: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Zalaba, Mike
Sent: Wed 10/29/03 17:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of
Spam blocks
attachment: winmail.dat
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Zalaba, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:52 PM
English (translatet by http://babelfish.altavista.com)
i will answer to the german text, because the babelfish translation is more
than a joke. don't
hi kurt again :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Kurt A. Schumacher
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
Feel
hi kurt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Kurt A. Schumacher
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
Don't know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 30.10 9:13
Sorry, this is NO REASON to run a mail server behind a dial-up IP
line.
That's a children's solution for
wantobecracksorselfdesignatedexperts -
roughly how my children (2nd Kindergarten and 2nd class) are playing
with
SMTP/POP/IMAP servers these days.
companies
blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
hi fermin
it depends on your AGB what the user is allowed to do and what not.
i think that banning dynamic ip pool ranges (lets say via RBL dynablocker,
etc.) is a temporarely solution to keep spam away.
i know a lot of customers that use exchange
Peter Keel wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can
perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for
an intervention on the so called customer side.
Look, I wouldn't want my ISP to do that kind of bollocks, like
auto-proxying me.
oversimplyfying the
matter ...
Regards
Fermin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peter Keel
Sent: Wed 10/29/03 19:48
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27
* on the Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:43:08PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Ever heard about PGP?
Ever heard of profiling communication-patterns? You'd need an anonymizer
to completely get rid of this possibility, but if you run your own
mailserver, chances are much lower. And besides you can't use
Title: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam blocks
hi
fermin
what
the hell has PGP with SMTP to do? it uses the same
communication channel ;-)
And
more: what the hell has PGP with SPAM to do??
greetzs
steven
PGP:
http
Hallo,
Fermin Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Ever heard about PGP?
PGP/GPG don't help, because they encrypt the content, and the providers
save the randdaten like IP,From,To,Time usw. but not the conntent,
they don't have to save the conntent but they can.
Anonymous mailing is
:-|
Regards
Fermin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Glogger
Sent: Thu 10/30/03 13:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
hi fermin
what the hell has PGP with SMTP to do? it uses
* on the Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:53:32PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
It's not as if I'd have anything to hide about my communications partners.
Yeah, the usual killer-argument. Sadly enough, it doesn't matter whether
you've got something illegal to hide or not, because those who spy aren't
Hi,
On Thursday 30 October 2003 13:53, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
[PGP in mailing lists]
Without wanting to start some kind of jihad of emailing here:
Information on mailing lists is seldom quite that sensitive.
Well, assume there are 1000 subscribers in a mailing list... would you
really want to
: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
hi fermin
i think the best would be, that you get back to the main subject why this mailing has
been started.
-steven
-Original Message-
From: Fermin Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
Hi,
On Thursday 30 October 2003 13:53, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
[PGP in mailing lists]
Without wanting to start some kind of jihad of emailing here:
Information on mailing lists is seldom quite
wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
* on the Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:53:32PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
It's not as if I'd have anything to hide about my communications partners.
Yeah, the usual killer-argument. Sadly enough, it doesn't matter whether
you've got
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Zalaba, Mike
Sent: Wed 10/29/03 17:52
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt because of Spam
blocks
(English text below)
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren
In letzte Zeit hat sich bei
Hi Mike
It remains after-noticing again that there (still) is NO legal obligation
for Provider to prevent Spam.
well but there is also no legal obligation to accept emails from anyone.
It's our lone decision and within our duty g as a postmaster.
A closing from whole IP rank for Mailverkehr
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up
user have to send mail over his own mail server? I don't see the
problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of providers which repeatedly
fail to prevent spam from
: Fermin Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fermin
Sanchez
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
Hello
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up user
Of Peter Keel
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [swinog] Mailempfang wegen SPAM blockiert / Mail receipt
because of Spam blocks
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 19:48, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:27:12PM +0100, Fermin Sanchez wrote:
Hm - pardon my asking, but: What (legal) reason should a dial-up
user have to send mail over his own mail server? I don't see the
problem in banning *dial-up*-ranges of
Andre,
There are some friends arguing driving their own mail servers - of course on
dial-up, ADSL or other broadband networks... This is the only point where
SMTP-AUTH comes in - and has nothing to do with the subject - indeed.
If someone desperately wants to connect his private mail server from
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:51:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS.
You don't seem to understand how SMTP works.
Hehe, oh well... Twice in one hour from the same source. No further comment
required.
Trust him, he is a pro.
:)
--
:wq Claudio
well trust those two guys ;-)
cheers
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:51:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
PS.
You don't seem to understand how SMTP works.
Hehe, oh well... Twice in one hour from the same source. No further comment
required.
Trust him, he is a pro.
:)
--
:wq
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:52:23PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can
perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for
an intervention on the so called customer side.
Look, I wouldn't want my
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:07:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
Sorry, this is NO REASON to run a mail server behind a dial-up IP line.
And if I don't feel like changing the SMTP-smarthost on my *NIX-Laptop
_again_ ?
Seegras
--
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary
Hi Seegras,
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:52:23PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
and every SMTP port 25 traffic (or whatever required in the future) can
perfectly be forwarded to a designated server WITHOUT a possibility for
an intervention on
'llo again
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Peter Keel wrote:
* on the Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:07:45PM +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
Sorry, this is NO REASON to run a mail server behind a dial-up IP line.
And if I don't feel like changing the SMTP-smarthost on my *NIX-Laptop
_again_ ?
well...
30 matches
Mail list logo
