-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:01:04AM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> > Communities are all-or-nothing. Either you participate or you don't.
> > Making it harder for legitimate mail to get to you is not a great
> > idea, not every response is appropriate
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:51:57AM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >You clearly wanted to get in your comment about the
> >allowing-non-subscribed-addresses-to-post policy, but that is entirely
> >irrelevant to this thread (which is not about spam being delivered
> >through t
Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 07:24:41PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Colin Watson wrote:
While I appreciate that you have an axe you want to grind here, that's
totally irrelevant in this case.
Wouldn't that mean I have something against someone?
You clearly wanted to get in you
On Thursday 20 March 2003 12:27 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:04:35PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> > I don't know how to operate a mail list, so I don't know what it
> > takes to prevent addresses from being harvested. I'd like it to be
> > impossible for addresses to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:11:46AM +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> well now that we are here, let me ask, is there any way to tell KMail, to
> delete all messages with .EXE attachments?
It's easier to use procmail to filter out against mimetypes, like
ap
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 23:57, Ernst-Magne Vindal wrote:
> Gianfranco Berardi wrote:
> > Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> >> Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> >> was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> >> an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, o
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 22:36, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
> a virus, if anyone had any doubts.
Yeah, It's funny, s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:46:48PM -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> and better still cc it to the gov entity responsible for
> handling/prosecuting that spam
> - the FTC is currently collecting and prosecuting the
> 20 year old and still successfu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:04:09AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I for one no longer wish to receive off-list replies. The privilege is
> too-much abused by spammers.
So treat the cause, not the symptoms. Treating the symptoms only
results in si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:04:35PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> I don't know how to operate a mail list, so I don't know what it
> takes to prevent addresses from being harvested. I'd like it to be
> impossible for addresses to be sucked off a lis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 07:00:05PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Yes, and there are many who read this list on Windows-based also.
> Many people read it from the office where they may be forced to
> use Outlook or another Windows e-mail client.
Doesn'
-Original Message-
From: Alvin Oga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:47 AM
To: Paul Johnson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Check the update from Microsoft. - reporting
- and i still like the immediate action that the incoming spam bounces
back to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:57:53PM +0100, Ernst-Magne Vindal wrote:
> Oh yes, and many other with you. lucky that my mailserver picks it up,
> reject the mail and just return an note about it:)
Please turn off any virus scanner autoresponders. They
hi ya
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> > signed up for this list less than a month ago. Within a week I
> > started getting spam on my list address, which seriously s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:24:56PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Then there is also the time-honored usenet practice of requesting
> that all replies be directed to the original poster, who will then
> post a summary of the replies at a later date.
N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 07:48:03PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Again, I disagree. People who have problems with their debian
> systems should be able to obtain help without subjecting themselves
> to the hundreds of messages per day which are gener
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> signed up for this list less than a month ago. Within a week I
> started getting spam on my list address, which seriously sucks,
> death to all spammers. I've been toying with the notion
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 07:24:41PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:35:40PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> >>Colin Ellis wrote:
> >>>Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
> >>>
> >>>Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:59:30AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > yes I recieved the message to, but of course I did not send it. The
> > To: header for that thing was huge, as colin pointed out it was sent
> > to the list members off list, it did not come through the
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:36:00PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
> a virus, if anyone had any doubts.
>
> j.
>
>
Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 08:18:14PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Dave Sherohman wrote:
I disagree. Replies should go where the person sending the reply
wants them to go, with consideration for any request which may be
made by the poster of the message being replied to. Sa
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 08:18:14PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Dave Sherohman wrote:
> >I disagree. Replies should go where the person sending the reply
> >wants them to go, with consideration for any request which may be
> >made by the poster of the message being replied to. Say, for
>
> I
Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:45:14PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice.
Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:04:09AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's faily easy. The list managet (software or person) has to munge everything
> that looks like an email address so it becomes unusable.
Oooohhh... Even better! Now, if I find someone on the list that
wants to work on a proje
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:45:14PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Dave Sherohman wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> >>A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice.
> >Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
> If you want
Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:35:40PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
Colin Ellis wrote:
Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
list?!
It's called not letting non-subscribed per
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 3:11 pm, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> > A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice. >
> Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
I for one no longer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> yes I recieved the message to, but of course I did not send it. The
> To: header for that thing was huge, as colin pointed out it was sent
> to the list members off list, it did not come through the debian mail
> system.
And that, for Colin Watson's benefit, is why the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 03:36:00PM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
>
Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joseph A Nagy Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Check the update from Microsoft.
It's called not letting non-subscribed persons post to the list.
Then you wouldn
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:35:40PM -0600, Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> Colin Ellis wrote:
> >Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
> >
> >Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
> >list?!
>
> It's called not letting non-subscribed person
Hall Stevenson said:
> I rec'd the message and I by no means know the person who sent it. I did
> glance at the "To:" list and saw '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or something
> similar. I didn't look at any "cc" or "bcc" lists though.
I wasn't gonna reply to this thread but you brought me into it!! ack..
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> > If you mean the original spam, it didn't appear on the list; it was sent
> > privately to some of the list's subscribers. If you're talking about the
> > discussion, well, I
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph A Nagy Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Check the update from Microsoft.
>
>
>
> It's called not letting non-subscribed persons post to the
> -Original Message-
> From: Hall Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> >was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> >an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
> >a virus, if anyone had any
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 3:11 pm, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> > A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice.
>
> Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
I don't know how to operate a mail list, so I
Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice.
Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
If you want an offlist reply, you can set the reply-to to your addy.
Otherwise all replie
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:11PM -0800, Carla Schroder wrote:
> A list manager that hides subscriber's addresses would be nice.
Umm... Wouldn't that make offlist replies impossible?
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past severa
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030319 17:44]:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:36:25PM -, Colin Ellis wrote:
> > Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
> >
> > Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
> > list?!
>
> If you mean th
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 2:09 pm, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:36:25PM -, Colin Ellis wrote:
> > Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
> >
> > Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on
> > the list?!
>
> If you mean
Colin Ellis wrote:
Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
list?!
Colin
http://www.solution-city.com
It's called not letting non-subscribed persons post to the list.
--
http://mc-luug.homelinux
"Colin Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
> list?!
Most of the spam tool authors don't do anything about viruses. They
just tell you to run antivirus software.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks.
Look
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:36:00 -0500
"Jeremy Gaddis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
> was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
> an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
> a virus, if anyone had any doub
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:36:25PM -, Colin Ellis wrote:
> Who sent this and what the hell does it have to do with debian??!!
>
> Maybe we need a stronger anti-spam list to stop this crap appearing on the
> list?!
If you mean the original spam, it didn't appear on the list; it was sent
privat
Gianfranco Berardi wrote:
Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
a virus, if anyone had any doubts.
j.
OYou mean Microsoft DID
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Check the update from Microsoft.
At 03:36 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
>Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
>was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
>an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of c
Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
a virus, if anyone had any doubts.
j.
OYou mean Microsoft DIDN'T send a patch to fix my
At 03:36 PM 3/19/2003 -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
Got this message in my Inbox today, and it appears that it
was sent to a bunch of subscribers to debian-user. It had
an executable file attached, q157498.exe, which is, of course,
a virus, if anyone had any doubts.
Doesn't appear to have concerned
CTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
49 matches
Mail list logo
