: cddcdf6c ecx: d8b43f10
edx: 00000003
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: esi: d8b43f14 edi: 0000006e ebp: bffffa6c
esp: d8b43ef8
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Process ls (pid: 23074, process nr: 145,
stackpage=d8b43000)
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Stack: bffff9fc 0000006e d8b43f14 00000002
00000003 4010cd60 00000000 000002a8
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: cddcdf6c c6a17a00 c0173a14 c0173a74
00000282 00000000 00000000 cddcded0
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: c01308a0 df4ca800 c01df0a4 00000001
00000000 cddcded0 df4ca7a0 cddcded0
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Call Trace: [unix_create1+60/163]
[unix_create1+156/163] [d_alloc+110/279][cprt+388/23488]
[d_alloc_root+49/57] [get_fd+53/147] [sys_socket+51/115]
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: [sys_socketcall+130/440]
[error_code+45/52] [system_call+52/56]
Oct 10 15:36:12 member kernel: Code: 10 00 24 14 50 e8 0d b7 08 00 83 c4 0c
85 c0 74 06 b8 f2 ff
What should I do ? It happen 2 times a month. Do I have a problem with my
RAM ? (I use 512Mb)
I also got this from the syslog.please help me.
Oct 10 22:10:18 member kernel: Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and confused, but
trying to continue
Oct 10 22:10:18 member kernel: You probably have a hardware problem with
your RAM chips
Joomy.
>>>>> "Joomy" == Joomy Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joomy> Oct 10 22:10:18 member kernel: Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and
Joomy> confused, but trying to continue
Joomy> Oct 10 22:10:18 member kernel: You probably have a hardware
Joomy> problem with your RAM chips
I'd say this is a pretty good explanation of your problems...
Try pulling a ram chip for a fortnight. If it happens again, pull the
next one. Keep doing this until you find the right one (or if you have
money just go buy another 512mb). I have had similar troubles (machine
crashing) because of faulty ram. Buying new ram fixed it on the
spot. Good luck~
--
"I'm not dumb. I just have a command of throughly useless
information."
- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 02:29:11AM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 03:39:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hmm. Maybe I'm confused. How do people think the envelope sender
> > value is determined in the first instant? Eg, how does Eudora go from
> > a mail in a window to "Mail From: " in SMTP? Or how does qmail-inject
> > for that matter?
> >
>
> qmail-inject uses environment variables for From (not From:).
What are you talking about? What does "From (not From:)" mean?
If you deduced this from qmail/djb-docs, all of these references
(unless specifically talking about final delivery) mean the "From:"
header. You might care to read cr.yp.to/immhf.htm for a more general
discussion on mail headers.
The only "From" that qmail-inject deals with is "From:". If you think
otherwise show us some output from qmail-inject -n that has this
mysterious "From (not From:)" that you refer to.
If you are referring to the "From " line, this is not a mail header,
that any part of the mail injection deals with. Instead, "From " is a
very poorly defined delimiter in V7 mailboxes that is generated at
final delivery which has nothing to do with injection.
If you still don't believe me and you don't want to bother explain
by demonstration, have a look at this code from qmail-inject.c:
void defaultfrommake()
{
...
df.t[df.len].s = "From";
df.t[df.len].slen = 4;
++df.len;
df.t[df.len].type = TOKEN822_COLON;
It's the only piece of code that has "From" and it looks like "From:" to me.
> For those who do not use qmail-inject directly (Like those using remote
> SMTP with Eudora, to use your example), the "From" is generated by the MUA.
> So yes, those cases are "hopeless". "From:" will almost certainly be the base
> for "From"
I think you're confused. There is no "From" that is separate from "From:".
If you think otherwise, inject a mail into qmail via SMTP using a mail client
like Eudora and show us the queue file with this "From" header you refer to.
(Use a target address that cannot be delivered so you can catch the queue
entry).
> > The answer is that it's mostly derived from a parse of the various
> > headers in the original mail when it's injected into the MTA. In
> > many cases the most likely header that will be used to derive the
> > envelope sender will be the From: header. So to suggest that the
> > unparsed From: header is a better place to look for the sender
> > seems a bit silly to me because in many cases the envelope sender is
> > simply a parsed version of the From: header.
>
> Not really. You can have very odd "From:" lines (with 8bit chars, spaces),
> but From is (or should always be) a plain old user@domain string. It's
> easier to parse, and probably less prone to error.
Are you sure you're not confusing this discussion with the "From " line
that is generated on delivery into a mailbox? Which by the way *is*
used to stash the envelope sender address, which *is* original derived
from fields like "From: ".
Regards.
Saturday, October 28, 2000, 3:06:42 PM, you wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 02:29:11AM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> You might care to read cr.yp.to/immhf.htm for a more general
> discussion on mail headers.
HTTP 404 - File not found
--
Jarle H. Knudsen
>>>>> "Jarle" == Jarle Hammen Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jarle> HTTP 404 - File not found
Let's see...have we ever tried, just for the sake of it, appending an
'l' to the end of a '.htm' to just see if it works?
--
"People say Microsoft payed $14M for using the Rolling Stones song
'Start me up' in their commercials. This is wrong. Microsoft payed
$14M only for a part of the song. For instance, they didn't use the
line 'You'll make a grown man cry'."
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 03:45:40PM +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
> Saturday, October 28, 2000, 3:06:42 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 02:29:11AM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
>
> > You might care to read cr.yp.to/immhf.htm for a more general
> > discussion on mail headers.
>
> HTTP 404 - File not found
Sorry. .html
Now wouldn't it be neat if URLs included a checksum and that your MUA
only identified them as such if the checksum matched? Blue for a good
URL, red for a syntactically correct, my with a checksum error.
That would of course then cover mailto: as well!
Regards.
* Yu Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose Qmail cannot send an email for a user, so it will send back
> a message to the user telling her (or him) that that message cannot
> be delivered. How can I customize the returned message so that a
> non-English speaking user can know what has happened clearly.
Create a .qmail-default (catchall "account") containing:
|/var/qmail/bin/bouncesaying 'Hier nix diese User, Bruder'
or a localized version of the above.
If that is not enough, you should consult the manual (i.e. qmail-send.c.).
> BTW, is there any effort to provide localized Qmail package for
> non-English speaking users? I mean, if there are some such efforts,
> Qmail will be expected to have more widespread use.
Yup, that would really r00l3. Like, if I went to Switzerland using a
Swiss account, qmail would detect that .ch thingy and go "Gruezi, Robin,
der User ischt necht do". Ummm... Come to think of it, I could well do
without that. Especially thinking of BIG5 or KOI8 bounce messages makes
me kinda queasy. YMMV.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
* Chris Hackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've walked through the lwq file and was pretty happy with my progress
> untill it came to power up the program by "/etc/rc.d/qmail start" .
SysV init stinks. Have you considered running svscan from rc.local or
whichever other perversion your Linux distribution uses instead?
> Then a repeated error message fills up that terminal like this :
> supervise: fatal: unable to start log/run: file does not exist
> And the only way to stop is to type in the command "/etc/rc.d/qmail
> stop" blindly, because I could not see the command I yped in as the
> creen is flood with the error message above.
ALT-right always helps... }:->
> After typing that, this appears: Stopping qmail: svscan qmail logging.
Say:
,----[ 2.8.2. System start-up files ]
| Create the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run file:
| #!/bin/sh
| exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail
`----
> If anyone could give me an insight into this perticular problem I
> would be very appreciative.
LWQ r00l3z extreme. Great, great piece of documentation. But personally,
I don't like the SysV init explained there. I would recommend grabbing
the excellent <http://pobox.com/~tu/qmail-conf.html> by Tetsu Ushijima
and using that instead.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
hi,
it may have been asked before, but is it possible to make qmail-pop3d log
some information, especially user and bytes transfered???
and if not: is there a pop-server which can do this and which works with
vmailmgr??
please help, it's very important and i'm searching for such a long time now...
bye,
leif
| it may have been asked before, but is it possible to make qmail-pop3d log
| some information, especially user and bytes transfered???
no, without changing sources as far as I know
| and if not: is there a pop-server which can do this and which works with
| vmailmgr??
I don't know about any other Maildir-aware pop3 daemon
| please help, it's very important and i'm searching for such a long time now...
Isn't it better to fire up your editor and look for sources ?
regards
--
Mira Tempír <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---[..čekit...]---
http://www.cekit.cz/ ------------ it's all about Internet
OK, after about 3 hours of mucking about when I should have been
studying, I've come up with a way of keeping your e-mail address to
yourself on usenet, mailing lists, etc. This means that people that
reply to your e-mail will be able to get you, because their MUA will
quote your Message ID (unless its Outlook, but I don't particularly
care if it is, myself... not from mailing lists anyhow) in the
References header.
Requirements:
-------------
- Two e-mail accounts on a qmail box (normal one and new one)
- I do the filtering with Gnus, but you can use whatever the hell you
like.
- Perl (I use v5, should work with v4 as well tho)
Instructions:
-------------
- Create a new account that will receive mail from usenet and lists (I
ingeniously called mine usenet cos Mr Socha has been using that name
in his mails and it makes sense)
- Create a .qmail file in ~usenet:
| bouncesaying "Go away. Spam not accepted here."
- Create a .qmail-default file in ~usenet:
| perl -we "\$valid = 0; while (<>) { if ( /^References\:.*<schultz\S+\@ipsware\.com>/
|) { \$valid = 1; last; } } exit 99 if (\$valid == 0); exit 0;" || bouncesaying "Go
|away. Spam not accepted here."
| forward "me-$LOCAL"
(Of course, replacing 'me' with your real username, and replacing
schultz\S+\@ipsware\.com with the regex for your own message ID (look
it up in one of your posts, or defun message-make-message-id in Gnus).
- Create a .qmail-default file in ~me (whoever you really are):
./Maildir/
- Create account settings in your MUA however you do that
(gnus-posting-styles for me) so that each newsgroup/list has a
return address of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Create filtering settings so that mail addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gets moved to whatever folders you want
it in
What it does:
-------------
When someone from a usenet group/mailing list replies to your e-mail,
the address they reply to is [EMAIL PROTECTED] The
.qmail-default file in ~usenet takes the e-mail, checks for a
reference to an e-mail which you wrote (via the Message-ID), and if it
appears to have existed, it will forward the message locally to your
real account. I have used the format "me-$LOCAL" so you can do other
stuff with it if you like (like make a ~me/.qmail-ezmlm to deliver to
some other address...I dunno why, but hey its flexible).
If an address harvester has sliced your address to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
then it will be bounced. Even if they try sending an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], it will bounce since they more than likely
won't be referencing an ID of an e-mail you have posted (no
guarantees, they could get smart, but we'll always be smarter :)
What NOT to do:
---------------
Do NOT subscribe to ANY lists with the e-mail address
usenet*@domain.com. If you do, you will become unpopular VERY fast I
can promise you. Subscribe with your real address, but just set your
mailing address from then on to your new usenet one.
BTW, it is now 4.50am. I am likely to have made a mistake somewhere
above. Please let me know if I have since I don't want to destroy
anyone's e-mail systems!
Ciao
Brett.
--
C:\DOS C:\DOS\RUN RUN\DOS\RUN
C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
OK, It would appear as if I've just found the first (and lets hope
last) error in my spam elimination technique/code. In
~usenet/.qmail-default, the references regex will only work if the
message ID is on the same line as the References: string. I've
modified the regex (and code) to allow the Message ID to be on any
line following the regex before the next colon (:) appears indicating
that the next field is now starting.
The new ~usenet/.qmail-default is:
| perl -we "\$valid = 0; while (<>) { if ( /^References\:/ ) { while (<>) { if ( /\:/
|) {\$valid = 2; last; } if ( /<schultz\S+\@ipsware\.com>/ ) { \$valid = 1; last; } }
|last if \$valid == 1; if (\$valid == 2) { \$valid = 0; last; } } } exit 99 if
|(\$valid == 0); exit 0; " || bouncesaying "You're either using a crap MUA or you're
|spamming me. Go away."
| forward "brett-$LOCAL"
It looks messy, but it isn't really. If you want to figure out how it
works, just put a new line after each ; and { }. Indents help as well.
Any opinions on this method of spam elimination, please let me know!
Brett.
--
"I wonder what Jesus would do if HE had to reload Windows 95 for the
eighth time today ?"
- Mirabour Gilbride
> OK, It would appear as if I've just found the first (and lets hope
> last) error in my spam elimination technique/code. In
> ~usenet/.qmail-default, the references regex will only work if the
> message ID is on the same line as the References: string. I've
> modified the regex (and code) to allow the Message ID to be on any
> line following the regex before the next colon (:) appears indicating
> that the next field is now starting.
Why are you posting this?
Spam traps like this rely on you keeping it to yourself. If enough
people start using this, spammers will adjust like they now post from
domains that exist and put "Re:" in the subject.
Felix
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Spam traps like this rely on you keeping it to yourself. If enough
> people start using this, spammers will adjust like they now post from
> domains that exist and put "Re:" in the subject.
This spam trap, unlike most of them, require that spammers keep an
additional piece of information around in addition to the e-mail address,
information that they cannot construct mechanically (provided that you
construct the regex carefully and different people use MTAs with different
message ID construction patterns, the latter generally being the case).
That's a *huge* loss for the spammers; unless tons of people start doing
this (and even in that case), they just can't handle that complexity.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This spam trap, unlike most of them, require that spammers keep an
> additional piece of information around in addition to the e-mail
> address, information that they cannot construct mechanically
> (provided that you construct the regex carefully and different
> people use MTAs with different message ID construction patterns, the
> latter generally being the case). That's a *huge* loss for the
> spammers; unless tons of people start doing this (and even in that
> case), they just can't handle that complexity.
And, the gorgeous thing about message IDs is that even if some spammer
finds a way to steal your message ID and use it in spam attempts, just
change your message ID. Its a helluva lot easier than changing e-mail
addresses...
Oh, and BTW. The original message with bugfixes is posted at
http://xbox.ipsware.com/spam.html for those interested in implementing
this. So far there have been two bug fixes. They are not detailed, but
the working copy is on that page. If you use Gnus, also take a look at
http://xbox.ipsware.com/dot-gnus.html to see how I've set up my Gnus
to handle these addresses.
--
"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processings is a
fad that won't last out the year."
- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice-Hall, 1957
>>>>> "Brett" == Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snipped>
I didn't want to, but I had to... I've updated the spam eliminator
perl code AGAIN to handle crap MUAs that only support In-Reply-To and
don't use the References line. Its up to you whether you use the
In-Reply-To or not. I might dump it yet. I'll see how it handles...
<http://xbox.ipsware.com/spam.html>
--
"Give no sleep to your eyes,
Nor slumber to your eyelids."
- Proverbs 6:4, NKJV
Hi All!
This is a little off-topic, but I need to get the point-of-view from
postmasters for a problem that I am having. I have a customer who has around
20 different email addresses in my server that I forward to an account at
his ISP.
The problem is that the postmaster at his ISP decided that my customer was
spamming because he was using many different address in his outgoing
messages (that use his SMTP server), so he shutdown my customers account
there and black listed my server.
I know for a fact that my customer was not sending spam, so, I tried
contacting the postmaster at his ISP, but got the cold shoulder. My customer
tried with similar success.
Will I start to see other postmasters doing the same thing for my other
customers? or this just an isolated case?
Comments would be greately appreciated.
Thanks,
JES
Are there any circumstances where qmail-lspawn will find a match in
qmail-users for a local address that didn't have anything prepended to it?
Consider the scenario:
virtualdomains contains
mydomain.com:joe.schmoe
and the assign file contains
=joe.shmoe:joe:503:78:/home/joe:::
Qmail-send translates the local part of [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
joe.schmoe-joe.schmoe. Why then does qmail-pw2u create entries that contain
=user: .... when there's no way matches can be made against those entries?
I hope I'm making sense.
regards,
James
Okay, this may be a stupid question, please no flames...
I am just looking for a little wisdom when choosing one, thanks!!!
Jesse
>>>>> "jsunday" == jsunday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, this may be a stupid question, please no flames... I am
> just looking for a little wisdom when choosing one, thanks!!!
This was covered on the list only a month or two back. Try a search:
http://www-archive.ornl.gov:8000/
--
"Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of
the computer industry for the past decade as a massive effort to keep
up with Apple."
- Byte, December 1994
Can someone point me to documentation or just tell me how I can filter out
ALL attachements to my smtp server. I'm using Qmail solely in a listserver
environment and I want to make sure that zero attachements get through. I'm
new to QMail though and don't readily see how this could be done.
Thanks
Anthony
Big Brother tells me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> there is a 'badrcptto'-patch on www.qmail.org
> this will solve the problem on aris server. but... then he will bomb
> postmasteraccounts on other servers. not the best solution for the net.
> only cuting of the open relay and hang the admin of this server will solve
> this situation.
Yes, but the only mail servers that will get postmaster bombed are
ones that either condone spam by allowing users to send it out, or are
open relays. If RBL and ORBS isn't enough to get these people to stop
allowing relaying, perhaps postmaster mail filling up would...
--
"Restore your inalienable human rights. Jack McKinney
Vote Libertarian. http://www.lp.org http://www.lorentz.com
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/D68F2C07 4096g/38AEF076
PGP signature
Jack McKinney wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> Yes, but the only mail servers that will get postmaster bombed are
> ones that either condone spam by allowing users to send it out, or are
> open relays. If RBL and ORBS isn't enough to get these people to stop
> allowing relaying, perhaps postmaster mail filling up would...
>
SNIP
Ummm, perhaps I misunderstand something completely here. Please correct
me if I'm wrong here. Here's how I see it working:
I am a spammer. I own spamming.pissant.luser.domain. I send mail from
spamming.pissant.luser.domain, but I forge envelopes and From: to say
that I'm (for example) ibm.com, to beat pattern-matching spam checks,
and maybe fool some users that that's really where I'm from. Don't
bounces go to ibm.com? How are we, (in the example), as ibm.com, to
prevent these bounces from coming to us? Not to mention all the email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], complaining about the spam... Am I missing something?
GW
Big Brother tells me that Greg White wrote:
> Jack McKinney wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > Yes, but the only mail servers that will get postmaster bombed are
> > ones that either condone spam by allowing users to send it out, or are
> > open relays. If RBL and ORBS isn't enough to get these people to stop
> > allowing relaying, perhaps postmaster mail filling up would...
> >
> SNIP
>
> Ummm, perhaps I misunderstand something completely here. Please correct
> me if I'm wrong here. Here's how I see it working:
>
> I am a spammer. I own spamming.pissant.luser.domain. I send mail from
> spamming.pissant.luser.domain, but I forge envelopes and From: to say
> that I'm (for example) ibm.com, to beat pattern-matching spam checks,
> and maybe fool some users that that's really where I'm from. Don't
> bounces go to ibm.com? How are we, (in the example), as ibm.com, to
> prevent these bounces from coming to us? Not to mention all the email
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], complaining about the spam... Am I missing something?
Maybe. If the email is rejected AFTER being accepted by your mail
server, then your mail server will bounce it based on the headers.
If it is rejected at the SMTP port of your server (as is typical of
the relay checking methods such as RBL and ORBS), then the sending mail
server will generate the bounce. This won't triple bounce at IBM, it
will triple bounce to _itself_.
For example, I want to spam using [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
return address. I find an open relay at mail.irelay.com, so I connect
to it and drop off a few hundred thousand copies of my message with
my fake from address. You are on my spam list, and your server is
rejecting mail via ORBS, which has contacted irelay.com to complain
already, and irelay.com is unwilling or ignorant.
My message does this:
1. My machine to mail.irelay.com over smtp. accepted.
2. mail.irelay.com contacts your mail server and tries to deliver the
message. Your SMTP port rejects it because it comes from an open relay.
3. mail.irelay.com bounces the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this
address does not exist, then microsoft.com bounces the message back to
mail.irelay.com.
4. This message is a triple bounce when it arrives at mail.irelay.com,
though technically it is a bounce of a valid mailer-daemon mesasge.
In any event, it ends up at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
"Restore your inalienable human rights. Jack McKinney
Vote Libertarian. http://www.lp.org http://www.lorentz.com
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/D68F2C07 4096g/38AEF076
PGP signature
Jack McKinney wrote:
>
> Big Brother tells me that Greg White wrote:
> > Jack McKinney wrote:
> > >
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > Yes, but the only mail servers that will get postmaster bombed are
> > > ones that either condone spam by allowing users to send it out, or are
> > > open relays. If RBL and ORBS isn't enough to get these people to stop
> > > allowing relaying, perhaps postmaster mail filling up would...
> > >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Ummm, perhaps I misunderstand something completely here. Please correct
> > me if I'm wrong here. Here's how I see it working:
> >
> > I am a spammer. I own spamming.pissant.luser.domain. I send mail from
> > spamming.pissant.luser.domain, but I forge envelopes and From: to say
> > that I'm (for example) ibm.com, to beat pattern-matching spam checks,
> > and maybe fool some users that that's really where I'm from. Don't
> > bounces go to ibm.com? How are we, (in the example), as ibm.com, to
> > prevent these bounces from coming to us? Not to mention all the email
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED], complaining about the spam... Am I missing something?
>
> Maybe. If the email is rejected AFTER being accepted by your mail
> server, then your mail server will bounce it based on the headers.
> If it is rejected at the SMTP port of your server (as is typical of
> the relay checking methods such as RBL and ORBS), then the sending mail
> server will generate the bounce. This won't triple bounce at IBM, it
> will triple bounce to _itself_.
>
> For example, I want to spam using [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
> return address. I find an open relay at mail.irelay.com, so I connect
> to it and drop off a few hundred thousand copies of my message with
> my fake from address. You are on my spam list, and your server is
> rejecting mail via ORBS, which has contacted irelay.com to complain
> already, and irelay.com is unwilling or ignorant.
> My message does this:
>
> 1. My machine to mail.irelay.com over smtp. accepted.
> 2. mail.irelay.com contacts your mail server and tries to deliver the
> message. Your SMTP port rejects it because it comes from an open relay.
> 3. mail.irelay.com bounces the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this
> address does not exist, then microsoft.com bounces the message back to
> mail.irelay.com.
> 4. This message is a triple bounce when it arrives at mail.irelay.com,
> though technically it is a bounce of a valid mailer-daemon mesasge.
> In any event, it ends up at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SNIP
That's what I thought. So, if either of the following two items is true,
postmaster will still get the bounces:
1. The relay is not yet listed in an anti-relay domain.
2. The receiving SMTP host is not using strong anti-spam techniques
at all, such as rss,rbl,dul,orbs, etc.
Not helpful in all cases, given the ease of access to a new dialup
account,
and sending the forged header messages out through your ISPs
smarthost...
GW
Jack McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Big Brother tells me that Greg White wrote:
>> I am a spammer. I own spamming.pissant.luser.domain. I send mail from
>> spamming.pissant.luser.domain, but I forge envelopes and From: to say
>> that I'm (for example) ibm.com, to beat pattern-matching spam checks,
>> and maybe fool some users that that's really where I'm from. Don't
>> bounces go to ibm.com? How are we, (in the example), as ibm.com, to
>> prevent these bounces from coming to us? Not to mention all the email
>> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], complaining about the spam... Am I missing something?
> Maybe. If the email is rejected AFTER being accepted by your mail
> server, then your mail server will bounce it based on the headers.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what the victim's mail server does
(in this case, ibm.com). It has to do with what the mail servers of the
people receiving the spam do. ibm.com has *absolutely no control* over
whether or not they receive bounces; there's nothing they can change about
their e-mail configuration to avoid them. They'll get bounces from all
the sites that accept mail first and then generate bounces. Such as, say,
qmail by default, or the entirety of AOL.
> For example, I want to spam using [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
> return address. I find an open relay at mail.irelay.com, so I connect
> to it and drop off a few hundred thousand copies of my message with
> my fake from address. You are on my spam list, and your server is
> rejecting mail via ORBS, which has contacted irelay.com to complain
> already, and irelay.com is unwilling or ignorant.
> My message does this:
> 1. My machine to mail.irelay.com over smtp. accepted.
> 2. mail.irelay.com contacts your mail server and tries to deliver the
> message. Your SMTP port rejects it because it comes from an open relay.
> 3. mail.irelay.com bounces the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If this
> address does not exist, then microsoft.com bounces the message back to
> mail.irelay.com.
Yup.
So if you're running microsoft.com's mail servers, you're screwed. You
just have to swallow the bounces and hope that someone will close the damn
relay and stop the spammer.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Does anyone know of any specail settings/configs that need to be in place to
use QMail with Listar? Qmail is running on my listserver and has been
tested repeatedly today. It sends/receives mail without problem, but it
will not pass off mail to Listar for some reason. I'm getting Permission
Denied errors in my mail logs and mail is backing up in my que. A freind of
mine who is fairly familiar with QMail is looking at it now, but doesn;t see
anything wrong. Was just wondering if anyone here might know something
we've overlooked?
Thanks
Anthony
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Abby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know of any specail settings/configs that need to be in
> place to use QMail with Listar? Qmail is running on my listserver
> and has been tested repeatedly today. It sends/receives mail
> without problem, but it will not pass off mail to Listar for some
> reason. I'm getting Permission Denied errors in my mail logs and
> mail is backing up in my que. A freind of mine who is fairly
> familiar with QMail is looking at it now, but doesn;t see anything
> wrong. Was just wondering if anyone here might know something we've
> overlooked?
Permission Denied is a file system error. I presume deliveries to
Listar are handled by a pipe (|) in a .qmail file? What are the
permissions on that file, and who owns it? I don't know listar, but in
qmail all .qmail* files must be owned by the system user that is
receiving the mail for the account. If it is owned by root, then
you're stuffed. BTW I would highly recommend ezmlm instead of Listar,
but hey its your list-serv...
--
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98"
Tech: "Yes."
Customer: "My computer isn't working now."
Tech: "Yes, you said that."
>>>>> "Brett" == Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snip>
BTW:
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 12573 invoked for bounce); 29 Oct 2000 04:59:48 -0000
Date: 29 Oct 2000 04:59:48 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ipsware.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
209.96.181.192 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 209.96.181.192.
--
"I don't have anything against geeks. I was one for 11 years! I used
to think PC's were the greatest thing since sliced bread... Then
someone showed me sliced bread."
