Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 be the tool that comes in the package (which is a shame, IMHO; it's not a very good compiler). Any of you ever tried to write a compiler ? Yes -- for a living. But I've moved on to other pursuits, because GCC has sufficiently destroyed the market that it is not possible to make a living writing compilers. Quality doesn't matter; a mediocre GPLed product precludes the release of good commercial ones. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-chat in the body of the message 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! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 FreeBSD. snipped Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread. Regards, Stacey To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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! Windows is of great benefit to the world. It can't be all that mediocere if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality operating systems! :) That said, this is an arguement that regualrly appears in this list, has been beaten to death, and, most importantly, doesn't belong here. Take it to email or a talk, advocacy, or discussion list. (and please take the trolls who have latched on with you!). -- Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics/\ ASCII ribbon campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail These opinions will not be those of Xand postings. Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 +, 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 information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Daniel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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. Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5? For your information, even the thread originator has previously requested that this thread be killed off. This was some 4 days ago. And you keep posting to it, brilliant. Damned negroes, I don't know why I don't just killfile you. Oh wait, I've just done it. Regards, -- Bosko Milekick [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. In case anybody is in doubt, this message and the one ostensibly from Paul Saab are forgeries. We're trying to find ways of combatting the problem, but in the meantime, there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply to off-topic or offensive mail messages. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's written in C. GCC just happens to be the tool that comes in the package (which is a shame, IMHO; it's not a very good compiler). Any of you ever tried to write a compiler ? Yes -- for a living. But I've moved on to other pursuits, because GCC has sufficiently destroyed the market that it is not possible to make a living writing compilers. Quality doesn't matter; a mediocre GPLed product precludes the release of good commercial ones. 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! 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. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 as guilty as the next person of not being diligent about this, but that may be changing. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers My apologies for posting inappropriate comments to questions. I forgot for the moment I am also subscribed to chat. Mea culpa... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
# [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 list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message.see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 advised me to contact me Miss Hampton. I can't fault him. Contacting Ms. Hampton is probably the right thing to do. However, he can help by changing the procmail.rc file, which controls which blacklists the recipes will consult. Many FreeBSD ports come with customized configurations, so this is by no means outside his scope as a port maintainer. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 run spambouncer are rejecting your mail based on the rules it uses. The procmail recipe does just what it says: blocks Inflow IP addresses. The IP address you use is owned by Inflow (you sub-let from another renter, your ISP). As the owner, the ultimate responsibility for that IP address is Inflow's. A quick groups.google.com search shows that Inflow does have spam-friendliness problems. None of this has anything to do with the FreeBSD port. I suggest you contact, in this order, your ISP, Inflow, and then the spambouncer authors. Success in getting Inflow to change its ways would help in getting them removed from the procmail recipe. You could also contact the intended recipients of your mail and have them whitelist your email address. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 such. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. If people would stop sending spam or harden their computers connected to the Internet to keep from sending spam accidentally, there would be no need for this software either. Might as well wish for world peace though. Chuck On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. Are you one of those people, that blames a car owner for not having an alarm system when his car gets stolen, instead of blaming the car thief? It's simple. Inflow is blocked for a reason. You can whine all you want, but spam filters never add default blocks unless an ISP has spammed, and refused to anything about it. Therefore, Inflow had to do at least 2 things: 1. Spam 2. Refuse to stop spamming after being contacted about it. I, personally, fully support their decision. There really needs to be some accountability on the Internet. Here's what you _should_ do: 1. Contact Inflow and raise a stink about how their poor policies are hurting you. 2. Find another provider. 3. Send a letter to the BBB complaining about Inflow's policies Even if you don't agree with me, I'll say that you're unlikely to have the FreeBSD people do anything? Have you emailed all the Linux distros as well and told them that there's an RPM out there that they should boycott? Are you now going to email every ISP on the planet and suggest that they boycott all FreeNIXes because they can use this anti-spam software? You're driving the wrong way on a the other way street, if you really want to accomplish anything. Put the pressure on the people who are doing wrong, not on the people trying to stop it. You shouldn't even have to contact the anti-spam developers, Inflow should contact them once they've improved their policy and demand that they be removed! _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virusxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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. You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care. I know only one user, that is how I discovered the problem. I have no way of identifying other users. That frightens me. You complain to the people that actually wrote the software. Usually found in the source code and such. Unfortunately, the author hasn't replied to my complaints yet. Possibly she has taken a holiday. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. There is a significant difference between this port and the others. My other ports at worst only harm the intended user when things go wrong. This port harms random and anonymous individuals. I don't believe that FreeBSD redistributes spamming software or list managers that don't provide the proper opt-in safeguards by default. 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. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. I will be happy to fix it, the author may not like my philosophy. I believe in Free Speech and a working internet mail system. I would attempt to minimize false positives, and require testing. But as I said earlier, the author doesn't respond. Even if the software is adjusted, it will be impossible to recall all the older versions. If people would stop sending spam or harden their computers connected to the Internet to keep from sending spam accidentally, there would be no need for this software either. Might as well wish for world peace though. amen. Unfortuately, good people are making a bad situation even worse by hip-shooting. Chuck snip To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
RE: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 from sending mail to many large email sites, like mail.com and others. When I enquired about having the block removed, or made more specific to block the spammers, but not block my /28, I was told to go to hell. I think you are in the same situation. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 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] 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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. I know only one user, that is how I discovered the problem. I have no way of identifying other users. That frightens me. What about this especially frightens you? Many people have many filters for various mail systems around the globe. This is just one that someone has bundled up. I'd also be very surprised if it's the only set of filters out there that block your IP address. If your provider has upset someone enough to get blocked then there has to be a fair chance that they've upset others similarly. Whilst getting spambouncer changed will solve this issue a long term solution would be to make sure your ISP doesn't do the kind of things that people blacklist over. You can try to complain to FreeBSD Ports, but removing this goes against the very nature of Open Source Good or bad, there's not much to convince people not to distribute a piece of software that's free and open. There is a significant difference between this port and the others. My other ports at worst only harm the intended user when things go wrong. This port harms random and anonymous individuals. I don't believe that FreeBSD redistributes spamming software or list managers that don't provide the proper opt-in safeguards by default. Well technically FreeBSD (ports) provides only helper software to make other people's software easier to manage, and since Sendmail is part of the base system and it can be (mis-)configured to act as an open relay it could be used by spammers. But I understand what you're trying to say and I'm just being a little pedantic about the wording. Everyone knows when they install these softwares that you do so at your own risk. If your ISP is spending money to support problems caused by it's use and they have control over it, they will probably stop using it. Most ISP's care about expenses, so you can bet if it's not worth using, they will eventually stop. If you have any capacity, you can attempt to fix the program, and submit it to the author for distribution. This is how Open Source works. I will be happy to fix it, the author may not like my philosophy. I believe in Free Speech and a working internet mail system. Surely part of a working Internet mail system means that I have the right to filter mail? Free Speech should also allow me the freedom to not listen after all. I would attempt to minimize false positives, and require testing. But as I said earlier, the author doesn't respond. Even if the software is adjusted, it will be impossible to recall all the older versions. Have you looked at the port itself? Maybe if your fixes are simple enough you could convince the maintainer to accept them in the port until such time as the author is able to respond? Kevin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black-listed on a whim. Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? Harry Tabak QUAD TELECOM, INC. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message msg13491/pgp0.pgp
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 support for the Five-Ten-SG blacklist is disabled by default in the sb.rc file. (see http://www.spambouncer.org/#BlacklistSupport). Regards, Abe Ro 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) telemarketing. I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be black-listed on a whim. Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? Harry Tabak QUAD TELECOM, INC.
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S That said, I can offer you some assistance here. Catherine Hampton's SpamBouncer relies on Procmail, whose filtering recipes are easily tunable. It shouldn't be hard to change the recipes, and you can then encourage the port maintainer to add your changes. Unfortunately, if you want to get the master SpamBouncer recipe file changed, you will have to contact Catherine. My wife knows her personally, so if you cannot get through to her by other means I may be able to reach her for you. In the meantime, you may want to use a mail relay (not a fully open one, of course) to get around the block. All you need is one machine on a different subnet that will relay your outbound mail. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S I think you should all move the discussion elsewhere. It's boring and you've already flooded my inbox and the vast majority of people subscribed to this list don't care about the fact that someone's blacklisted somewhere. It sucks, I know, but that's life. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. :-) Cheers, -- Bosko Milekic * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 posting to be off-topic, because it doesn't relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S I think you should all move the discussion elsewhere. It's boring and you've already flooded my inbox and the vast majority of people subscribed to this list don't care about the fact that someone's blacklisted somewhere. It sucks, I know, but that's life. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. :-) awww and i just created a headercheck that would drop al the e-mails with this subject. But i must agree, enough is enough guys. The discussion sounds more like an advocacy discussion about e-mail and spam regulations then FreeBSD related stuff. Greetings, Marcel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
(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 list appropriate for this is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I'm not sure this even belongs on a FreeBSD mailing list. | 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. I'll | probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a | freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't | be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest | that you check it out.] It's a port. A 3rd-party package, FreeBSD does not control, but provides if a user wants it. It is not FreeBSD's position to say this port does X poorly -- that is up to the user. If somebody blindly installs this port without looking at what it actually does, or knowing it blindly blocks mail from large IP blocks, that is the user's problem. Unfortunatly, we can't control the IQ of our users. If my IP block was listed in spambnc, and I couldn't communicate with someone because they chose to use spambnc without knowing the semi-evil things it does, quite frankly I probably am lucky I don't have to communicate with said person. | me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my | service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address | from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be | black-listed on a whim. If it's that important to you, do it. You have discovered the big problem in spam filtering and mail flow on the Internet. It is discussed over and over on more appropriate lists (spam-l, inet-access, nanog, etc). The conclusion is eventually the same every time: yes, in a perfect world, we could only block the evil spammers, never block a legitimate mail, and there would be no war. If somebody chooses to install this software, their loss. Or maybe they will block more spam than legit mail, and they don't mind. I really hope we don't have to rehash this topic on a freebsd security list, because it's completely unrelated to freebsd. --pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 Yup. This is currently the case. But lets say we have some real business to conduct. And lets say I send you some mail, and your SP blocks it 'cause someone used the DIP I'm on to spam some months ago. So then, our business gets fucked up. I think we'd have a real good case for suing the ass offa the SP(s) who contracted with us to supply the mail services. And if such a situation were to ensue, there would be a real good chance of uninvited government regulation. Bet on it. Dhu msg13505/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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: --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Yup. This is currently the case. But lets say we have some real business to conduct. And lets say I send you some mail, and your SP blocks it 'cause someone used the DIP I'm on to spam some months ago. So then, our business gets fucked up. I think we'd have a real good case for suing the ass offa the SP(s) who contracted with us to supply the mail services. And if such a situation were to ensue, there would be a real good chance of uninvited government regulation. Bet on it. Dhu --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+DhlIXgQtJ7uBra8RAtrDAJ972EARDY9HLZWH5UWA79v5wnjTSQCg6psd +Hq/W2/y3BWq4HdeuieTwPg= =o6zt -END PGP SIGNATURE- --AV+P,7tHyRt=.=kP-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. 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 their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me because of my neighbors. If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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. I became a postmaster about the time when the practice of signing a document stating you would not use network access for commercial purposes was no longer being commonly required before one gained network access via DARPAnet, JAnet, and such. My sympathies are very much in agreement with your main point, which is that legitimate email should not be blocked by spam filters. 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. ...and... Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? 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, etc. How many bounced messages are you talking about, approximately? Would you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to let your mail through? [ Because that's basicly what it all comes down to, all of the advocacy for or against regulation aside. FWIW, I block three /16's under 16.0.0.0/8, but yours wasn't one of them-- I checked. Bah...I'm getting 1000+ dictionary scans from DSL pools in .br a day. ] -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 (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 have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 (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 have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
*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 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 (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 have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I am sure that the software was developed with the very best
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 allows into its network to use its resources... if you, as a customer, have a problem with that, exert pressure on them.. if enough customers bitch, they will change policy... as far as suing, I am sure someone will figure out a way to do it and win... doesnt mean they should... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 17:02, 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 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 (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 have probably committed a criminal offense, regardless of the vehicle employed. Dhu On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:41:46 -0500 (EST) Chris Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 doing it... they are quite a few... As far as suing them, I would venture to say no... If you dont want someone to be able to connect to your mail server that is certainly within your right to do... and if other people want to agree with you, well then, what can you do... although I am sure someone somewhere will probably sue over it and win... shawn On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 15:32, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: 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 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 apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD ported package is contributing to an internet service availability problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of other internet denizens are also affected. I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to my face, but to business associate. And then took action. 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. I'll probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest that you check it out.] Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, and it is
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 sending party should be respected then. That would make it verry usefull when some stupid sysadmin has his server badly configured and is an open mailrelay and the law says you are not allowed to reject his e-mail.. kinda stupid don't you think? now please, kill the beast :-) and move this thread to somewhere else Marcel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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, notified, complained to, etc. countless times with ZERO attempt to police their users. If you doubt this just look at this: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=inflownum=10as_scoring=rhl=enie=ISO-8859-1btnG=Google+Searchas_epq=as_oq=as_eq=as_ugroup=news.admin.net-abuse.*as_usubject=as_uauthors=as_umsgid=lr=as_qdr=as_drrb=bas_mind=1as_minm=11as_miny=2002as_maxd=28as_maxm=12as_maxy=2002safe=images It clearly shows that Inflow has no reason or desire to police their users. Harry Tabak wrote: Snip -- Colin Faber (303) 736-5160 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * - SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL - To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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-printable Here is the difference...=20 The US Postal Service is a government agency owned by the people, hence, interfering with regular mail is bad..=20 -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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 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 relate directly to intrusions upon FreeBSD itself. He may also blast you for cross-posting and/or for starting too long or interesting a discussion. :-S Actually I have been privately chided. That said, I can offer you some assistance here. Catherine Hampton's SpamBouncer relies on Procmail, whose filtering recipes are easily tunable. It shouldn't be hard to change the recipes, and you can then encourage the port maintainer to add your changes. Unfortunately, if you want to get the master SpamBouncer recipe file changed, you will have to contact Catherine. My wife knows her personally, so if you cannot get through to her by other means I may be able to reach her for you. 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 advised me to contact me Miss Hampton. I can't fault him. Unfortunately, I have not gotten a response from Miss Hampton via the contact address on her web site [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I'd apprecite it if you could contact her. I've had so much bad luck getting my mail out -- my mail may be pidgeon holed in her spam basket. In the meantime, you may want to use a mail relay (not a fully open one, of course) to get around the block. All you need is one machine on a different subnet that will relay your outbound mail. Actually, that wouldn't work for my fixed address DSL server. I'd have to dial out from my laptop. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-security in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Chuck Swiger wrote: snip 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, etc. How many bounced messages are you talking about, approximately? Would you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to let your mail through? In this case, the package configuration puts 'spam' in a separate folder and doesn't send a bounce message. I may not get feed back until and unless I do a follow-up call. A follow-up call is not always possible. [ Because that's basicly what it all comes down to, all of the advocacy for or against regulation aside. FWIW, I block three /16's under 16.0.0.0/8, but yours wasn't one of them-- I checked. Bah...I'm getting 1000+ dictionary scans from DSL pools in .br a day. ] actually my block is 66.45.116.136/29. Temporarily, I can't post to this list from one of those addresses -- but that is another story and is fixable. -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
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: snip 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, etc. How many bounced messages are you talking about, approximately? Would you be willing to give those individuals a phone call to talk about your message, instead, or ask their postmaster to change their spam-filter to let your mail through? In this case, the package configuration puts 'spam' in a separate folder and doesn't send a bounce message. I may not get feed back until and unless I do a follow-up call. A follow-up call is not always possible. [ Because that's basicly what it all comes down to, all of the advocacy for or against regulation aside. FWIW, I block three /16's under 16.0.0.0/8, but yours wasn't one of them-- I checked. Bah...I'm getting 1000+ dictionary scans from DSL pools in .br a day. ] actually my block is 66.45.116.136/29. Temporarily, I can't post to this list from one of those addresses -- but that is another story and is fixable. -Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
