RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-03 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Also see:
http://pinkbell.net/

Best Regards,

Sr.Consultant /
Phillip B. Holmes
Media Resolutions Inc.
Macromedia Alliance Partner
http://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101





 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt 
 Robertson
 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Keith wrote:
 I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
 came up...
 
 Well, doesn't that just suck?  Hopefully the 2001 date on 
 that post is indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise 
 they're pretty much *all* in league with the devil.
 
 
  Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Holmes;Phillip;B.
FN:Phillip B. Holmes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ORG:Media Resolutions Inc.;IT
TITLE:Sr. Consultant
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(972) 889-0201
TEL;CELL;VOICE:214-995-6175
ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;1-888-395-4678;16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610;Addison;TX;75001;United States =
of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1-888-395-4678=0D=0A16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610=0D=0AAddison, TX 75001=0D=
=0AUnited States of America
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REV:20030910T014847Z
END:VCARD


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Eje Gustafsson
If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get
blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.

.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
  spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
  zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
  service providers, this could be for providing
  websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
  supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
  out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
  supporter to be blocked.

.8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
 SORBS.

So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be
tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.

Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything
just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.

Best regards,
 Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
   - Your Full Time Professionals -
Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
-- 
PBH Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8

PBH pbh



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Smart Business Lists
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
 
 
 Terry Fritts
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 


PBH ---
PBH [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

PBH ---
PBH [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

PBH ---
PBH This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
PBH unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
PBH type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
PBH at http://www.mail-archive.com.

-- 
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Mark Smith
Cox cable I'll bet.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Harvy
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:12 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Who's Cox?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
 Smart Business 
  Lists
  Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
  
  
  Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
  
  
  Terry Fritts
  
  
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.
 

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Keith Anderson

Would you post your configuration that works for you?  and anyone else
that's willing to do so?  I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.

Thanks

 Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything
 just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Matthew Bramble
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a system 
because a network administrator saw fit to complain.  I would think that 
most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of 
firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't rely on open 
relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use this test.

.6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in nature.  Less 
people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts 
blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false positives and 
becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that doesn't help 
me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they just want 
their E-mail from a friend or business associate.

Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking 
outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of their markets.  
They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their users.  The 
net result is that they might find their way off of some blacklists, but 
E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to 
their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.

I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that there are many 
overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is due to what 
compels someone to start offering a blacklist for free...they're fed up 
and they're not going to take it anymore!

Matt

Eje Gustafsson wrote:

If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get
blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
 spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
 zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
 service providers, this could be for providing
 websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
 supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
 out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
 supporter to be blocked.
.8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
SORBS.
So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be
tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.
Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything
just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.
Best regards,
Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
  - Your Full Time Professionals -
Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
 

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Matt Robertson
Keith wrote:
Would you post your configuration that works for you?  and anyone else
that's willing to do so?  I'd like to see some examples of successful
configurations to learn from.

Here's mine.  Weights 0-12 are OK, weights 13-19 get bounced and 20+
gets deleted.  Neither bounces nor deletes should be done without
understanding *exactly* what the consequences are.

While I get awfully close to zero false positives, I also wind up
bouncing about 20% of the stuff declude bags.  That works out to about
11000 bounce messages last month.  Maybe a dozen actully reached a
person.  However those dozen would be angry customers wondering why
their mail got deleted.  Instead the bounce becomes a positive customer
service.  I need to experiment and see how many items hit weight 18, 17,
16 etc. to see if I can cut down on the bounces safely.  I'll bet I can.

You can see my latest stats here:
http://mysecretbase.com/mailsystem.html.  I also wrote up how the system
works for customer information.  What I'm describing is Declude Virus,
Declude Junkmail and Imail 8 anti-spam working together.

Hope this helps,


 Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com



BLITZEDALL  ip4ropm.blitzed.org *
2   0
CBL ip4rcbl.abuseat.org 127.0.0.2
3   0
COMPU   ip4rblackhole.compu.net 127.0.0.4
3   0
DORKS   ip4rorbs.dorkslayers.com127.0.0.2
5
DSBLip4rlist.dsbl.org   *
5   0
EASYNET-DNSBL   ip4rblackholes.easynet.nl   127.0.0.2
5   0
EASYNET-PROXIES ip4rproxies.blackholes.easynet.nl   *
2   0
FABEL   ip4rspamsources.fabel.dk*
2   0
FIVETEN-SRC ip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com  127.0.0.2
2   0
FIVETEN-SPAMSUP ip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com  127.0.0.7
2   0
FIVETEN-MISCip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com  127.0.0.9
2   0
FIVETEN-FREEip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com  127.0.0.12
2   0
INTERSILip4rblackholes.intersil.net 127.0.0.2
5   0
IPWHOIS ip4ripwhois.rfc-ignorant.org127.0.0.6
3   0
LNSGSRC ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net   127.0.0.3
3   0
LNSGBULKip4rspamguard.leadmon.net   127.0.0.4
3   0
LNSGOR  ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net   127.0.0.5
3   0
LNSGMULTI   ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net   127.0.0.6
3   0
LNSGBLOCK   ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net   127.0.0.7
3   0
MONKEYFORMMAIL  ip4rformmail.relays.monkeys.com *
3   0
MONKEYPROXIES   ip4rproxies.relays.monkeys.com  *
3   0
NJABL   ip4rdnsbl.njabl.org 127.0.0.2
10  0
NJABLDULip4rdnsbl.njabl.org 127.0.0.3
50  0
ORDBip4rrelays.ordb.org *
5   0
SBL ip4rsbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.2
10  0
SORBS-HTTP  ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.2
5   0
SORBS-SOCKS ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.3
5   0
SORBS-MISC  ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.4
5   0
SORBS-SMTP  ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.5
5   0
SORBS-SPAM  ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6
5   0
SORBS-WEB   ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.7
5   0
SORBS-BLOCK ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.8
5   0
SORBS-ZOMBIEip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.9
10  0
SORBS-BADCONF   ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.11
3   0
SORBS-NOMAILip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.12
3   0
SPAMBAG ip4rblacklist.spambag.org   *
10  0
SPAMCOP ip4rbl.spamcop.net  127.0.0.2
10  0
UCEBip4rblackholes.uceb.org *
10  0
VOX ip4rvox.schpider.com127.0.0.2
3   0
WIREHUB-DNSBL   ip4rblackholes.wirehub.net  127.0.0.2
5   0
YBL ip4rybl.megacity.org127.0.0.2
5   0

DSN rhsbl   dsn.rfc-ignorant.org127.0.0.2
5   0
NOABUSE rhsbl   abuse.rfc-ignorant.org  127.0.0.4
3   0
NOPOSTMASTERrhsbl   postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org 127.0.0.3
3   0
SECURITYSAGErhsbl   blackhole.securitysage.com  *
5   0
MAILPOLICE-BULK rhsbl   bulk.rhs.mailpolice.com 127.0.0.2
5   0
MAILPOLICE-PORN rhsbl   porn.rhs.mailpolice.com 127.0.0.2
5   0

BADHEADERS  badheaders  x   x
8   0
HELOBOGUS   helovalid   x   x
5   0
HEUR10  heuristics  10  

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Mathew,

Correction there..

.8 is no longer used and is basically empty.
.6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you
want to play it safe, do not use .6.

And that is correct:
Cox = Cox Cable

It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils.

Best Regards,

Sr.Consultant /
Phillip B. Holmes
Media Resolutions Inc.
Macromedia Alliance Partner
http://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Matthew Bramble
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on 
 a system 
 because a network administrator saw fit to complain.  I would 
 think that 
 most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of 
 firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't 
 rely on open 
 relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use 
 this test.
 
 .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in 
 nature.  Less 
 people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts 
 blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false 
 positives and 
 becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that 
 doesn't help 
 me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they 
 just want 
 their E-mail from a friend or business associate.
 
 Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking 
 outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of 
 their markets.  
 They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their 
 users.  The 
 net result is that they might find their way off of some 
 blacklists, but 
 E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to 
 their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.
 
 I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that 
 there are many 
 overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is 
 due to what 
 compels someone to start offering a blacklist for 
 free...they're fed up 
 and they're not going to take it anymore!
 
 Matt
 
 
 Eje Gustafsson wrote:
 
 If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get 
 blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
 
 .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
   spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
   zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
   service providers, this could be for providing
   websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
   supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
   out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
   supporter to be blocked.
 
 .8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
  SORBS.
 
 So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be 
 tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.
 
 Either way with declude there is not reason to directly 
 block anything 
 just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.
 
 Best regards,
  Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
 Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
- Your Full Time Professionals -
 Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
   
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Matthew Bramble
Don't get me wrong, I will use .6 (and will configure it probably 
tonight since I finished some other testing), but I will score it fairly 
low because anything that tags something like Cox is problematic.  Same 
goes for FIVETEN, they are tagging Yahoo/SBC.

It's good to know when a particular list is blocking a major provider.  
Hopefully lists like SpamCop, which I rely on heavily, won't ever do 
something like this.

Matt

Phillip B. Holmes wrote:

Mathew,

Correction there..

.8 is no longer used and is basically empty.
.6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you
want to play it safe, do not use .6.
And that is correct:
Cox = Cox Cable
It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils.
Best Regards,

Sr.Consultant /
Phillip B. Holmes
Media Resolutions Inc.
Macromedia Alliance Partner
http://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Matthew Bramble
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on 
a system 
because a network administrator saw fit to complain.  I would 
think that 
most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of 
firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't 
rely on open 
relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use 
this test.

.6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in 
nature.  Less 
people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts 
blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false 
positives and 
becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that 
doesn't help 
me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they 
just want 
their E-mail from a friend or business associate.

Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking 
outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of 
their markets.  
They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their 
users.  The 
net result is that they might find their way off of some 
blacklists, but 
E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to 
their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.

I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that 
there are many 
overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is 
due to what 
compels someone to start offering a blacklist for 
free...they're fed up 
and they're not going to take it anymore!

Matt

Eje Gustafsson wrote:

   

If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get 
blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.

.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
service providers, this could be for providing
websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
supporter to be blocked.
.8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
   SORBS.
So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be 
tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.

Either way with declude there is not reason to directly 
 

block anything 
   

just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.

Best regards,
Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
 - Your Full Time Professionals -
Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
 



---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Absolutely agreed.

pbh




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Matthew Bramble
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:11 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Don't get me wrong, I will use .6 (and will configure it probably 
 tonight since I finished some other testing), but I will 
 score it fairly 
 low because anything that tags something like Cox is 
 problematic.  Same 
 goes for FIVETEN, they are tagging Yahoo/SBC.
 
 It's good to know when a particular list is blocking a major 
 provider.  
 Hopefully lists like SpamCop, which I rely on heavily, won't ever do 
 something like this.
 
 Matt
 
 
 Phillip B. Holmes wrote:
 
 Mathew,
 
 Correction there..
 
 .8 is no longer used and is basically empty.
 .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if 
 you want to play it safe, do not use .6.
 
 And that is correct:
 Cox = Cox Cable
 
 It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical 
 alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils.
 
 Best Regards,
 
 Sr.Consultant /
 Phillip B. Holmes
 Media Resolutions Inc.
 Macromedia Alliance Partner
 http://www.mediares.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
 
 
 
   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Matthew Bramble
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on
 a system 
 because a network administrator saw fit to complain.  I would 
 think that 
 most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with 
 some sort of 
 firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't 
 rely on open 
 relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use 
 this test.
 
 .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in
 nature.  Less 
 people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts 
 blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false 
 positives and 
 becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that 
 doesn't help 
 me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they 
 just want 
 their E-mail from a friend or business associate.
 
 Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking
 outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of 
 their markets.  
 They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their 
 users.  The 
 net result is that they might find their way off of some 
 blacklists, but 
 E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can 
 provide to 
 their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.
 
 I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that
 there are many 
 overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is 
 due to what 
 compels someone to start offering a blacklist for 
 free...they're fed up 
 and they're not going to take it anymore!
 
 Matt
 
 
 Eje Gustafsson wrote:
 
 
 
 If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get
 blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
 
 .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
  spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
  zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
  service providers, this could be for providing
  websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
  supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
  out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
  supporter to be blocked.
 
 .8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
 SORBS.
 
 So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be
 tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.
 
 Either way with declude there is not reason to directly
   
 
 block anything
 
 
 just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.
 
 Best regards,
 Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
 Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
   - Your Full Time Professionals -
 Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
  
   
 
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Todd - Smart Mail
and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
 alternative,

Whets using  SBC as a provider got to do with ethics?

Todd

- Original Message - 
From: Phillip B. Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM


 Mathew,

 Correction there..

 .8 is no longer used and is basically empty.
 .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you
 want to play it safe, do not use .6.

 And that is correct:
 Cox = Cox Cable

 It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
 alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils.

 Best Regards,

 Sr.Consultant /
 Phillip B. Holmes
 Media Resolutions Inc.
 Macromedia Alliance Partner
 http://www.mediares.com
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101



  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
  Matthew Bramble
  Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
  .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on
  a system
  because a network administrator saw fit to complain.  I would
  think that
  most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of
  firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't
  rely on open
  relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use
  this test.
 
  .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in
  nature.  Less
  people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts
  blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false
  positives and
  becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that
  doesn't help
  me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they
  just want
  their E-mail from a friend or business associate.
 
  Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking
  outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of
  their markets.
  They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their
  users.  The
  net result is that they might find their way off of some
  blacklists, but
  E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to
  their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.
 
  I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that
  there are many
  overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is
  due to what
  compels someone to start offering a blacklist for
  free...they're fed up
  and they're not going to take it anymore!
 
  Matt
 
 
  Eje Gustafsson wrote:
 
  If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get
  blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
  
  .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
service providers, this could be for providing
websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
supporter to be blocked.
  
  .8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
   SORBS.
  
  So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be
  tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.
  
  Either way with declude there is not reason to directly
  block anything
  just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight.
  
  Best regards,
   Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
  Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
 - Your Full Time Professionals -
  Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
  
  
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
  (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  This E-mail came from the
  Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an
  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe
  Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at
  http://www.mail-archive.com.
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned for
  viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 


 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.




---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Two words: pink contracts

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd 
 - Smart Mail
 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:17 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 and since SBC is obviously not an ethical
  alternative,
 
 Whets using  SBC as a provider got to do with ethics?
 
 Todd
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Phillip B. Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
  Mathew,
 
  Correction there..
 
  .8 is no longer used and is basically empty.
  .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not 
 many, but if 
  you want to play it safe, do not use .6.
 
  And that is correct:
  Cox = Cox Cable
 
  It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical 
  alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils.
 
  Best Regards,
 
  Sr.Consultant /
  Phillip B. Holmes
  Media Resolutions Inc.
  Macromedia Alliance Partner
  http://www.mediares.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
  972-889-0201 |Ext. 101
 
 
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew 
   Bramble
   Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
  
  
   .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a 
   system because a network administrator saw fit to 
 complain.  I would
   think that
   most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with 
 some sort of
   firewall that got tripped by the testing.  Spammers don't
   rely on open
   relays in their own netblocks.  I don't see any reason to use
   this test.
  
   .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist 
 in nature.  
   Less people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider 
   starts blocking millions of legitimate users.  It ignores false
   positives and
   becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that
   doesn't help
   me much.  My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they
   just want
   their E-mail from a friend or business associate.
  
   Unfortunately this goes both ways.  Cox recently started blocking 
   outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of their 
   markets. They did this in order to combat the spam coming 
 from their
   users.  The
   net result is that they might find their way off of some
   blacklists, but
   E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they 
 can provide to
   their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server.
  
   I wouldn't call that a win.  Unfortunately it seems that 
 there are 
   many overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is
   due to what
   compels someone to start offering a blacklist for
   free...they're fed up
   and they're not going to take it anymore!
  
   Matt
  
  
   Eje Gustafsson wrote:
  
   If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get 
   blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide.
   
   .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending
 spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS.  This
 zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting
 service providers, this could be for providing
 websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer.  Spam
 supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are
 out' basis, where the third spam will cause the
 supporter to be blocked.
   
   .8   List of hosts demanding they are never tested by
SORBS.
   
   So of course someone that host spammers will demand they 
 never be 
   tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO.
   
   Either way with declude there is not reason to directly
   block anything
   just use a weighted system where each test add to the 
 total weight.
   
   Best regards,
Eje Gustafsson   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   The Family Entertainment Network  http://www.fament.com
   Phone : 620-231-  Fax   : 620-231-4066
  - Your Full Time Professionals -
   Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/
   
   
  
   ---
   [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
   (http://www.declude.com)]
  
   ---
   This E-mail came from the
   Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send 
 an E-mail 
   to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  
   The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
   ---
   [This E-mail scanned for
   viruses by Declude Virus]
  
  
  
 
 
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
  ---
  This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To 
  unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type 
  unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Matt Robertson
Phillip wrote:
 Two words: pink contracts

9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about?

I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book,
but that was incompetent tech installation and support.  Once the
service is up its always been just great; for years running.

And besides, here in central California you either work with SBC or you
work with someone who is leasing from them.

Wazzup?


 Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Keith Purtell
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that came up...

http://mail.spamcon.org/pipermail/suespammers/2001-February/000837.html

Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator
VantageMed Operations (Kansas City)
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole 
use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Robertson
 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:25 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM


 Phillip wrote:
  Two words: pink contracts

 9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about?

 I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book,
 but that was incompetent tech installation and support.  Once the
 service is up its always been just great; for years running.

 And besides, here in central California you either work with
 SBC or you
 work with someone who is leasing from them.

 Wazzup?

 
  Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com
 




---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Matt Robertson
Keith wrote:
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
came up...

Well, doesn't that just suck?  Hopefully the 2001 date on that post is
indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise they're pretty much *all*
in league with the devil.


 Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-02 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Matt - Yes. I worked for SBC for 10 years.

Keith-
Plug in sbc pink contracts.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sbc+pink+contractsie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8hl=en

Best Regards,

Sr.Consultant /
Phillip B. Holmes
Media Resolutions Inc.
Macromedia Alliance Partner
http://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101
972-889-0201 |Ext. 101


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt 
 Robertson
 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Keith wrote:
 I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that
 came up...
 
 Well, doesn't that just suck?  Hopefully the 2001 date on 
 that post is indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise 
 they're pretty much *all* in league with the devil.
 
 
  Matt Robertson   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  MSB Designs, Inc.  http://mysecretbase.com
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Holmes;Phillip;B.
FN:Phillip B. Holmes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ORG:Media Resolutions Inc.;IT
TITLE:Sr. Consultant
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(972) 889-0201
TEL;CELL;VOICE:214-995-6175
ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;1-888-395-4678;16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610;Addison;TX;75001;United States =
of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1-888-395-4678=0D=0A16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610=0D=0AAddison, TX 75001=0D=
=0AUnited States of America
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REV:20030910T014847Z
END:VCARD


[Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-01 Thread Smart Business Lists
Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.


Terry Fritts


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-01 Thread Phillip B. Holmes
Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8

pbh



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Smart Business Lists
 Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
 
 
 Terry Fritts
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
 (http://www.declude.com)]
 
 ---
 This E-mail came from the 
 Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To unsubscribe, just send an 
 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe 
 Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found at 
 http://www.mail-archive.com.
 ---
 [This E-mail scanned for 
 viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
 


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-01 Thread Glen Harvy
Who's Cox?

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business
 Lists
 Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
 Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
 
 
 Terry Fritts
 
 
 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus 
(http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM

2003-09-01 Thread Bill Landry
http://www.cox.com/

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: Glen Harvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM


 Who's Cox?

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business
  Lists
  Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
 
 
  Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one.
 
 
  Terry Fritts
 
 
  ---
  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
 (http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.

 ---
 [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
(http://www.declude.com)]

 ---
 This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
 at http://www.mail-archive.com.


---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.