(thread broken on purpose).
1. Never reply to SPAM in the Debian MLs, just report it as SPAM using
the web interface.
2. If you need to talk about spam, open a new thread (as that thread
will not be spam, although it *might* be quite off-topic).
Doing it this way makes it easier/neater
On 2008-01-03 00:42:32 +0100, mouss wrote:
En principe, à moins d'avoir explicitement désactivé le bloquage du port
25 sur la freebox (ou d'avoir une freebox qui n'a pas rebouté depuis
plus d'un an), le port 25 est bloqué sauf pour smtp.free.fr.
cela veut dire que la majorité des machines
Am 2008-01-03 00:42:32, schrieb mouss:
En principe, à moins d'avoir explicitement désactivé le bloquage du port
25 sur la freebox (ou d'avoir une freebox qui n'a pas rebouté depuis
plus d'un an), le port 25 est bloqué sauf pour smtp.free.fr.
Je utiliser le port 587 pour envoi mes messages via
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-01-03 00:42:32, schrieb mouss:
En principe, à moins d'avoir explicitement désactivé le bloquage du port
25 sur la freebox (ou d'avoir une freebox qui n'a pas rebouté depuis
plus d'un an), le port 25 est bloqué sauf pour smtp.free.fr.
Je utiliser le port 587
Bonjour a tous
(et bonne annee)
pourquoi tu ne mets pas un reverse DNS avec un domaine à toi
(maison.homelinux.net par exemple)? L'argument du moment est que si on
ne fait pas d'efforts pour mettre un rDNS non générique, alors on ne
sait pas si ton IP change de main en main (on ne peut donc
Le Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:46:24 +0100 (CET)
Debian liste FR [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Excusez-moi par avance de la naiveté de ma question.
Comment faire un reverse DNS avec DynDNS, quand on est chez un FAI, et que
l'on a un compte DynDNS ?
Je croyais que c'etait systematique ?
Chez free, on
Debian liste FR wrote:
Bonjour a tous
(et bonne annee)
pourquoi tu ne mets pas un reverse DNS avec un domaine à toi
(maison.homelinux.net par exemple)? L'argument du moment est que si on
ne fait pas d'efforts pour mettre un rDNS non générique, alors on ne
sait pas si ton IP change de main en
Pour les autres opérateurs,
Il faut demander au support technique de ton FAI.
Ils pourront te faire cela, théoriquement cela doit être une prestation
gratuite. (bien sur il te faut une IP FIXE)
alex
Francois Boisson a écrit :
Le Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:46:24 +0100 (CET)
Debian liste FR [EMAIL
Bonjour Mouss, et merci de ta reponse.
chez free, la mise du reverse se fait dans l'interface d'admin de la
freebox. il est conseillé de copier la valeur du reverse actuel, au cas
où on regrette et qu'on ne veut plus de reverse custom (il suffit
alors de remettre l'original).
Je viens de
Le Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:44:27 +0100
Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
Francois Boisson wrote:
Le Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:44:27 +0100
Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error.
Le Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:15:45 +0100
mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
pourquoi tu ne mets pas un reverse DNS avec un domaine à toi
(maison.homelinux.net par exemple)? L'argument du moment est que si on
ne fait pas d'efforts pour mettre un rDNS non générique, alors on ne
sait pas si ton IP
On 2008-01-02 21:09:37 +0100, Francois Boisson wrote:
Le problème est le suivant: Si je programme exim pour que mon SMTP
porte le même nom que le reverse DNS (à savoir
alf94-3-82-66-248-156.fbx.proxad.net, je suis considéré comme un
spammeur par la liste. Si je met un nom de domaine tout à
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-01-02 21:09:37 +0100, Francois Boisson wrote:
Le problème est le suivant: Si je programme exim pour que mon SMTP
porte le même nom que le reverse DNS (à savoir
alf94-3-82-66-248-156.fbx.proxad.net, je suis considéré comme un
spammeur par la liste. Si je met un
Francois Boisson wrote:
Le Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:15:45 +0100
mouss [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
pourquoi tu ne mets pas un reverse DNS avec un domaine à toi
(maison.homelinux.net par exemple)? L'argument du moment est que si on
ne fait pas d'efforts pour mettre un rDNS non générique, alors on
on Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 06:04:57PM -0500, Carl Fink ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler, makes the spam easier to report, etc.
Who are you
Karsten M. Self([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
on Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 06:04:57PM -0500, Carl Fink ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 06:41:22AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Personally, my own recommendation would be that you don't.
Sound advice, considering how lazy I am.
- Finding out what DNSBLs are accurate (SpamCop, SpamHaus), a few
others.
I'm not sure what you mean by accurate in this
Incoming from Wayne Topa:
Karsten M. Self([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Downloads/SpamTools.tar.gz
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
Do you have another URL Karsten?
At one time,
s. keeling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
Incoming from Wayne Topa:
Karsten M. Self([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Downloads/SpamTools.tar.gz
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
Do you have another
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 21:32, s. keeling wrote:
for f in cur/*; do
perl adcomplain.pl $f
..
done
You can fix that with chmod:
chmod 744 adcomplain.pl
Already done. No, the reason I need to specify perl is that the first
line of adcomplain.pl is a shell hash-bang
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:09:26 +, Chris Lale
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Google, rehash is a Linux/Unix command; but I cannot find
it on my system. Perhaps it has been deprecated?
It's a csh-ism. If you're using a sh-derivative (eg, bash), you
shouldn't need to do anything. My
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 09:26 -0500, Michael Marsh wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:09:26 +, Chris Lale
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Google, rehash is a Linux/Unix command; but I cannot find
it on my system. Perhaps it has been deprecated?
It's a csh-ism. If you're using a
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 14:37, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 09:26 -0500, Michael Marsh wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:09:26 +, Chris Lale
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Google, rehash is a Linux/Unix command; but I cannot find
it on my system. Perhaps it has been
Joao Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William Ballard wrote:
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
And how do you subscribe to the list with nospam in the e-mail
address?!? You'll never receive an e-mail to that address!
You could make a username with nospam in it. Then you
On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 23:04, Carl Fink wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler, makes the spam easier to report, etc.
Who are you reporting spam to, anyway? I'd
Incoming from Chris Lale:
On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 23:04, Carl Fink wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler, makes the spam easier to report, etc.
Who are you
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:21, s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Chris Lale:
On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 23:04, Carl Fink wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler,
Incoming from Chris Lale:
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:21, s. keeling wrote:
[snip]
Thanks! Works with slight modification:
for f in cur/*; do
perl adcomplain.pl $f
..
done
You can fix that with chmod:
chmod 744 adcomplain.pl
and move adcomplain.pl to one of the dirs in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Hannibal Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am I safe from getting spam on this list?
Nope, this is an open list, spammers often post to the list. Whether
or not SPI has any luck collecting advertising fees from the spammers
is another question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:48:16 -0500, John Hannibal Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I safe from getting spam on this list? Will my e-mail address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be sold or distributed?
All mail to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 16:03, Clive Menzies wrote:
Below are a range of packages that deal with
spam:
gotmail - Utility to download email from a Hotmail or MSN account
Also, in testing and unstable:
hotway - acts like a pop3 server, but actually goes to hotmail.com
to retrieve requested
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
Sure, but I don't think this is a munge - I understood his post to
mean that [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
| William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
|
|Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
|
|
| http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
While I agree that address munging is Not A Good Thing, I find the
attempt to
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler, makes the spam easier to report, etc.
Who are you reporting spam to, anyway? I'd like to contribute but I'm
woefully out-of-touch.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:15:00PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
I tend to prefer real email management over fake email address hacks.
Keeps everything simpler, makes the spam easier to report, etc.
Who are you
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:44:59PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who are you reporting spam to, anyway? I'd like to contribute but I'm
woefully out-of-touch.
Well, the hosting networks, of course. Though spamcop.net automates
the process greatly and
Hi everyone,
Am I safe from getting spam on this list? Will my e-mail address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be sold or distributed?
Just curious! Thanks!
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:48:16 -0500, John Hannibal Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I safe from getting spam on this list? Will my e-mail address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be sold or distributed?
All mail to this list is archived on the web, so your email address
*will* be harvested by spammers.
for email addresses and now that you've posted
to the list, your address is out there.
The good news is that there are many ways of dealing with spam using
Debian, even so far as blocking it at smtp time and so most of it never
reaches your machine. Below are a range of packages that deal with
spam
Incoming from John Hannibal Smith:
Am I safe from getting spam on this list?
Nope. The list does stop a lot of spam, but some does still come
through.
Will my e-mail address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be sold or distributed?
Probably, and now that you've posted it, it's available to anyone who
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:02:11AM -0500, Michael Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:48:16 -0500, John Hannibal Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I safe from getting spam on this list? Will my e-mail address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) be sold or distributed?
All mail to this list is archived on
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
how come ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Ballard wrote:
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
And how do you subscribe to the list with nospam in the e-mail
address?!? You'll never receive an e-mail to that address!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:03:01 +
Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The good news is that there are many ways of dealing with spam using
Debian, even so far as blocking it at smtp time and so most of it
never reaches your machine. Below are a range of packages that deal
with spam
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 06:14:45PM +, Joao Clemente wrote:
William Ballard wrote:
Including nospam in your email name helps a lot.
And how do you subscribe to the list with nospam in the e-mail
address?!? You'll never receive an e-mail to that address!
It works just fine. I must be
On 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
linux.debian.user:
Why isn't there a limitation that will only allow the mails to be
forwarded to the list if the originating email is subscribed to the
list?
(snip)
I read the list on usenet. I find it is easier for me to follow the
Paul Johnson wrote:
Actually, the most daunting thing about this list is the sheer volume
of mail involved.
Do you even grasp the irony of this statement? If volume is a problem
then you'd think reducing the volume by cutting out the cruft of non-list spam
and bogus mailings of false virus
Dan Lawrence wrote:
On 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
linux.debian.user:
snip
If (wo)manpwer is the issue, I'd be happy to help with the admin
process. List admin, please feel free to email me directly to
discuss this.
-Dan
I would also be happy to volunteer with the
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:59:06PM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Does this mean that the volunteer list maintainer who has limited time
to maintain the list is a Debian Developer,
Yes.
I am under the impression that recently there is NO maintenance of
this list, judging by the amount of
I have an idea!
Why don't we figure out a way to bounce all the virus crap to the spammers.
That would kill two bad birds with one big stone:-)
--
John Foster
Advance-Computing Systems
We build amazing servers!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:13:18PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Long story short: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the only way
this forum is read: Other mailing lists mirror this one, as well as
several usenet newsgroup. Closing the list would severely limit
debian-user's usefulness
Pigeon said:
There was a lot of gas generated about the swen worm when that hit. That
harvested email addresses off the web. Again, clueless Windows users
without
effective virus protection - only a wider base of them, ie. not just ones
subscribed to this list.
My solution is - for the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:09:57PM -0700, Lucas Albers wrote:
Would be nice to have your address munged from this list, or the option.
You do have the option. Add to /etc/exim/exim.conf:
##
# REWRITE
Pigeon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]${if match {$header_to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] frFs
...or other similar methods, depending on what email software you're using.
Hmmm, never thought of that for people who insist on sending CCs to messages
on lists which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:49:55AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Actually, the most daunting thing about this list is the sheer volume
of mail involved.
Do you even grasp the irony of this statement? If volume is a problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:35:41PM -0600, John Foster wrote:
I have an idea!
Why don't we figure out a way to bounce all the virus crap to the spammers.
That would kill two bad birds with one big stone:-)
Hehehe, feed the homeless to the hungry, I
Pigeon said:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:09:57PM -0700, Lucas Albers wrote:
Would be nice to have your address munged from this list, or the option.
You do have the option. Add to /etc/exim/exim.conf:
All the spam comes from other machine.
I reject 99% of it anyway, I just see it on my
Hello deb users.
I got a little issue with receiving some of the mails through this
list...
The entire list have been subjected to the inflow of spam, viruses,
auto-responders finding virus or spam, clueless users or someone who
just wants to mess around with the list.
Why isn't there a
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros wrote:
Hello deb users.
I got a little issue with receiving some of the mails through this
list...
The entire list have been subjected to the inflow of spam, viruses,
auto-responders finding virus or spam, clueless users or someone who
just wants to
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:31, Sebastiaan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros wrote:
Hello deb users.
I got a little issue with receiving some of the mails through this
list...
The entire list have been subjected to the inflow of spam, viruses,
auto-responders finding
Sebastiaan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros wrote:
Hello deb users.
snip
The entire list have been subjected to the inflow of spam, viruses,
auto-responders finding virus or spam, clueless users or someone who
just wants to mess around with the list.
snip
I think there is a nice
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Sebastiaan wrote:
I think there is a nice practical reason for this. The list operator
doesn't have time to delete every spam user from this list. The operator
is also someone who is maintaining the list in his free time.
Does this mean that the volunteer list maintainer
Incoming from Hugo Vanwoerkom:
Does this mean that the volunteer list maintainer who has limited time
to maintain the list is a Debian Developer,
or can there be other volunteers to do this who DO have more time? I am
under the impression that recently there is NO maintenance of this list,
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 10:31, Sebastiaan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Bojan Baros wrote:
Hello deb users.
I got a little issue with receiving some of the mails through this
list...
The entire list have been subjected to the inflow of spam,
viruses,
auto-responders finding
s. keeling wrote:
Which brings up another thing; all the talk about scanning the list
for viruses, only allowing those subscribed to post, etc., yada yada.
If they weren't using Windows to read mail, they wouldn't have a
problem, would they? Why are so many considering reworking the list
just to
Bojan Baros wrote:
David did bring a good point as well, about opportunity to ask
question without being exposed to the volume of the list, and using
gmane or some other way of reading the posts, instead of receiving
them in the email box.
That about settles it for me, unless someone has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:02:05AM -0500, Bojan Baros wrote:
Obviously, there might be some good reasons for this behavior that I
am not aware off (besides it helps me build up my Bayes database and
test my av), so please enlighten me.
Please STFW
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:14:58PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
That isn't the reason. Perusing the archives will yield the real
answer. Because a newbie Debian user *may* read the archvies and *may*
decided to click on the link there to
Paul Johnson wrote:
Long story short: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the only way
this forum is read: Other mailing lists mirror this one, as well as
several usenet newsgroup. Closing the list would severely limit
debian-user's usefulness due to a suddenly and artificially restricted
membership.
As
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 07:43:44PM -0800, Jaye Inabnit ke6sls wrote:
I Just received this message moments ago. Is this actually coming into my
mailbox via bounce-debian-user?
It's a temporary glitch in the spam filtering on the lists. I believe
(from overheard conversations on IRC) that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings:
I Just received this message moments ago. Is this actually coming into my
mailbox via bounce-debian-user? If so, why did it pick me?
*SPAM* DAILY REQS!!! 04/05/02
The header source:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, I think the return-path stuff is so that if the message bounces at
your end the bounce doesn't go to the list but to some address where
it dies a quiet death. If you have a look at the 'received' chain, it
comes from a machine called 'ron' (presumably because ron uses it) and
comes through
74 matches
Mail list logo
