On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 10:26:34PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Paul Waring:
I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
orders) which go out from an address that does not exist -
In the SMTP envelope? I strongly doubt that.
Oh yeah, I have seen that rather often.
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:16:24PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
And if it wants to cover the sexes
hi
I keep statistics of my email
before I activated greylisting and sender verification callouts, my
average was ~200 spam/day (with peaks of ~400) ; after that, it is ~40
spam/day (and most do not pass thru debian.org, but are delivered
directly at my account)
so I want to kudo all people who
--- Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I found a document for DICOM that includes more options
cheers,
Kev
[0] http://medical.nema.org/Dicom/CP/CPack_23/cp373_lb.pdf
Thanks a lot for the reference, it's a good one :)
Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's needs.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:02:16 +0100 (CET), Miriam Ruiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's
needs. It's self described as sex of a subject for clinical
purposes, such as the selection of sex-based grown metrics. To
start with, it talks about sex,
--- Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:02:16 +0100 (CET), Miriam Ruiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's
needs. It's self described as sex of a subject for clinical
purposes, such as the selection of
Steve Langasek wrote:
But if all of our Japanese, Chinese, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, and
French Revolutionary developers can tolerate having to enter their
birthdates using the Gregorian calendar, I think we'll be able to make
do with an opt-in binary gender classification too.
ROTFL
You are so
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
breaking that would break software that expects this particular field to
be in that particular syntax.
That's not completely true; you could have an attribute
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your SMTP server is listed in a DNSBL which I told db.debian.org
to use for my debian.org email and you try to send me a message,
then master will say I don't accept this message to your SMTP
server, and your SMTP server, in turn, will send you the
On Monday 01 January 2007 22:20, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rejecting email blindly based on data as
reliable as RBLs is likely to give tons of false positives.
This can be
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s
base '(objectClass=*)' attributeTypes | grep gender
attributeTypes: (
On ke, 2007-01-03 at 13:47 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
I have yet to see a use case for this LDAP item. Is it strictly for a
male/femaie survey that other FLOSS projects will join? Does this mean
that people who dont self-identify as male or female are just not
counted? According to some stats
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:47:48PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s
base '(objectClass=*)'
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Debian Oracle wrote:
I hope that this explains everything, Kev. You owe the Oracle an e-mail
quotation trimming device.
Greetings O great Oracle, I did manage to extract most of the meaning
out of the consise phrases electronically transmitted by the
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Debian Oracle wrote:
I hope that this explains everything, Kev. You owe the Oracle an e-mail
quotation trimming device.
...
more options. If its 'just' a field for our use, why does it need to use
a 'standard'
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
measures really useful, as rejecting email blindly based on data as
reliable as RBLs is likely to give tons of false positives.
I prefer to call them DNSBLs, as RBL is a proper name
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:12:56PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
For those of you who are afraid about reliability of a DNSBL,
I can highly recommend cbl.abuseat.org as the absolute minimum.
This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
* Takes its data from very large
Hi
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:12:56 +0100 (CET)
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who are afraid about reliability of a DNSBL,
I can highly recommend cbl.abuseat.org as the absolute minimum.
This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
* Takes its data
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Michal iha wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
[...]
* Tries very hard not to list real SMTP servers.
[...]
* Almost every time there is at least one SMTP server from each
freemail (this is
Hi
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:59:09 +0100 (CET)
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As if those smtp servers were completely innocent. Most probably,
they are sending spam to CBL spamtrap addresses to begin with.
Yes, most likely they send spam to spamtrap. You can not 100% filter
spam on
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moreover, if you send a message using a real smtp server, and its IP
is listed in a DNSBL I use, you will receive a message from
mailer-daemon saying so. This may and will surely happen, hopefully
not often, but IMHO it's better than the message
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:16:24PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Matthias Julius wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moreover, if you send a message using a real smtp server, and its IP
is listed in a DNSBL I use, you will receive a message from
mailer-daemon saying so. This may and will surely happen, hopefully
not
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s
base '(objectClass=*)' attributeTypes | grep gender
attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.9586.100.4.2.30 NAME 'gender' DESC 'ISO 5218 rep
resentation of human
On Jan 02, Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As if those smtp servers were completely innocent. Most probably,
they are sending spam to CBL spamtrap addresses to begin with.
CBL would not list these servers.
The person you are replying to is just confused.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
1) I don't see any relevance in having a gender field. The only exception I
might find is for genderifying the texts in web pages and mails, or maybe for
statistics.
I see some relevance, speaking for myself. I *do* behave differently
with men and women. This is a social issue I fully accept
Le samedi 30 décembre 2006 à 05:34 -0800, Ryan Murray a écrit :
Here's some news on recent db.debian.org changes that are now available:
The LDAP schema has been updated to include several new fields:
* Date of Birth (developer-only visible)
* Gender (world visible)
* Mail
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 30 décembre 2006 à 05:34 -0800, Ryan Murray a écrit :
[...]
The exim4 config has been updated to make use of these new fields,
giving developers the ability to:
* disable their @debian.org email address entirely with a
message
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 16:11 +0100, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
One match is sufficient for a deny, afaiui you end up with two
colon delimited lists (one for rbl, one of rhbl) like in
like http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html/spec_html/index.html#toc0325
Unconditional greylisting.
On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
measures really useful, as rejecting email blindly based on data as
reliable as RBLs is likely to give tons of false positives.
This can be easily disproven by anybody who
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
measures really useful, as rejecting email blindly based on data as
reliable as RBLs is likely to give
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
measures really useful, as rejecting
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:14:30PM +0100, Francois Petillon wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
For a start that sites performing sender verification will partecipate
in a DDoS on the mail infrastructure of domains forged by spammers.
[...]
There are two things I really dislike in sender
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
gender in the way they
El sábado, 30 de diciembre de 2006 a las 15:42:33 +, Nicolas Boullis
escribía:
- the birthDate field isn't currently available via the mail daemon,
this will be fixed soon.
What about gender? How is it specified?
with a ldapsearch, I can find 1, 2 and 9...
It appears to be 1 =
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:19:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I figure it's a consequence of the ldapmodify default changetype being
'replace'. I suppose that's a sane default, but it could still be a bit
confusing to people who don't know/notice.
Nothing new here, this is how the mail
On Sunday 31 December 2006 05:16, Amaya wrote:
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an input field
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:16:24 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
gender in the way
Le dimanche 31 décembre 2006 à 07:29 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker a écrit :
I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
gender in the way they want to, as gender has little to do with
biological sex, and there's more than two options for it.
I think if someone
On Dec 31, Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see some
examples.
Or maybe not. Who cares?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see
some examples.
I paste some email I already privately answered.
Someone wrote:
Wildly OT, but don't people generally self identify more with one
gender or the other?
If generally equals white and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 06:40:46PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see
some examples.
I paste some email I already privately answered.
Someone wrote:
Wildly
--- Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've yet
to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
'male',YMMV.
feliz ano nuevo,
Kev
Maybe that question would be a good starting point: What's the use for a
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[gender entry in db.debian.org]
Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've yet
to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
'male',YMMV.
Preferred pronouns is the reason I've usually heard. Although the field
as
Kevin Mark wrote:
Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've
yet to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
'male',YMMV.
Yeah, I also wonder what this LDAP field is good for, but if we are
going to have it, let's make it, at least, accurate.
--
On Dec 31, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe that question would be a good starting point: What's the use for a
gender field there?
Stalking.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:16:24 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
Would it not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:18:36PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Kevin Mark wrote:
Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've
yet to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
'male',YMMV.
Yeah, I also wonder
--- Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi Amaya,
I was considering: sex gender options and realized that the only
reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which can be
XX or XY (unless gravity or any person with relevant info can add to
this). 'Men' can add and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:57:31PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
--- Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi Amaya,
I was considering: sex gender options and realized that the only
reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex
--- Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi Miry,
social relevance of it, and that means gender. Any other solution seems
more
trying to justify that field than anything really useful.
When you specify 'social' relevance, does that mean 'the larger society'
or 'the Debian
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was considering: sex gender options and realized that the only
reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which can
be XX or XY (unless gravity or any person with relevant info can add to
this).
Sex chromosones in humans can,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 12:06:55AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
1) I don't see any relevance in having a gender field. The only exception I
might find is for genderifying the texts in web pages and mails, or maybe for
statistics.
2) I see even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 04:15:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was considering: sex gender options and realized that the only
reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which can
be
On Dec 30, Ryan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Mail sender verification callouts
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
* Mail sender verification callouts
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail
Josip Rodin wrote:
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot be
delivered to, I don't want to accept it, because I can't deliver a reply to
them. If they want to talk to me, but won't accept replies
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
[...]
The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface
have all been updated to deal with the new fields.
Thanks Ryan. As usual, you do the right thing. I'm still sad that we all
have to wait for you to get
On 10884 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
* Mail sender verification callouts
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
And if you would simply read the mail you would understand that this is
a per-user setting. If you dont like it - dont use it.
--
bye
hi [ thanks Ryan for the work]
Ryan Murray ha scritto:
The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface have
all been updated to deal with the new fields.
I connected to the web interface at
https://db.debian.org/update.cgi?id=mennucc1
I found fields for birthdate and
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:10:14PM +, Paul Waring wrote:
I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
Yes. Sender callout verification is
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
Yes. Sender callout verification is
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:32:02PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
Yes. Sender callout
On 10884 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hehe, reply to myself, but it didnt really fit for d-d-a.
- If you whitelist hosts - dont bother to whitelist any .debian.org
host, they are automagically whitelisted.
I personally would love, if you go and whitelist, that you also
whitelist the
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:31:12PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- the birthDate field isn't currently available via the mail daemon,
this will be fixed soon.
What about gender? How is it specified?
with a ldapsearch, I can find 1, 2 and 9...
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Dec 30, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot be
delivered to, I don't
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I personally would love, if you go and whitelist, that you also
whitelist the following set of hosts:
Wouldn't this be useful in the greylistd configuration on master, then?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
For a start that sites performing sender verification will partecipate
in a DDoS on the mail infrastructure of domains forged by spammers.
As we have started to collect stats, out of 1K connections, there are
from 30 to 50 connections that look like sender verify. This is
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:44:06PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot be
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
* Mail greylisting
What happens with a mail which is delivered to an user with greylisting
enabled and one with it disabled?
* Mail whitelist
* Mail RBL list
* Mail RHSBL list
What happens with this lists
On Dec 30, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, that happens if your domain is used in spam to so many different mail
servers and with so many various local parts (so as to avoid caching),
and all that are three-verb SMTP conversations. TBH I've never actually
This happens often indeed.
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:14:30PM +0100, Francois Petillon wrote:
As we have started to collect stats, out of 1K connections, there are from
30 to 50 connections that look like sender verify. This is quite low right
now but it could be harmful on big domains if more people use it.
Yes. Just
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
* Mail greylisting
What happens with a mail which is delivered to an user with greylisting
enabled and one with it disabled?
* Mail whitelist
* Mail RBL list
* Mail
* Paul Waring:
I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
orders) which go out from an address that does not exist -
In the SMTP envelope? I strongly doubt that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:14:45PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
[...]
The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface
have all been updated to deal with the new fields.
Thanks Ryan. As usual, you do the right
Josip Rodin wrote:
Yes. Just like any other large amount of traffic could be harmful on
big domains.
I will be more precise. Answering a rcpt-to is, in my case, around 20 to
30% of the job of the storage cluster to deliver a mail (I am not
talking about CPU, just disks IOs). If the number of
76 matches
Mail list logo
