Op za 05-06-2004, om 10:26 schreef Kjetil Kjernsmo:
On fredag 4. juni 2004, 03:24, s. keeling wrote:
I'm sick of whitelisting. It doesn't work if you care about
communicating with people you've never met.
Me too. And I think that most absolutes, whether it is a single rule to
accept an
Op za 05-06-2004, om 10:26 schreef Kjetil Kjernsmo:
On fredag 4. juni 2004, 03:24, s. keeling wrote:
I'm sick of whitelisting. It doesn't work if you care about
communicating with people you've never met.
Me too. And I think that most absolutes, whether it is a single rule to
accept an
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You're talking about SPF. That's a concept, not an implementation.
Implementation details have already been posted.
Effective use of SPF requires widespread adoption. Until/unless
widespread adoption happens the promises of SPF are vaporware.
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You're talking about SPF. That's a concept, not an implementation.
Implementation details have already been posted.
Effective use of SPF requires widespread adoption. Until/unless
widespread adoption happens the promises of SPF are vaporware.
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:52, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, adding handling for SPF RRs in one's MTA yields significant
advantages today, despite the technology being new, because _all_ of the
forgemail claiming to be from aol.com, msn.com, hotmail.com, pobox.com,
etc. can be detected
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:52, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, adding handling for SPF RRs in one's MTA yields significant
advantages today, despite the technology being new, because _all_ of the
forgemail claiming to be from aol.com, msn.com, hotmail.com, pobox.com,
etc. can be detected
On fredag 4. juni 2004, 03:24, s. keeling wrote:
I'm sick of whitelisting. It doesn't work if you care about
communicating with people you've never met.
Me too. And I think that most absolutes, whether it is a single rule to
accept an e-mail or a single rule to reject is a Bad Thing[tm]
But
hi ya
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:26:07PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
You mean like having extra meanings of the term vaporware, ones that
you alone are aware of? OK.
vaporware is good and bad ...
good, because if its features gets implemented right and
On fredag 4. juni 2004, 03:24, s. keeling wrote:
I'm sick of whitelisting. It doesn't work if you care about
communicating with people you've never met.
Me too. And I think that most absolutes, whether it is a single rule to
accept an e-mail or a single rule to reject is a Bad Thing[tm]
But
hi ya
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:26:07PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
You mean like having extra meanings of the term vaporware, ones that
you alone are aware of? OK.
vaporware is good and bad ...
good, because if its features gets implemented right and
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
While I am sure finding out whose is bigger is exciting to you. I
feel comfortable in speaking for the rest of the list when I say this
thread has become WAY OT.
I'm surprised that an allegation that SPF -- highly relevant to SMTP
security --
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
I'm surprised that an allegation that SPF -- highly relevant to SMTP
security -- is vapourware, not to mention refutations of that
assertion, are off-topic. Nonetheless, I apologise for reacting with
irritation to Michael's claim to that
snip from='Michael Stone' date='2004-06-04 18:25:47 -0400'
That doesn't matter, unless a large enough fraction of people at both
ends of smtp conversations actually use the stuff. An implementation
that is not deployed is no more useful than a standard which isn't
implemented.
/snip
Fair
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It's possible you're taking that fact into account: I'd be curious to
hear how you (or others) are ensuring that such bounces go somewhere
appropriate.
Well, fisrt of all, I accept mail for outgoing relay only from verified
sources, this includes SMTP
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why is SPF important? Because it eliminates joe-jobs. That is, it
allows mail admins to absolutely validate the envelope return path --
significant because spammers have recently gotten around to forging
sender envelope information, allowing forged
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Well, it is vaporware. Until it's used by a noticable percentage of
hosts, it's irrelevant.
(1) Where I come from, the term vapourware means software touted far
in advance of its availability. As noted, such is most emphatically not
the case, here.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0100, Azazel wrote:
Fair enough, but it's up to people like us to push it, surely?
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry. At this point I'm not
convinced that it's worth the effort. It's fine for a home user to
implement it quickly but it's not so easy
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:47:55PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
The utility of SPF lies in its ability to eliminate joe-jobbing,
providing a means to validate MXes -- and, as I'm reasonably sure you'll
have observed, forged mail's envelopes strongly tend to forge the
domains of major (very large)
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
yeah, aol's pleased as punch about it. they also don't have much
interest in customers sending email with @aol from off their own system
unless they use an obnoxious webmail client. same goes for hotmail.
anyone with users who isn't aol and whose
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry.
Still stuck in name-calling mode? Pity.
It's fine for a home user to implement it quickly but it's not so easy
for a lot of large organizations that currently allow people to send
mail from offsite
snip from='Michael Stone' date='2004-06-04 18:49:05 -0400'
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0100, Azazel wrote:
Fair enough, but it's up to people like us to push it, surely?
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry. At this point I'm not
convinced that it's worth the effort. It's fine
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:32PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Not that I'm objecting, but I can't help noticing that you're ignoring
the point I just made, and changing the subject.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the world is more complicated than
you seem to think.
Mike Stone
--
To
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:09:32PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry.
Still stuck in name-calling mode? Pity.
What name calling? There's a difference.
It's fine for a home user to implement it quickly but it's not so
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 12:23:14AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It's possible you're taking that fact into account: I'd be curious to
hear how you (or others) are ensuring that such bounces go somewhere
appropriate.
Well, fisrt of all, I accept
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What name calling? There's a difference.
snort Cute.
Ah, well.
You're assuming unrestricted outbound connections. Might even be true in
your environment.
It's true that there will be interim problems with corporate firewalls
(etc.) closing off
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No, I'm not.
You _weren't_ ignoring the point I just made and changing the subject?
Then, some villain apparently snuck into your MTA and substituted
different text that did, for the original message you tried to send.
You should sue! ;-
I'm
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:26:07PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
You mean like having extra meanings of the term vaporware, ones that
you alone are aware of? OK.
You're talking about SPF. That's a concept, not an implementation.
Effective use of SPF requires widespread adoption. Until/unless
widespread
Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you relay mail from your customers, you have to deliver them their
bounces if they spam.
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? If they're sending spam (either
deliberately or -- much more likely of late -- because customer hosts have
been
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
While I am sure finding out whose is bigger is exciting to you. I
feel comfortable in speaking for the rest of the list when I say this
thread has become WAY OT.
I'm surprised that an allegation that SPF -- highly relevant to SMTP
security --
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
I'm surprised that an allegation that SPF -- highly relevant to SMTP
security -- is vapourware, not to mention refutations of that
assertion, are off-topic. Nonetheless, I apologise for reacting with
irritation to Michael's claim to
snip from='Michael Stone' date='2004-06-04 18:25:47 -0400'
That doesn't matter, unless a large enough fraction of people at both
ends of smtp conversations actually use the stuff. An implementation
that is not deployed is no more useful than a standard which isn't
implemented.
/snip
Fair
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It's possible you're taking that fact into account: I'd be curious to
hear how you (or others) are ensuring that such bounces go somewhere
appropriate.
Well, fisrt of all, I accept mail for outgoing relay only from verified
sources, this includes SMTP
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why is SPF important? Because it eliminates joe-jobs. That is, it
allows mail admins to absolutely validate the envelope return path --
significant because spammers have recently gotten around to forging
sender envelope information, allowing forged
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Well, it is vaporware. Until it's used by a noticable percentage of
hosts, it's irrelevant.
(1) Where I come from, the term vapourware means software touted far
in advance of its availability. As noted, such is most emphatically not
the case, here.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0100, Azazel wrote:
Fair enough, but it's up to people like us to push it, surely?
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry. At this point I'm not
convinced that it's worth the effort. It's fine for a home user to
implement it quickly but it's not so
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:47:55PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
The utility of SPF lies in its ability to eliminate joe-jobbing,
providing a means to validate MXes -- and, as I'm reasonably sure you'll
have observed, forged mail's envelopes strongly tend to forge the
domains of major (very large)
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
yeah, aol's pleased as punch about it. they also don't have much
interest in customers sending email with @aol from off their own system
unless they use an obnoxious webmail client. same goes for hotmail.
anyone with users who isn't aol and whose
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry.
Still stuck in name-calling mode? Pity.
It's fine for a home user to implement it quickly but it's not so easy
for a lot of large organizations that currently allow people to send
mail from offsite
snip from='Michael Stone' date='2004-06-04 18:49:05 -0400'
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0100, Azazel wrote:
Fair enough, but it's up to people like us to push it, surely?
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry. At this point I'm not
convinced that it's worth the effort. It's fine
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:00:32PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Not that I'm objecting, but I can't help noticing that you're ignoring
the point I just made, and changing the subject.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the world is more complicated than
you seem to think.
Mike Stone
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 04:09:32PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There's a line between advocacy and zealotry.
Still stuck in name-calling mode? Pity.
What name calling? There's a difference.
It's fine for a home user to implement it quickly but
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 12:23:14AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It's possible you're taking that fact into account: I'd be curious to
hear how you (or others) are ensuring that such bounces go somewhere
appropriate.
Well, fisrt of all, I accept
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What name calling? There's a difference.
snort Cute.
Ah, well.
You're assuming unrestricted outbound connections. Might even be true in
your environment.
It's true that there will be interim problems with corporate firewalls
(etc.) closing off
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No, I'm not.
You _weren't_ ignoring the point I just made and changing the subject?
Then, some villain apparently snuck into your MTA and substituted
different text that did, for the original message you tried to send.
You should sue! ;-
I'm
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:26:07PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
You mean like having extra meanings of the term vaporware, ones that
you alone are aware of? OK.
You're talking about SPF. That's a concept, not an implementation.
Effective use of SPF requires widespread adoption. Until/unless
hiya david
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David Stanaway wrote:
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net (unknown
[69.145.228.124]) by david.dialmex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
CF733146132E
for [EMAIL
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David Stanaway wrote:
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net (unknown
[69.145.228.124]) by david.dialmex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
CF733146132E
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP server. Therefore I cannot connect to the
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
why is your spam filter allowing 3 basic spam signs thru ??
- email to undisclosed-recipients should be bounced
- email from non-existent hosts should be bounced
host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
However, I _would_ like to STOP it from being delivered at all, as
defined by simple rules like those above. As far as I can tell, this
must be done in the SMTP negotiation phase.
Mostly.
What's it going to cost my ISP to implement this? Is it
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use
Incoming from Phillip Hofmeister:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
why is your spam filter allowing 3 basic spam signs thru ??
- email to undisclosed-recipients should be bounced
- email from non-existent hosts should be bounced
host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net
- email from [EMAIL
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:24, s. keeling wrote:
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP server. Therefore I cannot connect to
the
Considering 60% - 80% of the traffic these days is crap, this is
beginning to look like a fairly
hi ya s.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement this?
ISP will probably NOT provide spam filtering, becuase of legal issues
My ISP does provide spam filtering; spamassassin marks crap on the
mailhost and procmail moves it to my
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:53, Alvin Oga wrote:
you have to post process your emails
after you already received it.
...and then it is a bit late to bounce, isn't it...?
Cheers,
Kjetil
--
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Astrophysicist/IT Consultant/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer
[EMAIL
Incoming from Phillip Hofmeister:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 01:32:55PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
Assuming my incoming mail is POPped off my ISP's mailhost and my
outgoing mail goes to my ISP's mailhost, how do I implement this?
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement this?
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
However, I _would_ like to STOP it from being delivered at all, as
[snip]
What's it going to cost my ISP to implement this? Is it feasible for
an ISP to implement this?
Is it feasible for them _not_ to? ;-
Yes. The
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 04:10:30PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
I don't use spamassisin, just bogofilter. Here is my relevant
procmailrc snippet...
Downloading it now, thanks. Hopefully this gets me back to a
maintainable system without all the exception handling, whitelisting,
false
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yes. The problem with Alvin's solution is it only looks at the crap
that spammers send. A lot of legitimate mail does all the silly
things that spammers do, and users do want to receive that mail.
1. Content-based filtering doesn't work very well (if
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:53, Alvin Oga wrote:
you have to post process your emails
after you already received it.
...and then it is a bit late to bounce, isn't it...?
i typically dont need to post process... i never got the spam
post
On Jun 3, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Alvin Oga wrote:
post processing is for the birds in my limited world of 10,000+
mails per day ... most of which are spam
- the original posts spam assassin didnt reject
the incoming spam to undisclosed recepient
- once they validate the email addy is
Quoting David Stanaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
My mail system has a number of users, and I prefer to let the recipient
decide what is spam.
There's a minor problem with this, about which more below.
Some list servers such as yahoogroups (May it rot in pieces) have the
annoying behavior of
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yes. The problem with Alvin's solution is it only looks at the crap
that spammers send. A lot of legitimate mail does all the silly
things that spammers do, and users do want to receive that mail.
1. Content-based
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I actually meant the typical worst practices for which spammers are
so well known. Spammers use these things to avoid detection. Average
users do them without even realizing it.
Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, this is an excellent point: Spammers lean
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:23:51PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
However, if your system is able to determine _during the SMTP session_
that the mail is unwanted (as spam or for some other reason), it can
issue a 55X Reject error and refuse delivery, instead of accepting the
mail and then having to make
Incoming from Phillip Hofmeister:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 04:10:30PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
I don't use spamassisin, just bogofilter. Here is my relevant
procmailrc snippet...
Downloading it now, thanks. Hopefully this gets me back to a
maintainable system without all the
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yeah, big difference. If the spam is going through a relay, the relay
will send the same bounce and the same person will get the bounce
message.
Oh, oh! jumps up and down
Gee, I guess that relay should have rejected the spam instead of relaying
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:34:44PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yeah, big difference. If the spam is going through a relay, the relay
will send the same bounce and the same person will get the bounce
message.
Oh, oh! jumps up and down
Gee, I
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:34:44PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Gee, I guess that relay should have rejected the spam instead of relaying
it, right? Then, it wouldn't feel a compulsion to issue a completely
inappropriate bounce [sic] message to a forged sender.
I'm sure the guy who got joe jobbed is
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
I actually meant the typical worst practices for which spammers are
so well known. Spammers use these things to avoid detection. Average
maybe we should reject misspelled email subject lines :-)
users do them without even realizing it. For instance,
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:24:35PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
One can pretend that the matter's open for debate, but that would be a
waste of time: It's happening.
Sure it is. How do you manage to sleep, fixing all the email systems in
the world *and* evangelizing at the same time? Must be tough.
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm sure the guy who got joe jobbed is happy that you can point out the
source of his misforture. Must be real comforting and all.
Was there a particular part of the immediately preceding reference to
SPF that you didn't get, or was it the concept as
Quoting Blu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If my relay server (not open, but relay for customers) has no means to
verify recipients, what to do when the destination server rejects that
mail already accepted by my server?. Bounce.
(Implicit assumption that you have no option but to accept forged-sender
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 05:32:17PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Was there a particular part of the immediately preceding reference to
SPF that you didn't get, or was it the concept as a whole?
I get the concept of vaporware. Seen a lot of it over the years.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 04:24:35PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
One can pretend that the matter's open for debate, but that would be a
waste of time: It's happening.
Sure it is. How do you manage to sleep, fixing all the email systems in
the world
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 05:32:17PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Was there a particular part of the immediately preceding reference to
SPF that you didn't get, or was it the concept as a whole?
I get the concept of vaporware. Seen a lot of it over the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Are you suggesting then, that we should not relay mail at all?, not even
to/from our customers?
If you relay mail from your customers, you have to deliver them their
bounces if they spam. If you relay to your customers you better make sure
the backup mx
hi ya blu
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Blu wrote:
I agree, but it was suggested that any mail server should reject spam at
SMTP time, and not bounce it at all.
yupp ... best to do at smtp time
If my relay server (not open, but
relay for customers) has no means to verify recipients, what to do when
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
personal email .. you can proably reject alll html emails
and whitelist all your friends that are sending html emails
... Assuming you can see into the future and can predict where all
your future mail will be coming from.
Incoming from Michael Stone:
It's not misbehaving to generate a bounce message. Glad I could clear
that up.
s/bounce/valid bounce/
You're welcome.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
--
To
While I am sure finding out whose is bigger is exciting to you. I
feel comfortable in speaking for the rest of the list when I say this
thread has become WAY OT. Please mark it as such (in the subject)
or take your discussion elsewhere.
Thanks
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 09:11:57PM -0400, Rick Moen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 07:26:30PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
Let me warn you. Bogofilter requires training a database. You may not
Much appreciated. That prompted me to read the man page before I let
it bite me. :-)
NP.
handful of a few
hiya david
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David Stanaway wrote:
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net (unknown
[69.145.228.124]) by david.dialmex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
CF733146132E
for [EMAIL
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David Stanaway wrote:
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net (unknown
[69.145.228.124]) by david.dialmex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
CF733146132E
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP server. Therefore I cannot connect to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 01:32:55PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
Assuming my incoming mail is POPped off my ISP's mailhost and my
outgoing mail goes to my ISP's mailhost, how do I implement this?
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
why is your spam filter allowing 3 basic spam signs thru ??
- email to undisclosed-recipients should be bounced
- email from non-existent hosts should be bounced
host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
However, I _would_ like to STOP it from being delivered at all, as
defined by simple rules like those above. As far as I can tell, this
must be done in the SMTP negotiation phase.
Mostly.
What's it going to cost my ISP to implement this? Is it
Quoting Phillip Hofmeister ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use
Incoming from Phillip Hofmeister:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 12:57:46PM -0400, Alvin Oga wrote:
- email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be bounced since
its not coming from bresnan.net
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
why is your spam filter allowing 3 basic spam signs thru ??
- email to undisclosed-recipients should be bounced
- email from non-existent hosts should be bounced
host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net
- email from [EMAIL
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:24, s. keeling wrote:
This is a bad suggestion. My ISP requires us (by blocking port 25
outbound) to use their SMTP server. Therefore I cannot connect to
the
Considering 60% - 80% of the traffic these days is crap, this is
beginning to look like a fairly
hi ya s.
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement this?
ISP will probably NOT provide spam filtering, becuase of legal issues
My ISP does provide spam filtering; spamassassin marks crap on the
mailhost and procmail moves it to my
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:53, Alvin Oga wrote:
you have to post process your emails
after you already received it.
...and then it is a bit late to bounce, isn't it...?
Cheers,
Kjetil
--
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Astrophysicist/IT Consultant/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer
[EMAIL
Incoming from Phillip Hofmeister:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 01:32:55PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
Assuming my incoming mail is POPped off my ISP's mailhost and my
outgoing mail goes to my ISP's mailhost, how do I implement this?
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement this?
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
However, I _would_ like to STOP it from being delivered at all, as
[snip]
What's it going to cost my ISP to implement this? Is it feasible for
an ISP to implement this?
Is it feasible for them _not_ to? ;-
Yes. The
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 at 04:10:30PM -0400, s. keeling wrote:
I don't use spamassisin, just bogofilter. Here is my relevant
procmailrc snippet...
Downloading it now, thanks. Hopefully this gets me back to a
maintainable system without all the exception handling, whitelisting,
false
Quoting s. keeling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yes. The problem with Alvin's solution is it only looks at the crap
that spammers send. A lot of legitimate mail does all the silly
things that spammers do, and users do want to receive that mail.
1. Content-based filtering doesn't work very well (if
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
On torsdag 3. juni 2004, 20:53, Alvin Oga wrote:
you have to post process your emails
after you already received it.
...and then it is a bit late to bounce, isn't it...?
i typically dont need to post process... i never got the spam
post
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
