.
--
Debian-security, Jul 2, 09:35 PDT
spam spam spam
This email is a service from iTel Networks.
[1V9E27-KX6N]
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Davide Prina wrote:
> I think this is a very bad solution.
..
> I think the actual policy is the best one.
Debian already uses RBLs to block spam from the lists, another one
wouldn't be anything new.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Because we can't block all spam doesn't mean we shouldn't try to block any.
I think the solution is multi-dimensional on the other hand there are some
dedicated IP's that exclusively send spam, there shouldn't not be a way to
block these.
-Original Message-
From: Davide Prina
On 25/04/2016 10:58, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM, SZÉPE Viktor wrote:
Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list.
The people running the Debian lists can be contacted here:
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintenance
I've forwarded your
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM, SZÉPE Viktor wrote:
> Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list.
The people running the Debian lists can be contacted here:
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#maintenance
I've forwarded your suggestion to them.
--
bye,
pabs
ht
Please consider using http://psky.me/ to keep spam out of the list.
Thank you!
SZÉPE Viktor
--
+36-20-4242498 s...@szepe.net skype: szepe.viktor
Budapest, III. kerület
Spam detection software, running on the system webmail.streamwave.com, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
postmas...@streamwave.com
This message isn't SPAM, so you can reply to it. Please don't reply to SPAM
messages, and when you absolutely *must* do not quote SPAM message. Either of
these actions make it much harder for the administrators and automated systems
to identify and remove SPAM from the mailing lists.
If you
Every message that you send to supp...@mitacs.com will be resent to debian-
security. Every message you send to postmaster or abuse will be ignored.
Please everyone, configure your mail servers to block all mail from
85.125.218.18 and all mail with @mitacs.com in the From: field.
If you really
Hello Russell Coker and *,
for some minutes I have called MITACS in Austria and the support Person
is a REAL employee. They asked me for one of the message with full
headers to find out whats going on here. I think, hey will call me back.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
On Dom, 04 Jul 2010, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I beleive d.o can (and should)
attempt to block 100% of spam.
While I'm in no way associated with Debian mailing list management,
I'm pretty certain they do attempt to block 100% of spam. But
attempting it and achieving it are two different things
hi,
2010/7/5 Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br:
. No system will ever be 100% accurate
and filter all spams.
Right. But less then 99.8% - for a private system (which the list is
not) - is not tolerable. Can the list track how spam is blocked and -
maybe - an overview how effective
spam is blocked and -
maybe - an overview how effective this is (like graphs over a few
periods)?
[...]
Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and
debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages.
Moreover i see that in my spam folder i have
how spam is blocked and -
maybe - an overview how effective this is (like graphs over a few
periods)?
greetings,
Björ
Hi,
just some obvious calculations:
assuming that all blocked emails are indeed spams, we have:
/blocked-spams / all-spams = blocked-mail / ( blocked-mail +
not-blocked-spam
hi,
2010/7/5 Wojciech Ziniewicz wojciech.ziniew...@gmail.com:
2010/7/5 Bjoern Meier bjoern.me...@googlemail.com
Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and
debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages.
Moreover i see that in my spam
Ok Folks, really, your mails about the spam are starting to actually spam!
Wait, this email is then also considered a spam about spamming.
You just can't win.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 09:49, Roger Hanna ru...@rogers.com wrote:
Ok Folks, really, your mails about the spam are starting to actually spam!
Wait, this email is then also considered a spam about spamming.
You just can't win.
Good thing the FOSS ppl don't think like that.
-Jim P
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Wojciech Ziniewicz wrote:
Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and
debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages.
Moreover i see that in my spam folder i have like 3-7 spam messages per
hour
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, CaT c...@zip.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Wojciech Ziniewicz wrote:
Personally i get 0-5 spam messages per month from the debian-isp and
debian-security list that are not filtered and appear as non-spam messages.
Moreover i see
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur Machlas arthur.mach...@gmail.com wrote:
Forward all mail to a gmail account, then forward back to Debian's
list-servs. Spam problem solved.
except Debian pushes hard for their outbound mail host to be
whitelisted... which is also a reason the default
Guys, this is all spam to me. It's coming to the point where I just
want to usubscribe rather then keep watching this ridiculous flame
war.
Let's be big boys and gals and stop fighting.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 17:38, Arthur Machlas arthur.mach...@gmail.com wrote:
Forward all mail to a gmail account, then forward back to Debian's
list-servs. Spam problem solved.
except Debian pushes hard for their outbound
Bonjour
Je suis absent jusqu'au 16 juin.
Vous pouvez envoyer vos demandes à [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am out of the office until june the 16th.
You can send your request to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Nicolas Foucher - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responsable Technique
CARRENET - Solutions CRM 100% Web
. The fact the autobot responded to the
list, or the fact that it responded to something that had been identified
as SPAM.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-01-30 15:32:25, schrieb Sam Morris:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
removed from the archive, since they are unsupported, and *very*
dangerous to use?
Sorry, that I ask, but where ist 2.4.28 ?
The
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Where is it posted that the dropped support for 2.4.18?
It was on debian-devel and debian-kernel
They told, there are too much kernels to maintain and droped 2.4.(18-22)
They sugested to use one of the Backports.
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-*
Sam Morris wrote:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
^
should be 2.4.18, sorry :)
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP key id 5EA01078
Fingerprint 3412 EA18 1277 354B
Am 2005-01-30 16:02:23, schrieb Sam Morris:
Sam Morris wrote:
Wow, I missed that! Should not the kernel-image-2.4.28-* packages be
^
should be 2.4.18, sorry :)
:-)
Generaly there is no reason to
* Michelle Konzack wrote:
There will be no new version of 2.4.XX
Wrong.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hello, there.
i have a problem. :(
now, I'm dealing with spamssended from so many place in
the world. but i'm new in this field like anti-spam and e-mail. so i want to
know how to deal with spams and , especially, analyzemail
header.
Ifyou know good anti-spam sites or books,let
me
in my SPAM-Box with the
procmail filter attached...
Most are catched by sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and never I had FP's.
cn-kr.blackholes.us dynablock.njabl.org bl.spamcop.net cbl.abuseat.org
dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net taiwan.blackholes.us
Hmm, maybe I will add them to my list to get the last 5
Quoting tomasz abramowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
sorry about the off topic, but maybe you guys at debian can fix what
my internet provider is talking about?
No problem, spam is always interesting to look at (well, at least
for me ;).
But when I see that they use SBL/XBL yet they still pass
Greetings,
Am Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 16:43 schrieb Ron DuFresne:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Verwayen wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:12, Todd Towles wrote:
The kernel could be save. But with weak passwords, you are toast. Any
automated tool would test guest/guest.
Hello Todd!
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jan Luehr wrote:
Greetings,
Am Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 16:43 schrieb Ron DuFresne:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Verwayen wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:12, Todd Towles wrote:
The kernel could be save. But with weak passwords, you are toast. Any
automated
* Jan Luehr:
So your point is, there a much already known local root exploits on an
standard woody system no one cares about?
For those of you who don't subscribe to full-disclosure, the following
information might be a bit reassuring. A clearer image of what's
going is now emerging (a
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
agree with that consensus.
I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash
on the envelope
Russell recipient and therefore signatures you find on someone else's
Russell machine would not do any good. If it was otherwise then a
Russell single signature would work for an entire spam run.
Yes. In hashcash, the hashcash token uses the recipient's address, as
well as a date
.
...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does generate
the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems to be a trigger
point for a whole lot of things to be worth avoiding/abusing for
spammers - the silly haiku header thing being one example.
Russell Besides, with an army
generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems
Daniel to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth
Daniel avoiding/abusing for spammers - the silly haiku header thing
Daniel being one example.
Well SpamAssassin, AFAIK, will do proper hashcash checking, including
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:38:10AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
tokens in order to get any effect from SpamAssassin. Other than using
zombies, I don't think spammers could afford to generate real tokens
for every recipient.
Well, since there are millions of vulnerable systems all over the 'net
that
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:34, Patrick Maheral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
agree with that consensus.
I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash
.
...makes you wonder how long it will take before someone does generate
the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems to be a trigger
point for a whole lot of things to be worth avoiding/abusing for
spammers - the silly haiku header thing being one example.
Russell Besides, with an army
generate the headers in SPAM, then. Being in SpamAssassin seems
Daniel to be a trigger point for a whole lot of things to be worth
Daniel avoiding/abusing for spammers - the silly haiku header thing
Daniel being one example.
Well SpamAssassin, AFAIK, will do proper hashcash checking, including
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:38:10AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
tokens in order to get any effect from SpamAssassin. Other than using
zombies, I don't think spammers could afford to generate real tokens
for every recipient.
Well, since there are millions of vulnerable systems all over the 'net
Here is a list of junk subject patterns in case someone is interested.
Alain
junkMailPatterns.gz
Description: Binary data
Can the mailing list software add a X-Subscribed : yes/no in the
mail headers ? Then people decide to filter it out or not.
Alain
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is a list of junk subject patterns in case someone is interested.
Alain
junkMailPatterns.gz
Description: Binary data
Can the mailing list software add a X-Subscribed : yes/no in the
mail headers ? Then people decide to filter it out or not.
Alain
+0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to
it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam
with
my address in the From field. If I confirm, the person
second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to
it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam
with
my address in the From field. If I confirm, the person sending me
+0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to
it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam
with
my address in the From field. If I confirm, the person
second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to
it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam
with
my address in the From field. If I confirm, the person sending me
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:22, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:22, s. keeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot
to spam are not implimented
that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect
we'll see a generation of mail systems which greylist
by default at the very least. Perhaps a future
secreterial job will be to wade through the muck and
query the boss as to whether one or two should be
allowed
on postgresql.org, php.net,
mutt.org, exim.org and others where I get not more then a half
SPAM per month.
I am on 146 Mailinglists 46 and on this list I get 80% of the
normal SPAM (not the last two days)
Because the SPAM filter of murphy works quiet well, I like to
see a subscriber only List too
it or not (and I don't) that is where we are
headed if other solutions to spam are not implimented
that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect
It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good.
While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them
by
spammers.
[snip]
You are right in everything except the tense - it's already happening.
I've had friends that use the CR systems reporting that spammers did reply
to their challenges. Apparently this is done by the put your computer to
work victims that spam from their home accounts sometimes even w/o
, in many cases when I'm sending email to address found on
website I'm receiving challenge, and I fully understand people doing it.
Whitelist with email/IP can decrease also number of challenges from
spammers: email comming from different IP can be treated as spam
automatically.
I implemented
It seems that most people here don't like CR systems, and I'd have to
agree with that consensus.
I'm just wondering what is the general feeling about using hashcash and
other header signatures systems.
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
into the decision.
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
It should not be technically difficult to publish some email addresses, wait
for challenge messages to come in response to virus messages
accept only such messages because almost no-one sends
them. Most people see no need to send them because almost no-one checks for
them when receiving a message.
Anti-spam measures may be used on workstations eventually, but have to be
initially installed at servers if they are to become popular
In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been seen
typing:
Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures
anyway...
Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
--
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
would be most useful
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
would
will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
Presumably the signature would be based on the envelope recipient and
therefore signatures you find on someone else's machine would not do any
good. If it was otherwise then a single signature would work for an entire
spam run
to spam are not implimented
that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect
we'll see a generation of mail systems which greylist
by default at the very least. Perhaps a future
secreterial job will be to wade through the muck and
query the boss as to whether one or two should be
allowed
on postgresql.org, php.net,
mutt.org, exim.org and others where I get not more then a half
SPAM per month.
I am on 146 Mailinglists 46 and on this list I get 80% of the
normal SPAM (not the last two days)
Because the SPAM filter of murphy works quiet well, I like to
see a subscriber only List too
it or not (and I don't) that is where we are
headed if other solutions to spam are not implimented
that cover non-NANOG type persons. I strongly suspect
It won't work because challenge-response systems are technically no good.
While CR systems are almost never used because the people who use them
by
spammers.
[snip]
You are right in everything except the tense - it's already happening.
I've had friends that use the CR systems reporting that spammers did reply
to their challenges. Apparently this is done by the put your computer to
work victims that spam from their home accounts sometimes even w/o
unsolicted email,
then your business model will include the wages of
a presorter. They are cheaper than a knowledgeable
mail admin.
As to the type in this random code from a jpeg,
I use that on samizdata (a major blog for which I'm
one of the editors). It stopped the problem of blog-spam
cold
.
Currently, in many cases when I'm sending email to address found on
website I'm receiving challenge, and I fully understand people doing it.
Whitelist with email/IP can decrease also number of challenges from
spammers: email comming from different IP can be treated as spam
automatically.
I
into the decision.
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
It should not be technically difficult to publish some email addresses, wait
for challenge messages to come in response to virus messages
accept only such messages because almost no-one sends
them. Most people see no need to send them because almost no-one checks for
them when receiving a message.
Anti-spam measures may be used on workstations eventually, but have to be
initially installed at servers if they are to become popular
In other news for Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:24:05PM +1000, Russell Coker has been
seen typing:
Besides, with an army of Windows Zombies you could generate those signatures
anyway...
Why bother, when said windows machines will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
--
Quoting Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Some of the anti-spam people are very enthusiastic about their work. I
wouldn't be surprised if someone writes a bot to deal with CR systems.
A bot to detect C-R queries and add them to the refused-mail ACL list
would be most useful. ;-
will have perfectly good
signatures stored on them somewhere already?
Presumably the signature would be based on the envelope recipient and
therefore signatures you find on someone else's machine would not do any
good. If it was otherwise then a single signature would work for an entire
spam run
Hi all!
As I see, there ia a lot of issues regarding spam, so I'd like to add
something from me:)
Because my email was used on many discussion lists, I was receiving
sometimes over 100 spam emails per day. A long time ago I've started
fighting with them using many different
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are allowing all emails from whitelits.
Who is we in this context? Individual users or mailing list administrators?
For unknown sender, automated confirmation request is send. If
For mailing lists this can be achieved by
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
(well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works -
that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I
do not want to waste my time answering to that spam.
Dmitry
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't
really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who
are replying
to). Maybe that's impolite, but I
do not want to waste my time answering to that spam.
has it been discussed before the usage of such systems by bug
submitters? I've come up with this situation twice or so, and I
found myself thinking what the hell, they're putting extra work
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with
my address
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from
what you thing about this idea.
Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only.
For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in
confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages.
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list
subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very
anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in
response to virus messages.
Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered,
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list
subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very
anti-social as it results in
Hi all!
As I see, there ia a lot of issues regarding spam, so I'd like to add
something from me:)
Because my email was used on many discussion lists, I was receiving
sometimes over 100 spam emails per day. A long time ago I've started
fighting with them using many different
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
(well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works -
that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I
do not want to waste my time answering to that spam.
Dmitry
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't
really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who
are
to). Maybe that's impolite, but I
do not want to waste my time answering to that spam.
has it been discussed before the usage of such systems by bug
submitters? I've come up with this situation twice or so, and I
found myself thinking what the hell, they're putting extra work
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote:
I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it!
If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it!
That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with
my address
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from
what you thing about this idea.
Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the problems
hi ya jaroslaw
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote:
In mean time, I've found additional way for spam filtering, but it
requires some development. The basic idea is simple and already in use:
We are allowing all emails from whitelits.
already done ... most MTA support a whitelist
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only.
For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in
confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages.
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list
subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very
anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in
response to virus messages.
Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's delivered,
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list
subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very
anti-social as it results in
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.
1 - 100 of 422 matches
Mail list logo
