CONFIRM s2023060623370725133
Greetings,
Did you received my message?let me know.
Best Regards,
Mr.Abdelkader Alsamman.
ROZELLA Cowbell,
Confirm your email address to complete your Twitter account. It's easy - just
click on the button below.
Click on the link below or copy and paste it into a browser:
https://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Faccount%2Fconfirm_user_email%2F33363
Hello debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
We have received your request to join the aabusiness
group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service.
This request will expire in 7 days.
TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE GROUP:
1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link:
h
> The web summary of the queue contents lists the packages by upload date, but I
> remember reading from you in a previous discussion that the queue is processed
> according to the date of the first upload. Unfortunately, I lost the
> reference…
> Can you confirm, or can someb
packages by upload date, but I
remember reading from you in a previous discussion that the queue is processed
according to the date of the first upload. Unfortunately, I lost the reference…
Can you confirm, or can somebody point me at the correct message in our lists
archive, so that I can document it
e and confirm there are no
warnings about missing prototypes and that your package can
successfully link to libkrb5.
Mailsync at least links fine against the new libkrb5. Since I don't have
access to a kerberos environment I however can't test if it also does
fine at runti
Hi folks. I've just uploaded Mit Kerberos 1.4.3-1 to experimental.
I'm writing to you because your package links against the main
kerberos library (libkrb53) and I'd like you to confirm that the
Kerberos support in your package still works against this version.
The public ABI
Hi ,
It's The Do! Team Inc. writing you to confirm your subscription
to our mailing list.
You can confirm your subscription by simply clicking
the link below:
http://www.automateyourwebsite.com/app/optin.asp?j=0&c=49487011&pg=das&nc=0
If you received this message in
On Thursday 21 July 2005 20.32, Kirk Reiser wrote:
> << IMPORTANT INFORMATION! >>
>
> This is an automated message.
>
> The message you sent (attached below) requires confirmation
> before it can be delivered. To confirm that you sent the
> message below, just hit
<< IMPORTANT INFORMATION! >>
This is an automated message.
The message you sent (attached below) requires confirmation
before it can be delivered. To confirm that you sent the
message below, just hit the "R"eply button and send this
message back (you don't need to e
<< IMPORTANT INFORMATION! >>
This is an automated message.
The message you sent (attached below) requires confirmation
before it can be delivered. To confirm that you sent the
message below, just hit the "R"eply button and send this
message back (you don't need to e
NCUA
Home | Search | Privacy Policy &
Accessibility | Site
Map| Contact Us
National Credit Union Administration
Share Insurance |
Resources for
Credit Unions | Resources for
Consu
Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list Cc
We have received a request for the removal of your email address,
"debian-devel@lists.debian.org" from the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this
mailing list, simply reply to th
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:09:31AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:57:05PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Would this work? Or would you need to be authenticated first?
$ telnet mx0.gmx.net 25
Trying 213.165.6
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:57:05PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Would this work? Or would you need to be authenticated first?
(ie. I thought we were discussing checking purely based on
the MAIL FROM address, not checking for relaying).
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:20:47AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:48:14AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> > see if you still don't have a problem. Or try giving the server a local (to
> > it) address after MAIL FROM: the server should complain unless you're on a
> > network which
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:20:47AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:48:14AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> > see if you still don't have a problem. Or try giving the server a local (to
> > it) address after MAIL FROM: the server should complain unless you're on a
> > network which
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:12:37PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> But to be sure you're not getting any false positives, you cruise through
> your "spam" mailbox every now and then, right?
I generally try to (although I know one site that receives so much SPAM
that this is simply not feasible).
How
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:48:14AM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> see if you still don't have a problem. Or try giving the server a local (to
> it) address after MAIL FROM: the server should complain unless you're on a
> network which it considers to be local.
Tried that with both qmail and postfix,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:22:35AM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> On 2002-12-03, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Please enlighten me, anyway: Why is bouncing the full body of the
> >> mail you received from a person who claims to be Adam back to Adam a
> >> good idea?
> >
> > This is a
On 2002-12-03, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please enlighten me, anyway: Why is bouncing the full body of the
>> mail you received from a person who claims to be Adam back to Adam a
>> good idea?
>
> This is an implementation issue, not a philosophical issue.
This is correct. The
I demand that Adam McKenna may or may not have written...
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:47:05AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>>> Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
>>> envelope sender address, not an address
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:52:38PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> Today, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> >> Right. I just thought up a scheme to exploit this, based on the fake
> >> source-IP address approach you find in de
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:58:28AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > The key issue here is that the mail isn't blocked. It's simply held in
> > another place until confirmed. It doesn't become a "false positive" until
> > it
> > is delete
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> The key issue here is that the mail isn't blocked. It's simply held in
> another place until confirmed. It doesn't become a "false positive" until it
> is deleted without being read.
It depends how you define the SPAM checking proce
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:47:05AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
> > envelope sender address, not an address found in any header of the mail.
> > I doubt that any abuse@ a
Today, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
>> Right. I just thought up a scheme to exploit this, based on the fake
>> source-IP address approach you find in descriptions of ping-floods.
>
> Wow, you're pretty smart. Nobody has t
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
> envelope sender address, not an address found in any header of the mail.
> I doubt that any abuse@ address replies to a bounce message. This is no
> problem.
You see
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
>envelope sender address, not an address found in any header of the mail.
>I doubt that any abuse@ address replies to a bounce message. This is no
>problem.
Having received one of the thin
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:55, Adam McKenna wrote:
> As a side note, I am pretty amused by the people in this thread who say
> "don't use these systems, they're antisocial", and then follow that up with
> "I'm going to blacklist anyone who uses these systems".. I guess their
> definition of antisocial
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > BTW, anyone who e-mails you and then asks you to confirm your reply is
> > either using broken software, or doesn't have their outgoing mail
> &g
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> BTW, anyone who e-mails you and then asks you to confirm your reply is
> either using broken software, or doesn't have their outgoing mail
> headers set up properly.
So people who e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] an
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
> envelope sender address, not an address found in any header of the mail.
> I doubt that any abuse@ address replies to a bounce message. This is no
> problem.
Practic
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:40:53AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
> > Yes, and unless you consider people who either:
> > 1) are
ail from
> > me.
> >
> > It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
>
> Yes, and unless you consider people who either:
>
> 1) are too lazy to confirm
> 2) have a philosophical objection to confirming
>
> false positives,
I do. If yo
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
> Yes, and unless you consider people who either:
> 1) are too lazy to confirm
> 2) have a philosophical objection to confirming
> false
solution at present,
>
> /dev/null is the most effective filtering solution at present, and these
> days happens to be equivalent to these filters when applied to mail from
> me.
>
> It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
Yes, and unless yo
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:56:10AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> > Thus, my conclusion: These things are evil. Don't use them or somebody
> > might use them against you, eventually.
>
> This sounds vaguely like religion -- you haven't
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> Right. I just thought up a scheme to exploit this, based on the fake
> source-IP address approach you find in descriptions of ping-floods.
Wow, you're pretty smart. Nobody has thought of this before, especially not
the authors of sa
Today, Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Jan" == Jan Niehusmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jan> Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use
> Jan> email productively is to block all email with invalid sender
> Jan> adresses. And I don't know a way do val
on Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:19:47PM +0100, Gerrit Pape ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the
> > Internet works.
>
> Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this ma
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>Autoresponders, bouncers, and other mail handling programs use the
>envelope sender address, not an address found in any header of the mail.
>I doubt that any abuse@ address replies to a bounce message. This is no
>problem.
I find your faith in mail admin
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:01:15AM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:39:30PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use email
> > productively is to block all email with invalid sender adresses. And
> > I don't know a way do valdia
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:50:14PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In order to avoid this, spammers merely have to use a forged from
> address that will generate an automatic response. There's no shortage of
> those. [EMAIL PROTECTED] springs to mind, and I have no doubt that
> there are many other
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:31:11PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:18, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > The above is based on the false premise that those who send spam are
> > incapable of sending it with (forged) real email addresses. They
> > already have lots of them to choose fro
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:58:48PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> Also there's the issue of two people having such filters trying to
> communicate with each other.
This, of course, is taken care of, see the documentation if you are
interested.
> NB You can't just white-list an address when you se
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:22:32AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
>> Personally I think bayesian based spam filters are a godsend. They're a bit
>> naive in places such as being unigram or bigram based, but that'll probably
>> get fixed in version two. And
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:53:56AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:22:32AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > Personally I think bayesian based spam filters are a godsend. They're a
> > bit
> > naive in places such as being unigram or bigram based, but that'll probably
> > g
Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:22:32AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > Personally I think bayesian based spam filters are a godsend. They're a
> > bit
> > naive in places such as being unigram or bigram based, but that'll probably
> > get fixed in version two. And already the
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 09:53, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:22:32AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > Personally I think bayesian based spam filters are a godsend. They're a
> > bit
> > naive in places such as being unigram or bigram based, but that'll probably
> > get fixed in v
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:22:32AM +1300, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> Personally I think bayesian based spam filters are a godsend. They're a bit
> naive in places such as being unigram or bigram based, but that'll probably
> get fixed in version two. And already they are still amazingly good.
Ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 05:12, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> You are missing the point: That scheme doesn't directly block spam, it
> only assures that a mail has a valid Reply-To:-address. Which may (or
> may not) stop spam. Time will tell.
But if we can work
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:18:46AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
>> The above is based on the false premise that those who send spam are
>> incapable of sending it with (forged) real email addresses. They
>> already have lots of them to choose from.
>
>But i
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:18, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Jan" == Jan Niehusmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jan> Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use
> Jan> email productively is to block all email with invalid sender
> Jan> adresses. And I don't know a way do v
ged email address, the confirmation
request won't be answered.
(Which needs to be considered when designing a confirmation
auto-responder: It may only confirm messages which were actually sent
from that account)
Jan
PS: I think we are getting off-topic. I am interested in your opinion,
but p
> "Jan" == Jan Niehusmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jan> Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use
Jan> email productively is to block all email with invalid sender
Jan> adresses. And I don't know a way do valdiate a (not yet
Jan> known) address but to try it a
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:58:48PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:39, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use email
> > productively is to block all email with invalid sender adresses. And I
> If an auto-responder can handle such me
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:39, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > It is not suitable for individual email addresses.
>
> Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use email
> productively is to block all email with invalid sender adresses. And I
> don't know a way do valdiate a (not yet known) addres
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:39:30PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
[snip]
> Time will tell. I fear that some day, the only way to use email
> productively is to block all email with invalid sender adresses. And I
> don't know a way do valdiate a (not yet known) address but to try it
> and send a reply
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> When you have a very small number of people doing something totally contrary
> to what everyone else on the Internet is doing, and expecting that everyone
> else should go out of their way to accomodate them, then you don't need to
handling
> program before saying such.
Some people believe they have the moral right to *reduce* the amount
of mail *they* receive by sending *others* *more* mail. Or to set up
robots which ask humans to confirm that they aren't robots.
The world is a strange place. Get over it.
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:19:47PM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the
> > Internet works.
>
> Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this mail handling
> progra
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:19, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the
> > Internet works.
>
> Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this mail handling
> program before saying s
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the
> Internet works.
Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this mail handling
program before saying such.
> If you have to send an extra confirmation messag
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 10:42:41PM +0100, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
You misunderstood the way such things work, you only have to confirm once
that you intended to send a message.
Still too much. If someone initiates a communication, they should make
sure they can get the reply.
Of course, people
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:42, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> On Saturday 30 November 2002 16:48, Russell Coker wrote:
> [snipped rant and threats]
>
> > ... if such messages continue.
>
> You misunderstood the way such things work, you only have to confirm once
> that you intend
On Saturday 30 November 2002 16:48, Russell Coker wrote:
[snipped rant and threats]
> ... if such messages continue.
You misunderstood the way such things work, you only have to confirm once
that you intended to send a message. Of course, people should add automated
systems like the BTS
list (such as me).
For reference, I will not reply to such a message, but I will consider putting
the entire domain in my spam filter if such messages continue.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Please confirm your message
Date: 30 Nov 2002 15:45:19 -
From: "The qco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
70 matches
Mail list logo
