On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
> their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
> MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
Ham
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
> RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP conne
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>
>> The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
>> times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
>> All of which should not be too difficult to set up for
>>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> > blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> > type of con
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> > anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> > discourages the esta
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have b
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
> machines, whether t
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I don't like getting spam. I dislike the fact that I am
inconvenienced. I have not yet decided to give in, though. And, in
my opinion, bouncing mail from people innocent of sending spam is
giving in to spammers.
I ifnd this phenomena remniscent of may people in the trhoes
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
> throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
> BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
> support, etc, the DUL. Many ISPs p
I've just sent another, long, message about mail acceptance,
blacklisting, and this whole flamewar. Please read that message
first; it explains the context of this mail, and without it you might
misinterpret this one.
This message is about my opinion of the DUL, which I support and use.
In fact m
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Bob Nielsen wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> b) use uucp-over-tcp (requires uucp account somewhere)
>> c) use smtp-over-ssh (requires shell account somewhere)
>
>Can someone point me to any references on setting up either of these.
>I ha
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:44:24PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> Is there any kind of database to filter out time-wasting, vitriolic
> arguments full of personal attacks, about things that have nothing to
> do with Debian?
Sure:
:0:
* ^X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.*
/dev/null
--
G. Bra
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
|
|Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
|X-Filtered-By: DUL
|or similar header be added to all list mail?
The problem is, that qmail can't do this easilly.
I think this would be a perfect s
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
> > X-Filtered-By: DUL
> > or similar header be added to all list mail?
>
> Apparently qmail can't do t
On Thu, 30 March 2000 05:53:20 -0500, Eric Weigel wrote:
> If you're stuck with a service provider who has a crappy mail
> service, and/or who has your IP listed on the DUL, I'll offer a
> solution.
Also uucp over tcp/ip is offered for quite a small monthly
charge at cid.net, have whatever hostnam
On Wed, 29 March 2000 14:31:50 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> This is deliberately removed, we had some problems a year or so ago with
> the received lines getting too long for some mailers. We are looking at
> putting them back.
There are some sites out there that have a limit of 15 and
you are
Is there any kind of database to filter out time-wasting, vitriolic
arguments full of personal attacks, about things that have nothing to
do with Debian?
I guess there is, but come on people, enough is enough. Just hit the
delete key and get over it. There are tons of things to do to make
Debian
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> b) use uucp-over-tcp (requires uucp account somewhere)
> c) use smtp-over-ssh (requires shell account somewhere)
Can someone point me to any references on setting up either of these.
I had to give up my static IP and often have pro
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:12:10PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Before all useful points are lost in the flamage, may I suggest that a
> X-Filtered-By: DUL
> or similar header be added to all list mail?
Apparently qmail can't do that out of the box.
Yes, we are still being hypocritical
This spam issue is so political.
If you're stuck with a service provider who has a crappy mail
service, and/or who has your IP listed on the DUL, I'll offer a
solution.
I run an ISP in Canada. We offer shell accounts, on a machine
running Debian Potato, for a reasonable price ($10/month, or $60/
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> most of the recent spam would have been blocked by using MAPS RSS
> (relays.mail-abuse.org), though...and not by MAPS DUL.
>
> IMO, we should use both. individually they are quite effective in
> blocking spam, but they are even better when used together
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:15:56 -0600, you wrote:
>Couldn't the original Received: headers be renamed to X-Received: (or
>something like that; although I could figure out how to make that
>happen with formail I don't know my mail headers well enough to know
>if X-Received is already used by something
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:34:05AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:17:55AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
NILS JEPPE, CRAIG SANDERS:
PLEASE STOP CC'ING ME ON LIST MAILS.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is human
Debian GNU/Linux
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > Branden: You might consider getting a static.
>
> The only way to live, imho. ;-)
You guys can stop CC'ing me any day now; I read the lists.
And BTW, I've stated several times that I *do* have a static IP. I suppose
you guys are to
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
[snip]
Why did you CC me? I read the list. Please control yourself.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The basic test of freedom is perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | less in what we are free to do than in
[EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:41:15PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[Providing reliable SMTP services to people on dialup IP, eg
UUCP-over-TCP]
> It would be better for someone else to provide a service like this.
I have to say I'm extremely surprised that if ISPs in the US are as
incompetant as pe
On 29-Mar-00, 15:21 (CST), Lawrence Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nils: you still need a DNS named, static, route-able IP to be your own host.
I have DNS named, *dynamic*, routable IP -- thanks to the good folks at
dyndns.org. The only bad thing is that the reverse DNS isn't consistent.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:17:55AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > DUL is very effective in doing that. it prevents spammers from
> > hiding their activities from their ISP...which ensures that they
> > will be caught and their account nuked very promptly
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> DUL is very effective in doing that. it prevents spammers from hiding
> their activities from their ISP...which ensures that they will be caught
> and their account nuked very promptly.
Okay, I see this point, however, I do have a problem with the categ
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:36:37AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
> > that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
>
> Well then I have to agree, DUL is bad, because it's near imp
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:41:15PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > debian developers should have the option of a uucp account from one
> > of the debian servers (trivially easy for us to set up).
>
> I think we have been over this in various forms, I do
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:19:34PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
> Craig I meant you need those things to have a smtp HOST. You know; to
> send and recive email, I was not commenting about DUL in any form. So
> to say I was spreadding FUD is foolish, maybe you could of asked for
> more informat
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> you were lucky enough to be able to set up something at work. many
> others will be able to setup something similar. debian developers
> should have the option of a uucp account from one of the debian servers
> (trivially easy for us to set up).
I thi
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
> that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
Well then I have to agree, DUL is bad, because it's near impossible to
kill dial-in spammers, except to have their accounts revoked
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 08:56:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > The domain's technical contact.
>
> Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
> than [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a lot less likely. sending to [EMAIL
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Lawrence Walton wrote:
> Nils: you still need a DNS named, static, route-able IP to be your own host.
Only for incoming, and with incoming, you decide if you want to use ORBS
or not. I'd say most public providers don't use it, for obvious reasons.
ORBS only affects you when
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 02:31:50PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Larry Gilbert wrote:
>
> > Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a "Received:" header to show where
> > messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
> > track down actual spammers. Is
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:14:58PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say we use it
> since the amount of spam is certainly increasing the last weeks and
> DUL is understandable.
>
> Craig?
obviously, i agree - i've been arguing for us to use th
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:21:52PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
> > Nils: you still need a DNS named,
>
> nope, DUL doesn't care whether you have a DNS entry and a matching
> reverse lookup.
>
> > static,
>
> yep. the DUL lists
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:16:32PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
> > that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
>
> Unfortunately that is not correct
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:01:12AM -0500, jpb wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
> > > route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
> >
> > Have you ever had mail actually di
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 07:58:22AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
> that's why it's called the MAPS Dialup User List.
>
Unfortunately that is not correct. Both NTL's cablemodems and some of BT's ADSL
modems are listed in the D
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 04:28:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:15:27PM -0800, Larry Gilbert wrote:
> > Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a "Received:" header to show where
> > messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
> > track down actua
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:21:52PM -0800, Lawrence Walton wrote:
> Nils: you still need a DNS named,
nope, DUL doesn't care whether you have a DNS entry and a matching
reverse lookup.
> static,
yep. the DUL lists dynamic (dialup) IPs, it doesn't list static IPs.
that's why it's called the MAPS
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Some MTA's -- and I don't know which ones -- apparently choke if there is
> more than n bytes' worth of Received: headers.
>
> So, as I understand it, these are stripped out by murphy to help make sure
> the list mails get to all the recipients.
May
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Larry Gilbert wrote:
> Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a "Received:" header to show where
> messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
> track down actual spammers. Is this being deliberately omitted or does
> qmail just normally not include thi
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:15:27PM -0800, Larry Gilbert wrote:
> Rather than contribute to the flame war, I would like to ask a question.
> Apologies if this is a total rookie question.
>
> Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a "Received:" header to show where
> messages are originating? This inf
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:06:19PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
> a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
Leave you out of what? I mailed the list, not you personally.
> But the points about ORBS are s
On Wed, 29 March 2000 12:42:14 -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Joseph's arguments, while occasionally strident, are not foolish. I
> find it interesting that his opponents devolve into name calling and
> obscenity.
You can read? Sure, you can.
I tried to explain some point to him on irc but I fai
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 11:06:19PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
>
> Branden,
>
> Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
> a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
>
> But the points about ORBS are still valid, no matter what DUL is. Being
> li
Rather than contribute to the flame war, I would like to ask a question.
Apologies if this is a total rookie question.
Why is murphy.debian.org not adding a "Received:" header to show where
messages are originating? This information is useful when trying to
track down actual spammers. Is this be
Branden,
Hey, please leave me out of that ;-) But would you please provide me with
a link for DUL so I can finally check out what it's all about?
But the points about ORBS are still valid, no matter what DUL is. Being
listed in orbs IS something you can change: Fix your server! And if you're
dia
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:42:14PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> A. swbell has frequent problems with their mail-servers, both inbound
> (POP) and outbound (SMTP). I don't know (or care) what OS they run.
>
> B. When I got my DSL line, swbell was the *only* ISP possibile in
> houston.
That's pa
On 29-Mar-00, 07:16 (CST), Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 March 2000 01:57:45 -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I'm not the only person here who thinks so. Make Debian use all the
> > blacklists you want. You'll find users and developers dropping like
> > flies.
>
> If eve
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
> > route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
>
> Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
> you just distrust it bec
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:16:11PM +, Alexander Koch wrote:
> btw - if you really need to find a smarthost that is working
> well I doubt you have to search for a long time. Mail is not
> just mail and I can imagine many "specials" for those like you
> that need a decent smarthost. It is just t
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 03:07:59AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> First: YOUR SPAM IS NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.
>
> Second: Broadband providers are not a commodity. And they're usually not
> cheap.
>
> Third: The difference in cost between my DSL service and any other
> broadband service (even with
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 01:57:45AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I have read them. (I did write them after all.)
One does not necessarily follow based on the other.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 29 March 2000 01:57:45 -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I'm not the only person here who thinks so. Make Debian use all the
> blacklists you want. You'll find users and developers dropping like
> flies.
If everything else fails, this is the best argument to bring
up, really. Tell me why I s
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
> > route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
>
> Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
> you just distrust it because it's running on NT? S
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 12:06:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Hell, Joseph, have you ever stopped to read one of your own posts to
> > see what you really sound like?
>
> I agree, knghtbrd, you sound too fanatical(sp?). Calm down, and perhaps
> people will pay more attention to what you're say
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Hell, Joseph, have you ever stopped to read one of your own posts to
> see what you really sound like?
I agree, knghtbrd, you sound too fanatical(sp?). Calm down, and perhaps
people will pay more attention to what you're saying.
-
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:33:41PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> often than not knows better. (Let pacbell.net's shoody NT mail server
> route MY mail? NOT LIKELY!)
Have you ever had mail actually disappear through their server, or do
you just distrust it because it's running on NT? Seriously?
H
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 09:17:46AM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
> > Yes there is more spam, but I've been looking and I haven't seen that much
> > (if any at all) would be blocked by DUL.
>
> I personally think the DUL is "most harmless" RBL and the "most
> legitimate" (bad wording probably) for u
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 02:02:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Alexander Koch wrote:
> > DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say
> > we use it since the amount of spam is certainly increasing
> > the last weeks and DUL is understandable.
>
> Yes there i
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Alexander Koch wrote:
> DUL is interesting. I changed my mind on that. I rather say
> we use it since the amount of spam is certainly increasing
> the last weeks and DUL is understandable.
Yes there is more spam, but I've been looking and I haven't seen that much
(if any at
On Tue, 28 March 2000 17:03:56 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> That roughly matches my experience - ORBS blocks far too much to use in
Did anyone say above.net? ORBS swamped Germany half a year
ago with mails, some big ISPs are still in the ORBS database
for 1000+ business customers are not really easy
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:16:43PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I have received one legitimate email (from a customer) which failed
> the ORBS check, so I won't be rejecting based on that. But I see no
> reason not to reject on RBL (which Debian already does), and
> probably RSS and DUL too.
Th
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
> ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
> Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
> It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Yeah... "Blacklist this person we've blacklisted or we'll blacklist you."
W
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Daniel Martin wrote:
> ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
> Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
> It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Which is basically the same.
> This means that since my campus's smarthost trusts any machine i
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
> ORBS BLOCKS MORE THAN OPEN RELAYS.
> Sorry to shout, but I've been bitten by ORBS before.
> It blocks open relays *or machines which relay for open relays*.
Yes, it does. I configured all of my exim systems to put warnings
in the hea
Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > ORBS deserves special mention because of their insane hit count, I don't
> > know what that is about but ORBS would block 10% of the mails we get. I
> > think it is without question that the majority of tho
Nils Jeppe wrote:
> ORBS blocks all open relays. A lot of people have open relays. Since open
> relays still do not have any reason for existence other than admin
> ignorance, the "correct" way here would be to block all open relays and
> then fix the mail servers. ORBS really cuts down on spam, th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> The domain's technical contact.
>
> Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
> than [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've seen N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
It is rumored that on 26-Mar-2000 Nils Jeppe wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
>> firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
>> firewall out
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > * Note, once a site is listed in one of these RBLs it becomes impossible
> > for a user to unsubscribe from our lists - no matter what they do they
> > will never be able to communicate a b
* Joseph Carter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 16:45]:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > > Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe
> > > that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce
> > > false positives.
> >
>
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 05:10:06PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > DUL and ORBS both seem to think they need to punish anyone whose config
> > or origin does not meet their standards (or as someone else noted in the
> > case of ORBS, if they are unable to te
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > I don't see how you can create a false positive on a relay test. Either
> > the message gets through, and you're an open relay, or it doesn't, and
> > you're fine. It's quite simple, really
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> I don't see how you can create a false positive on a relay test. Either
> the message gets through, and you're an open relay, or it doesn't, and
> you're fine. It's quite simple, really.
Actually, I ran the relay test at abuse.net on tw
Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is misleading. What ORBS does is *test* mail servers to ensure that
> it *is* an open relay, before adding the relay's address to the list.
>
> They do NOT (according to the web page) "scan the net" for open relays.
> Rather, the list is generat
Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Four weeks? Did they change this? When we got blacklisted coz a customer
> (open relay) used us as a smart host, they gave us four days ;-).
All I can report is my experience. I got four weeks.
> Yeah, me too. They're competent, cool people, and their sy
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> * Jason Gunthorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000326 08:45]:
> >[...]
> >ORBS - 314
> > Comparing connections it is found that 3970 out of 40236 connection
> > attempts would have been blocked. This can be roughly considered to be
> > 3970 emails bl
On 26 Mar 2000, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> It's just an illustration of the problems of attempting to enforce
> your preferred policies upon others.
I'd call it self-defense, really.
--
"Kif, if there's one thing I don't need it's your 'I don't think that's
wise' attitude."
Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
> > firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
> > firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - th
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The point exactly.. If RBL or RSS blacklists someone, it's a known
> spammer or a site which has refused to act against spammers abusing their
> systems. In these instances, the blacklisting happens as a last resort.
But you can't keep up with the amo
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:34:37PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it demonstrates that ORBS is a little more indiscriminant
> > than perhaps is good.
>
> Yes; because innocent people do get caught in the middle of it. But it's
> the only method to fight open relays. I've said it befor
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > > Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe
> > > that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce
> > > false positives.
This used to be
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Or it appears to have been accepted and goes nowhere. I've seen a setup
> or two like this specifically for the purposes of tracking who was trying
> to use the relay...
Just check your reject log for ip adresses ;-)
If someone has some weird setup li
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > Given every report I've heard to the contrary, I'm not sure I believe
> > that. I've also been told that there are cases where their tests produce
> > false positives.
>
> I don't see how you can create a false positive on a relay te
On 26 Mar 2000, Jason Henry Parker wrote:
> postmaster at a host I co-admin got mail from ORBS a few days before
> Christmas of 1999. We were given four weeks to fix our open relay,
> plenty of logs and a reasonable amount of help from the ORBS website
> on how to fix it. The only difficult part
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there
> > be?
>
> The domain's technical contact.
Might be a good idea to do this in addition to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I
fail to see where this is "better" - Most domains have quite
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
> firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
> firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site notices
> the first check, blocks the rest
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> ORBS blocks all open relays. A lot of people have open relays. Since open
> relays still do not have any reason for existence other than admin
> ignorance, the "correct" way here would be to block all open relays and
ORBS also blacklis
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Uh, I can find at least one site real quickly whose admin will tell you
>that he got a message from ORBS, fixed the problem, was blacklisted
>anyway, and it took him a month to get off that list even though the
>problem was
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 02:41:09AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The domain's technical contact.
Ideally, yes. In practice, I'd say that's no more likely to work
than [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've seen NIC entries with technical contacts
called "NOC Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"; do you think hotmai
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:15:42AM +0200, Nils Jeppe wrote:
> > ORBS has a tendancy to not take the time to make sure their messages go to
> > the right places and then they are very slow to take sites off the list
> > after problems are fixed.
>
> afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other
Nils Jeppe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And taking people off the list is automatic. Fix it, enter the IP in their
> form, it gets re-cehcekd and taken off the list. Works like a charm.
My recent experience with ORBS backs this up.
> If people configured their servers correctly, they'd never ge
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> ORBS has a tendancy to not take the time to make sure their messages go to
> the right places and then they are very slow to take sites off the list
> after problems are fixed.
afaik, ORBS sends to [EMAIL PROTECTED] What other right place could there
be
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
