At 4:18 PM +0900 11/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Signed mail causes the CPU of the mail server to have to do expensive
crypto calculations that are many, many orders of magnitude beyond
anything that had ever been done in the past, on a per-message basis.
If you insist that the
Brad == Brad Knowles
Re: [Mailman-Users] spam, spamcop and mailman moderation
Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:56:36 -0600
Brad At 11:17 AM -0500 11/11/06, John A. Martin wrote:
Perhaps amend Charles' suggestion to also provide a response
when a specified regular expression is found
At 12:11 PM -0500 11/12/06, John A. Martin wrote:
I
suspect you would agree that otherwise action should not be
recommended to be taken based upon the data contained in header
fields.
I would agree that the RFC guidelines
Brad Knowles writes:
At 10:23 AM +0900 11/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second is that for a bounded cost[1], you can implement signed mail.
For dozens of years, we've been telling people that once they have
enough RAM and fast enough disk drives, the single biggest
Brad == Brad Knowles
Re: [Mailman-Users] spam, spamcop and mailman moderation
Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:51:55 -0600
Brad At 11:45 AM -0500 11/10/06, Charles Gregory wrote:
The only suggestion I can come up with is some simple
last-minute filtering within mailman itself: Only send
At 11:17 AM -0500 11/11/06, John A. Martin wrote:
Perhaps amend Charles' suggestion to also provide a response when a
specified regular expression is found in the message header.
On first blush, it's hard to see how this would be useful.
Please consider this amendment to Charles'
[x-posted to an anti-spam list]
Hi.
This is not specific to mailman, but I had a lot of trouble with it. I am
sure I am not the only one, so I figured I'll share.
In recent months the problem of moderation, especially with large lists,
has become even more significant.
The amounts of spam
On 11/10/06, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not specific to mailman, but I had a lot of trouble with it. I am
sure I am not the only one, so I figured I'll share.
In recent months the problem of moderation, especially with large lists,
has become even more significant.
The
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Patrick Bogen wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this message was.
Bearing that in mind, you shouldn't be using moderation as a
first-line anti-spam defense. Your MTA should be tagging emails as
spam (e.g., using Spamassassin, or something better suited to
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Patrick Bogen wrote:
Bouncing back a message which tells a user his original message is held
for moderation is now a bad idea if we want to stay out of the black list
of spamcop Gadi.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this message was.
The point *I* got
In a flurry of recycled electrons, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Patrick Bogen wrote:
Bearing that in mind, you shouldn't be using moderation as a
first-line anti-spam defense. Your MTA should be tagging emails as
spam (e.g., using Spamassassin, or something better suited to your
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
I'm not sure how this fails a reality test. Are any anti-spam measures
in place currently? If not, mailman is certainly not the place to
start. That place is the incoming mail MTA. (If you run your own servers,
installing spamassassin shoundn't take
Gadi Evron wrote:
I cannot afford to spam filter some mailing lists. That's my problem.
With those I do, a lot still comes through and I am pretty good at it.
Sending the messages back is causing a lot of problem, and should be
considered again if it should remain ON by default.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Dragon wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
I cannot afford to spam filter some mailing lists. That's my problem.
With those I do, a lot still comes through and I am pretty good at it.
Sending the messages back is causing a lot of problem, and should be
considered again if it
On 11/10/06 9:07 AM, Dragon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really should use the power of MTA filtering, it will save you a
lot of frustration. At the very least, use gray-listing because the
vast majority of spam simply won't be resent when a deferral response
is sent from your MTA to the
John W. Baxter sent the message below at 09:25 11/10/2006:
On 11/10/06 9:07 AM, Dragon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really should use the power of MTA filtering, it will save you a
lot of frustration. At the very least, use gray-listing because the
vast majority of spam simply won't be
On 11/10/06, John W. Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the end of greylisting as a useful tool is approaching (I'm surprised it
has survived this long).
I understand this point. I think that greylisting should persist, in
any case, since, if nothing else, it doubles the work a spammer has to
Patrick Bogen writes:
Personally, I'd like to see hashcash become widespread, but I guess
that'd be hell for a mailing list.
As I understand it, hashcash is just a totally unprofitable use of
cycles, which is bearable for personal mail, but substantially
increases the burden on mass mail.
At 9:07 AM -0800 11/10/06, Dragon wrote:
This begs the question, why can you NOT afford to filter some lists?
You must not recognize the name. Gadi is not quite as well known in
the security field as Bruce Schneier, but he's close.
I recognize the name, and I understand the pain that Gadi
At 11:45 AM -0500 11/10/06, Charles Gregory wrote:
The point *I* got was, even if you successfully filter with every 'safe'
method of spam filtering we can imagine, roughly 5-10% of spam will end up
reaching mailman, and when mailman sends its 'routine' message back to
'sender', it is
At 8:59 AM -0800 11/10/06, Carl Zwanzig wrote:
I'm not sure how this fails a reality test. Are any anti-spam measures
in place currently?
If you're going to run a list where people talk about spam, and use
real-world examples, then you can't do spam filtering on that list --
tools like
At 9:40 AM -0800 11/10/06, Dragon wrote:
True, and there will always be an arms race between spammers and
those of us who run servers to try to protect ourselves from unwanted junk.
Yup.
But certain approaches are still quite effective and we should still
be utilizing them when
At 11:49 AM -0600 11/10/06, Patrick Bogen wrote:
So the end of greylisting as a useful tool is approaching (I'm surprised it
has survived this long).
I understand this point. I think that greylisting should persist, in
any case, since, if nothing else, it doubles the work a spammer has
At 10:23 AM +0900 11/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second is that for a bounded cost[1], you can implement signed mail.
For dozens of years, we've been telling people that once they have
enough RAM and fast enough disk drives, the single biggest bottleneck
in scaling up large mail
24 matches
Mail list logo
