...and why aren't bounce messages standardized in content and formatting?
Jiminy creepers, why can't people run software that implements standards
from the last frikking *millenium*??!?
because those are feel-good standards, with no selfishness hooks. emitting
standardized bounce messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here's what one of the messages my system produces:
Apr 7 12:02:26 tongs postfix/smtpd[15229]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
mail.middreut.com[208.61.243.195]: 454 Service unavailable; Client host
[208.61.243.195] blocked using dnsbl.cagreens.org;
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:40:50 PDT, Thomas Leavitt said:
... and why aren't bounce messages standardized in content and formatting?!?
Jiminy creepers, why can't people run software that implements standards
from the last frikking *millenium*??!?
1891 SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:18:36 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What I meant was: when only a few folks use email, the spammers will go
away.
They won't go away, they'll just go infest whatever the people are using.
:
:
One problem with the bounce solution is that for those of us with
multiple domains (some of them wildcarded) mapped to our mailboxes, the
volume of backscatter makes it a real hassle to sort out the valid
bounces from the noise. Even users with a single email address can be
victimized often
At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
One problem with the bounce solution is that snip/
==
So, I (Cutler) add:
And, even the best-intentioned bounce messages often give lots of
data, but no information, thus increasing the noise to signal
ratio. For
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]James R. Cutler
To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places
At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
One problem with the bounce solution
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
One problem with the bounce solution is that for those of us with
multiple domains (some of them wildcarded) mapped to our mailboxes, the
volume of backscatter makes it a real hassle to sort out the valid
bounces from the noise.
aol /
At 4/5/2007 12:28 PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]James R. Cutler
To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places
At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:01:10 -0700
Ken Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James R. Cutler [05/04/07 16:30 -0400]:
Todd makes my point exactly. As he notes, the rejection message
tells me that the message was rejected by some system. It does not
tell my why it was rejected. Thus, just like
Steven Champeon wrote:
I'll add that even if everyone were willing to email/call with problems,
the hideous things that (e.g.) Exchange does to your carefully
handcrafted rejection errors are enough to cripple the least tech-savvy
of your likely audience, anyway.
All the more reason to
Some of it is quite sophisticated: full blown instant profiles with
fake comments ... the smarter spammers actually make the profile look
real (often lifting material from legit user profiles), and then
just ...
At the MIT Spam Conference, I was talking to MySpace's anti spam
researcher. He
Greetings.
While its a pretty brute force approach, one method I’m trying is to
curtail the source of email. In otherwords, if smtp traffic comes from an
unknown source it gets directed to a sendmail server that intentionally
rejects the email message (550 with a informational message/url). If
That makes sense, and matches up with my experience... you also have
amateur spammers just doing stuff manually (as well as spammers paying
people pennies a page to input CAPTCHA responses).
Another issue is that the unsolicited contact paradigm blurs a bit, when
you have musicians and
joej wrote:
Greetings.
While its a pretty brute force approach, one method I’m trying is to
curtail the source of email. In otherwords, if smtp traffic comes from an
unknown source it gets directed to a sendmail server that intentionally
rejects the email message (550 with a informational
While its a pretty brute force approach, one method Iâm trying is to
curtail the source of email. In otherwords, if smtp traffic comes from an
unknown source it gets directed to a sendmail server that intentionally
rejects the email message (550 with a informational message/url).
1) You
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:46:33 -0700
Ken Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...snip]
Captchas apparently help quite a bit to stem this kind of problem
because they install a technical barrier that, while not impossible to
break through programatically, at least delays things a bit and
reduces the
1) You send bounces from spammers to innocent people, whose
addresses have been forged.
This is an SMTP reject, not a bounce. It's a lethal variety of
greylisting.
This technique works great to keep spam out of your mailbox.
Inline rejection is a little dangerous for mailing lists
Yes, its an SMTP bounce, not a store, try to forward and return.
I should have clarified.
Right. It also quite an effective way to be sure you never hear from
non-technical users who don't understand your bounce message,
and from people like me who don't feel like jumping through your
This technique works great to keep spam out of your mailbox.
Inline rejection is a little dangerous for mailing lists
And for anyone else who doesn't feel like jumping through your hoops.
Providing a telephone number in the bounce is an effective way to deal
with false positives.
Only
on Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 06:25:18PM -0400, John L wrote:
This technique works great to keep spam out of your mailbox.
Inline rejection is a little dangerous for mailing lists
And for anyone else who doesn't feel like jumping through your hoops.
Providing a telephone number in the
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:39:55 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:18:36 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What I meant was: when only a few folks use email, the spammers will go
away.
They won't go away, they'll just go infest whatever the people are using.
We're already seeing
The only practical way to handle the volume of spam email that was
hitting my servers was to implement very very aggressive filtering at
the server accept level (requiring valid HELO commands that match to an
existing host, among other things - amazing how many servers from major
sites that
The alternative is the absurdity that a local ISP has: a 14 way cluster
for mail acceptance, and another 20 way cluster for mail storage and
retrieval with terabytes of storage space, 90% of the resources (or
more) of which are taken up accepting and storing as much spam as
possible...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 3, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
The current situation with email is flat out insane. There is no
other way to describe it.
I'd agree that the situation is bad but certainly not
uncontrollable. We've had very good success
I think there is definitely an adaptive factor... initially, vast
quantities of spam disappeared (we have greylisting in as well), and my
personal mailbox went from 100:1 spam to legit to 1:3 spam to legit...
but over time, it has moved up to about a 1:1 spam to legit factor (and
I get about
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Soon Internet email will be like IRC, a quaint
: service for Internet enthusiasts and oldtimers,
: but not a useful tool for businesses or ordinary
: individuals.
Hey, you've just described the FUSSP! :-(
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From:
: Soon Internet email will be like IRC, a quaint
: service for Internet enthusiasts and oldtimers,
: but not a useful tool for businesses or ordinary
: individuals.
Hey, you've just described the FUSSP! :-(
Solution!?
Since when is a description of one aspect of the problem,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, you've just described the FUSSP! :-(
Solution!?
Since when is a description of one aspect of the problem, considered to
be the solution. In a nutshell I said that the email SPAM problem is
getting worse, not just measured by SPAM volumes or
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:18:36 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
What I meant was: when only a few folks use email, the spammers will go away.
They won't go away, they'll just go infest whatever the people are using.
We're already seeing significant amounts of blog-comment spam, and as soon
as the spammers
I can personally testify that, as a proportion of the mail I get
through it, there's quite a bit of spam on MySpace - phishing scams
(Adult MySpace Viewer), fake profiles designed to draw you to adult
dating / webcam / porn sites, etc. Lots of attractive women claiming to
want you to be
31 matches
Mail list logo
