On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:39:23AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 09:33:53 2003
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:10:30 -0500 John Hasler wrote:
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that
you're just incapable of
u:Undel s:Save m:Mail r:Reply g:Group ?:Help
--- alancRe: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful
(was Re: Look at
Subject: Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful (was Re: Look at
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-CR: C
I hate to have
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 21:33, Lance Simmons wrote:
[...]
My spam box is full of plausible sounding subjects from familiar
sounding names.
You're unlucky. Mine is full of things like Improve your life w
eokglo ruu fhrcf from Jed Wray [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have thousands
of them - with
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 14:54:32 2003
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Spammers DO send false CRs, but they are EASY to spot.
I suppose they are easy to spot _if_ you remember all the Subject
headers and addresses to which you send mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
Why people think that a fake From: but a valid Reply-To: is any use
is beyond me.
Address munging is considered harmful anyway, especially so in email.
So why do it at all? It's less
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:33:40PM -0500, Scott C. Linnenbringer wrote:
Munging has always traditionally been okay in news. Typically, one would
munge his or her email address as [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a form which makes
it stand-out as being munged slightly easier.
Yeah. I even implemented a
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been catching up on my email for the past few weeks and found this
rather horrible thread.
My sincerest apologies for all of my earlier posts. I had no idea what a
fluster-cluck this had become.
I dunno, its lead me into a detailed
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 09:33:53 2003
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:10:30 -0500 John Hasler wrote:
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that
you're just incapable of setting up your mail system to show the
real origin of your emails?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:28:03PM -0500, Scott C. Linnenbringer wrote:
The USENET is a different story, and I'm willing to bet that he's not
aware of munging policies of mailing lists vs. the USENET.
But they're the same: It's equally
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 09:27:07 2003
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that you're
just incapable of setting up your mail system to show the real origin of
your emails? Anyway, you're incurring in mail forgery.
No he isn't.
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 7 09:27:07 2003
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that you're
just incapable of setting up your mail system to show the real origin of
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:57:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness of people to
answer challenges.
I won't respond to TMDA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:51:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
That's just it, while a human *can* decode it a harvester cannot. It is a
valid address. Furthermore if you think a human is going to scan the address
list to pick out/decode the
Hallo!
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo!
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guess what address is only used on the newsgroups.
So use a 'Reply-To:' with your 'used and read' email address. Spammers
usually get only the 'XOver', which only has the
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:29:23 -0700 Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 16:21:40 2003
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:10:03 -0700, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
For all that you do in trying to fight the spam problem, I find it
ironic that you yourself are
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:00:11AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:37:49PM +0200, David Fokkema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Spam is a growing, heck, exploding problem. No doubt.
Hallo!
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guess what address is only used on the newsgroups.
So use a 'Reply-To:' with your 'used and read' email address. Spammers
usually get only the 'XOver', which only has the From: in it, so they
won't see your Reply-To:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:44:50AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
First off, you're responding to two different people as if they were one.
Secondly David Fokkema has been on the pro-C-R side of the fence. I do not
recall him ever complaining about bandwidth (unlike one Mr. Connor who
I hate to have to do this, but I own an apology to Paul Johnson.
(Having received a mail from a list member with an example of a false CR. Talk
about FAST.)
Spammers DO send false CRs, but they are EASY to spot.
A real one will have:
Subject: Re: The_Subject_of_Your_Original_Message
AND
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that you're
just incapable of setting up your mail system to show the real origin of
your emails? Anyway, you're incurring in mail forgery.
No he isn't. His From: line reads From: alanc. As it contains no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:52:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
However, it generates less spam than signing up for Yahoo, even when
used over years.
How can you be so sure?
It was one of the last straws that made me to start serving myself.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:10:21PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
No offense intended, Lance, but you are just the sort of person that my
CR system is designed to filter out.
Or you're just another person on the net wanting to ask an off-topic
question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:43:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
USENET was designed as a replacement to listservs. Given the origin,
lost functionality, and it's about as effective as C-R for reducing
spam, munging is considered harmful.
No
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 08:41:46 2003
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:57:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:03:57PM +0200, Jan Schulz wrote:
Just as a sidenote: I usually don't bother to read a mailaddress or
sigs, when I reply to a mail, but just hit 'reply'. And I usually try
only once to contact someone. So if a mail bounces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
I hate to have to do this, but I own an apology to Paul Johnson.
Apology accepted. Sorry if I laid in kind of hard on my last response
to you.
(Having received a mail from a list member
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:39:23AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
The problem has been fixed since yesterday, which makes this post of yours
libelous. Which is the greater crime? An inadvertantly misconfigured MUA
or libel?
Woohoo! A cartooney!
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correctly configuring your mail server can go a long ways to reducing
the spam that you recieve.
I'm sure that's true. The problem is there are three kinds of people:
experts, people who more or less know what they're doing, and
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:10:30 -0500 John Hasler wrote:
Carlos Sousa writes:
Do you also have an account at my service provider? Or is it that
you're just incapable of setting up your mail system to show the
real origin of your emails? Anyway, you're incurring in mail
forgery.
No he
Thanks very much for the very informative post. We also use
postfix here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I should note that there are a number of emails that are bounced as
undeliverable from real people because of my UCE controls being so
strict. Generally these are few and can easily be
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:10:03AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
Spammers DO send false CRs, but they are EASY to spot.
I suppose they are easy to spot _if_ you remember all the Subject
headers and addresses to which you send mail. Suppose I decided to send
you a private reply about this very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:51:33AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
It's arguably a useful (if rude) tactic in news, since, I hypothesize,
it's much faster for spammers to harvest From: addresses because they're
usually in the overview file while
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:18:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
This doesn't jive with my experience. I munge with a legal
address and just ignore that address. I get tons of spam to it a
day and the only place I ever use it has been one, maybe 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:45:44PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
What makes you think I'm not?
Well, that's why I thought I missed it.
I'm pointing out that the assertion that
addresses posted to newsgroups are not harvested is false.
However,
Hallo!
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guess what address is only used on the newsgroups.
So use a 'Reply-To:' with your 'used and read' email address. Spammers
usually get only the 'XOver', which only has the From: in it, so they
won't see your Reply-To: Email.
I've been catching up on my email for the past few weeks and found this
rather horrible thread.
My sincerest apologies for all of my earlier posts. I had no idea what a
fluster-cluck this had become.
However, the issue of blocking spam does seem to get people excited, even
to the point of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:57:17AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Uh, no, they're not the same. In a mailing list if someone munges they
don't get mail and might cause accidental bounces. In usenet, no bounces are
possible unless someone else is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness of people to
answer challenges.
I won't respond to TMDA challenges anymore. Some spammers actually
send out TMDA-like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Munging has always traditionally been okay in news.
I always thought this was exclusively moron behaviour. I'm not alone.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
On the USENET, too, correspondence is always done in the newsgroup.
First-of-all, thanks to B. for helping me get my from header straightened out.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 16:43:57 2003
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 21:33, Lance Simmons wrote:
[...]
My spam box is full of plausible sounding subjects from familiar
sounding names.
You're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:54:03AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 08:41:46 2003
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:57:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com. So
it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's
just slightly damaging the mail. (Which doesn't strike me as a large
bug, since he shouldn't be
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:29:23 -0700, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Either this is a sick joke (and a poor one at that) or it is criminal.
here's the post I sent from my sentmail mbox:
It was actually a mistake. But in any event, the point still remains
intact because you are still
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
nagging at me for a while, here's the draft of why C-R is considered
harmful.
on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:37:49PM +0200, David Fokkema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and stopping it can only be done
with a Challenge-Response mail program, such as the one I put together.
There isn't ANY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and
47 matches
Mail list logo
