Am 2006-09-28 14:01:01, schrieb Mumia W..:
I've gotten a couple of such messages with the virus removed.
What? - Maybe it was an accident... =8O
I have arround 400.000 of them in my Virus/Spam store
If you need such attachmenst, I can forwar it to you. ;-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Cameron L. Spitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], s. keeling wrote:
Mumia W.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is
On Friday 29 September 2006 03:23, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
I hate to get into this discussion but...
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:09:46AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
[snippage]
However apparently the problem is users reporting list emails to
spamcop.
just to point out that I've
On Saturday 30 September 2006 12:02, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
My phrasing evidently wasn't clear. AIUI the problem isn't misdirected
confirmation emails. The problem is that some spam makes it through debian
filters. List subscribers then report that that spam to spamcop. Spamcop
then blames
Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 12:02, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
My phrasing evidently wasn't clear. AIUI the problem isn't misdirected
confirmation emails. The problem is that some spam makes it through debian
filters. List subscribers then report that
s. keeling wrote:
Here's some
aliases to help you look up the originator's complaint address which
you can Cc: in the same mail to get the originator's account killed
(there may be others, and I'd appreciate hearing about them :-):
afnic='whois -h whois.afrinic.net'
apnic='whois -h
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], s. keeling wrote:
Mumia W.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
lot of these bounced
Seth Goodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are responsible for everything that comes
out of your server, intentional or not.
Sure, but sending a few pieces of mail to a spamtrap pretty clearly
isn't causing any actual harm. Rather, it's being used as evidence
that the sender is a spammer, and
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:15, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with
On 9/28/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The catch here is that you have no idea of what the spamtrap address is. I
dont think it is easy for humans to guess what the spamtrap addresses look
like.
That depends on what direction you're trying to go. Are you trying to
determine
I hate to get into this discussion but...
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:09:46AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
[snippage]
However apparently the problem is users reporting list emails to spamcop.
just to point out that I've personally been getting a few of these
lately. confirmation emails from
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
lot of these bounced email spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
all has a .zip or .com binary attachment, so obviously its a virus or
somesuch, but man there's a
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:01:01PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
lot of these bounced email spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
all has a .zip or .com binary
Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The catch here is that you have no idea of what the spamtrap address is. I
dont think it is easy for humans to guess what the spamtrap addresses look
like.
I suspect that spammers know a lot more about that than you or I.
Or maybe they don't, and
Mumia W.. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
lot of these bounced email spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
all has a .zip or .com binary attachment, so obviously its a
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:26 PM -0500, Miles Bader wrote:
Anyway, the point is that simplistic assumptions like if it
arrives at a spamtrap, it must be spam are just that -- simplistic.
Spamcop ought to have measures in place to deal with the inevitable
cases where their assumptions
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
If it is not spamcop, there are tons of other DNSBLs
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered through
the web interface. Even if you changed this to email-to-subscribe
without a web option, addresses
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:58 AM -0500, Michael Marsh wrote:
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered
through the web interface. Even if
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:57, Michael Marsh wrote:
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered through
the web interface.
What about the idea
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 09:51, Seth Goodman wrote:
I agree with Michael: tricking a server that responsibly sends out
confirmation messages into sending one to a spamtrap is about denial of
service. I also agree with Kumaraju that sending mail to spamtraps
should get anyone listed. If
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:57, Michael Marsh wrote:
Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered through
the web interface.
What about the idea of placing a captcha in the subscription page
Kamaraju Kusumanchi writes:
What about the idea of placing a captcha in the subscription page
(http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe) ?
Why do you want to prevent blind people from subscribing?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thursday 28 September 2006 01:44, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed.
John Kelly wrote:
Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
a potential 2% false positives.
Sorry, but my direct experience contradicts your opinion.
No only will they not accept any loss of
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:46:20 +0100, George Borisov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Kelly wrote:
Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
a potential 2% false positives.
Sorry, but my direct
John Kelly wrote:
So I only have an opinion, without experience? How would you know?
I don't, so I make no assumptions that you do.
When you're near the bottom of the authority chain, perhaps submission
is the best way to cope.
In that case I guess customer service == submission.
But
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:55:18 +0100, George Borisov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Kelly wrote:
So I only have an opinion, without experience? How would you know?
I don't, so I make no assumptions that you do.
When you're near the bottom of the authority chain, perhaps submission
is the
John Kelly wrote:
My statement is a simple if/then clause. It does NOT say George is
near the bottom of the authority chain. I made no assumptions. But
if the shoe fits, you can wear it.
Ah well, you missed my point about customer service then (which
was my point by the way - shame, I
John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well then obviously, if the number of complaining users is very small,
then what I said must be true: many users won't complain.
George, if this is a debate, you're losing.
I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
One of the
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:05:13 +0100, George Borisov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You started this by saying your experience contradicts my opinion
to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.
When I said my experience contradicts your opinion I meant
exactly that, word for word.
Really? I
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:12:37 +0300, Andrei Popescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
One of the first rules to learn is Don't treat your customers like
numbers in a statistic. They are real persons with real problems and
feelings
And
John Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:12:37 +0300, Andrei Popescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
One of the first rules to learn is Don't treat your customers like
numbers in a statistic. They are real
John Kelly wrote:
Really? I wonder why then, in the next email you needed to further
explain that you made no assumptions about my experience.
Well you did put a question mark at the end of it. As far as I am
aware that generally means you wanted a reply.
Also, I don't like to cause
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:38:38 +0300, Andrei Popescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
And what field is that?
Airline (not low-cost)
Airlines? This should light a good firestorm.
So, in your opinion, if other large businesses
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:45:21 +0100, George Borisov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I don't like to cause unnecessary offence, so when you
misinterpreted my words to imply such offence, I wanted to
clarify that none was intended.
I don't believe you.
As I am the looser here, this will be my last
On Thursday 21 September 2006 21:11, Seth Goodman wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
This is why debian-user is being constantly blacklisted -- So the
onus is on Debian to fix things on their end.
Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but
Daniele writes:
I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
wrong.
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is not
subscribed.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Daniele writes:
I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
wrong.
On 21.09.06 07:55, John Hasler wrote:
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is not
subscribed.
On Thursday 21 September 2006 14:55, John Hasler wrote:
Daniele writes:
I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first
(and the only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop
isn't entirely wrong.
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is
On 09/21/2006 07:55 AM, John Hasler wrote:
Daniele writes:
I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
wrong.
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is not
subscribed.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:18:56 -0500, Mumia W..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The solution is to gently ask spamcop to exclude debian-formatted
subscription confirmation messages from causing a listing. If they don't
accommodate, then there is nothing we can do.
If spamcop is not self motivated in
Stephen wrote:
[snip]
It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
much of a hurdle to expect a newbie to debian to
Mumia W.. wrote:
[snip]
Closing the list would make it far more difficult for people to report
bugs and get help, and it wouldn't do ZIP to prevent spamcop listings.
Please define the phrase far more difficult.
This is a serious request.
Mike
--
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 09:45 -0700, Alan Ianson wrote:
Debian lists are not a source of spam, they are a victim of it.
A bit like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition makes
you a victim if it gets stolen.
Allowing non members to post will get you spammed.
Hans
--
To
On 09/22/2006 10:45 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Mumia W.. wrote:
[snip]
Closing the list would make it far more difficult for people to report
bugs and get help, and it wouldn't do ZIP to prevent spamcop listings.
Please define the phrase far more difficult.
This is a serious request.
Mike
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:49 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:33:26 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize
that sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
If users value reliably getting their
Mumia W.. wrote:
On 09/22/2006 10:45 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Please define the phrase far more difficult.
This is a serious request.
Mike
Perhaps I should've said it would make it far more discouraging for
people to report bugs and get help from debian-user if they had to
subscribe.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:16:23 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not operate large MTA's, though I have known people who do and they
are definitely not fools. They understood that testing for forward DNS
!= reverse DNS at connection time is an extremely cheap way to reduce
the spam
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:13:26PM +0100, John Kelly wrote:
Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
a potential 2% false positives.
Unless one of the lost mails is a very very important mail,
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:29:20 +0200, Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You may tag mails, yes, but not more, unless you have a written
permission from me to do so, and I am informed about the risks.
My server, my rules. Who are you.
John Kelly wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:29:20 +0200, Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You may tag mails, yes, but not more, unless you have a written
permission from me to do so, and I am informed about the risks.
My server, my rules. Who are you.
At a lot of places, he's the guy
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:39:39PM +, Pollywog wrote:
On Thursday 21 September 2006 21:11, Seth Goodman wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
This is why debian-user is being constantly blacklisted -- So the
onus is on Debian to fix things on their end.
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:29 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
Your job as a mail admin is simple: deliver all mails sent to me in my
inbox, not more, not less. What I do with my mails is not your concern.
Then you are always safe.
At most of my clients you'll be out of a job in no time.
Hans
--
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:03:49AM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
At most of my clients you'll be out of a job in no time.
Maybe, but in most cases those are the people crying the loudest if they
don’t get a valuable mail because of „collateral damage”.
So you’ll lose either way.
If they can’t
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 20:54, John Kelly wrote:
When spamcop admins don't have enough sense to whitelist servers like
murphy.debian.org, it's time to abandon them
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the
first (and the only) source of spam in my inbox.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:01:58 +0200, Daniele P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When spamcop admins don't have enough sense to whitelist servers like
murphy.debian.org, it's time to abandon them
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the
first (and the only) source of
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, John Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:01:58 +0200, Daniele P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When spamcop admins don't have enough sense to whitelist servers like
murphy.debian.org, it's time to abandon them
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:42:35 -0400 (EDT), Justin Piszcz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any spam blacklist that is not saving my time, is wasting my time.
Good riddance to spamcop.
A better method is to use www.policyd-weight.org,
Believe it or not, not everyone runs postfix.
this takes the weight
On Thursday 21 September 2006 15:23, John Kelly wrote:
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are
the first (and the only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that
spamcop isn't entirely wrong.
You are saying that thousands of individual users should each do what
Daniele P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 21 September 2006 15:23, John Kelly wrote:
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are
the first (and the only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that
spamcop isn't entirely wrong.
You are saying that
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:24 +0200, Daniele P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I want only to remark that debian mailing lists are source of spam.
Additionally I'm not happy with my current solution (whitelist), but
right now I don't have a plan to add and additional specific filter
configuration. I
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:24 +0200
Daniele P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 21 September 2006 15:23, John Kelly wrote:
I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists.
They are
the first (and the only) source of spam in my inbox. I think
that spamcop isn't entirely
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:19:38PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
This has been discussed pretty extensively a while ago. The conclusion
was that d-u has pretty effective spam-filtering, the signal-to-noise
ratio is very low.
I understand your point, however it's annoying when
On Thu September 21 2006 09:26, Raquel wrote:
Sorry, but I don't want to say that. I want only to remark that
debian mailing lists are source of spam.
Additionally I'm not happy with my current solution (whitelist),
but right now I don't have a plan to add and additional specific
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0400, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
much of a
I am using spamassassin and only very occasinally are messages from this list
flagged! When they are, if it were a false alarm, I set to ham.
Spamassassin works on rules it downloads, user rules and is Bayes-trained by
marking emails as spam or ham.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:19:38PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
This has been discussed pretty extensively a while ago. The conclusion
was that d-u has pretty effective spam-filtering, the signal-to-noise
ratio is very low.
I understand
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:15:29PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You should see debian-www, it's much worse and it has a fraction of the
traffic of d-u
This is an argument for the status quo -- Just because another list is
getting more ?
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:01:33PM +0100 or thereabouts, John Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0400, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:15:58 -0400, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But debian-user is more than a mailing list. It's also gated to the
Usenet newsgroup linux.debian.user, where anyone can post.
Spam filtering of non subscribers, after the fact, is the only method
possible, under the
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 5:48 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:01:38 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
require matching DNS, forward and reverse
...
some large servers won't use it.
I don't know of any. But if there really are some sending
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:57:31PM +0100 or thereabouts, John Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:15:58 -0400, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But debian-user is more than a mailing list. It's also gated to the
Usenet newsgroup linux.debian.user, where anyone can post.
Spam filtering
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%.
It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the spam war
anymore. Most systems would consider this false positive rate unusable
by a large margin.
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
This is why debian-user is being constantly blacklisted -- So the
onus is on Debian to fix things on their end.
Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but SpamCop listed the
server because of messages to a spamtrap. If
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:33 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%.
It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the
spam war anymore. Most
On Thursday 21 September 2006 21:11, Seth Goodman wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
This is why debian-user is being constantly blacklisted -- So the
onus is on Debian to fix things on their end.
Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:33:26 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize that
sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
If users value reliably getting their messages more than they value spam
reduction, which seems to be the case, it will
On Wed September 20 2006 05:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
This outfit is more like spam nazi's. What they are trying to do is
commendable, the way they do it is not.
--
To
Alan Ianson wrote:
This outfit is more like spam nazi's. What they are trying to do is
commendable, the way they do it is not.
Is it to early in the thread to bring up Godwin's Law? :-p
--
George Borisov
DXSolutions Ltd
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
George Borisov wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
This outfit is more like spam nazi's. What they are trying to do is
commendable, the way they do it is not.
Is it to early in the thread to bring up Godwin's Law? :-p
Apparantly not :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:41, Alan Ianson wrote:
On Wed September 20 2006 05:21, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
This outfit is more like spam nazi's. What they are trying to do is
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:22 AM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
The listing is at
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblockip=70.103.162.31 (expires
in nine hours). It
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:08:20 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:22 AM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If that machine has become a target
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:55 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
When spamcop admins don't have enough sense to whitelist servers
like murphy.debian.org, it's time to abandon them
Did anyone investigate the problem and make this request?
Any DNSBL is subject to gaming by spammers who would
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:33:05 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anyone investigate the problem and make this request?
If they're not self motivated, I have no incentive to use them.
Any DNSBL is subject to gaming by spammers who would like to curtail
the use of DNSBL's in general
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:19 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:33:05 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anyone investigate the problem and make this request?
If they're not self motivated, I have no incentive to use them.
I don't particularly want
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:01:38 -0500, Seth Goodman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
require matching DNS, forward and reverse
it is not strictly RFC-compliant
Though not saying MUST, there is an RFC that recommends it. Which
one, is a good exercise for the reader.
some large servers won't use it.
89 matches
Mail list logo
