Mike, this message was originally posted to the FreeBSD-chat mailing
list, where by definition it's on topic. It is definitely not on
topic for FreeBSD-questions. Please don't forward this sort of thing
to this list.
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients.
I
At 2003-01-05T00:27:01Z, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply
> to off-topic or offensive mail messages.
Actually, Greg, there are two things we can do. The second is to GPG-sign
*and* GPG-verify email. I'm
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 13:58:59 -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
>> At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
>>
>>> Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda.
>>
>> It should remain his own.
>>
>>> But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
>>
>> No, it's
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 17:05:26 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote:
>> On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "Stacey Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Dude,
>>>You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
>>
>> Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite
>> well.
Oh come on, we can behave better than this...In normal conversation,
there is no reason to use such potentially offensive language, when
discussing FreeBSD. Which I might add what this list is supposed to be
about. At least, I know that's why I signed up for it.
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "S
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:58:59PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
> GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to
> the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre
> if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers!
Window
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, "Stacey Roberts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Dude,
>You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well.
Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5?
> For your inf
>Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread.
1. Don't bottom quote, it's terribly annoying.
2. Since you're a clueless negro who couldn't compile helloworld.c if his
life depended on it, shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Paul
--
Paul Saab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://fastmail.fm - Fas
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:58, Mike Jeays wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
>
> >At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
> >>He has his own agenda.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It should remain his own.
> >
> >
> >
> >>But GCC is why you can compile
Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
He has his own agenda.
It should remain his own.
But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
No, it's not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's
written in C. GCC just happens to b
At 06:13 PM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
>I've been in contact with the port maintainer. His position: 1) This problem is out
>of scope for him, 2) He is away on holiday and can't easily access the FreeBSD
>cluster, 3) Other pressures will keep him from this problem for several weeks. He
>ad
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-28 13:49:31 -0700:
> Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> offense for good reason.
so you think you have a *right* to send me email? you must be
joking.
--
If you cc me or remove the
Geez, Is this *still* going on?
Why are you still cc'ing the list
Regards,
Stacey
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 03:11, Harry Tabak wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> > If one sends a message that could not be delivered, an error report
> > (called a DSN) is returned, describing the problem. People
Chuck Swiger wrote:
If one sends a message that could not be delivered, an error report
(called a DSN) is returned, describing the problem. People sending
legitimate email know who they've sent mail to, right? And when they
get DSN's, as you most probably did, you talk to your ISP, etc, et
Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting "fire" from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my
CAN WE GET THIS THREAD KILLED NOW ???
It has nothing to do with FreeBSD.
Please shut up and move this thread somewhere else!
Poul-Henning
In message <1041114029.3577.60.camel@pitbull>, Shawn Duffy writes:
>
>--=-hYgamAC/8Ubo1V9A/Ysq
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted
I would say a better solution that blocks would be header/body based
phrase and word matching on a weighting system like spamassassin
provides. The False positive rates for such a system are MUCH lower
than what you could ever hope for with a blacklist. Also regarding
Inflow. They have been warned
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Chris Orr wrote:
> *doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet*
>
better yet, who's laws should be followed then? should the world follow
the american laws like loyal puppies or should we follow another countries
laws? perhaps the law of the country of the sendin
Here is the difference...
The US Postal Service is a government agency "owned by the people",
hence, "interfering" with regular mail is bad..
email runs over corporate networks and uses private resources, none
"owned" by the "people"... hence a corporation, ISP, can certainly
decide what it allo
*doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet*
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better
> be *really* careful about what they block.
>
> If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then
> you ar
No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better
be *really* careful about what they block.
If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then
you are asking for real trouble. That's all.
Dhu
On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500
Shawn Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is
illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was
intentional?
please...
On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> The law would have to consider intention of the sender:
>
> Virii are
Harry Tabak wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with spam filters; like most things
(and most people), they aren't perfect and they sometimes make mistakes.
The law would have to consider intention of the sender:
Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except
for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the
virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping
it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it
to you I hav
So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too?
and the same goes for filtering out porn?
-chris
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> offense
I _really_ fail to see what this has to do with FreeBSD.
Can you please move this to a more appropriate forum ? I'm sure
there are lists and groups out there where the black-listing
crew communicates.
Thankyou!
Poul-Henning
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Duncan Patton a Campb
ell writes:
>--
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Rick Hamell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> > regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> > offense for good reason.
>
> Email is not regulated by the government.
>
> Rick
(please tell me this is just a dream, and this thread really isn't
happening and I am not participating...)
++ 28/12/02 08:45 -0500 - Harry Tabak:
| I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
| posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
The
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> > I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
> > my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
> > that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your
Abe wrote:
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file?
Nevermind. I found the Inflow entry in sb-blockdomains.rc file. :)
Regards,
Abe Ro
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
> my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
> that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to
> be "off-topic," because it doesn't re
> Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
> regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
> offense for good reason.
Email is not regulated by the government.
Rick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
>I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting "fire" from their own
>website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my paper at http://www.
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file?
My guess is that it is from a listing on Five-Ten-SG blacklist, check out:
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php?ip=66.45.0.0
SpamBouncer supports a variety of blacklists including the Five-Ten-SG
blacklist, though sup
Why is it? If you send me a letter, I have every right to refuse it, do
I not? If a company blocks too much, they will lose customers, and
eventually either will have to lighten up or go out of business...
shawn
On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:49, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> Seems to me that this
Here is _all_ of the lists that spam bnc supports. One of them will have
your ip range on it im sure.
http://www.spambouncer.org/#BlacklistSupport
I think spamBNC is GPL'ed software. You use it at your own risk. Dont
quote me on that one though. :)
-chris
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Cam
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
Dhu
On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500
Shawn Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular
> organizations are do
How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
Can they be sued?
Thanks,
Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
> filter, I've had to send this
Someone, quite probably Harry Tabak, once wrote:
>> From: Chuck Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
>>
>> You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't
>> configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care.
>
In some mail from Allan Jude, sie said:
>
> This is not all that surprising
> The behavior you are talking about, blocking entire isp's and blocks of
> ips, is the same as the other service you mentioned earlier, SPEWS.
>
> SPEWS has blocked 2 entire c-classes at my isp, preventing my company
> f
Harry Tabak
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 8:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Harry Tabak
Subject: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:19:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Chuck Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
Yo
From: Harry Tabak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is so crazy I had to respond.
My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block.
The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's
66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a
right to the
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't
configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care.
You complain to the people that actually wrote the software. Usually found
in the source code and suc
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
> I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported
> package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from
> me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the
> internet.
More precisely, people who have chosen to
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I
46 matches
Mail list logo