Jon Earle wrote:
> I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
> to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
> open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of
> addresses in the clear within the list archives, with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I read this "list" via Newsguy.com. I subscribed, to get
> posting rights, but the address forwards to /dev/null.
You don't need to subscribe to be able to post.
> I tried reading this mailing list with an email client.
> Had to unsubscribe after a few hours.
Apart
On 3 Oct 2003 21:10:05 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I tried reading this mailing list with an email client.
> Had to unsubscribe after a few hours.
I've been "reading this mailing list with an email client" (and posting
to it as well) for the past two years. Still doing it.
Still alive.
-
I read this "list" via Newsguy.com. I subscribed, to get
posting rights, but the address forwards to /dev/null.
Newsguy filters out all the spam.
I have a large spam blocking list,
http://www.greens.org/about/r.txt (tcprules format)
and yesterday I blocked a big chunk of Global Crossing,
because
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:33:33PM +0100, Carlos Sousa wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Jon Earle wrote:
> >
> > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing
> > list.
>
> No, it was thanks to spam. You're confusing the issues here. The Debian
> list i
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Jon Earle wrote:
>
> I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing
> list.
No, it was thanks to spam. You're confusing the issues here. The Debian
list is not the enemy, spammers are.
--
Carlos Sousa
http://vbc.dyndns.org/
--
On Friday 03 October 2003 1:25 pm, Dan Anderson wrote:
>4) Anything with .pif, .bat, .exe attached is probably spam. Quarantine
>it (unless it's from your somebody on your whitelist).
I'd add HTML email as well, Dan. FWIW, I'm suprised that HTML email requesting
support is sent to this listserv
On (04/10/03 01:40), David Palmer. wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle said:
>
> > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
> > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
> > open posting policy and their email-
J. Bruce Fields writes:
> In fact it is not, because it greatly increases the negative impact of
> spam and virus mail (most of which is sent with forged "from" addresses)
> by multiplying the amount of useless email that is sent.
Such useless bounces typically account for about 25% of my email.
-
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:21:20PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote:
> > So, again, please don't send automatic replies.
>
> Although you may not personally approve of the method it is an accepted
> method of blocking spam. YMMV and such.
There certainly is software out there (virus software at
> So, again, please don't send automatic replies.
Although you may not personally approve of the method it is an accepted
method of blocking spam. YMMV and such.
> On such an email address I'd be even more wary about using an
> autoresponder because I don't want people that are potenti
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:00:52PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote:
> > It isn't just people on listserv's that will be annoyed: please never
> > send automatic replies; the "from" address is a lie anyway.
>
> This is one of the reasons I put a caveat about listservs not following
> rules.
The pr
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:25:16 -0400, Dan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned:
> I've had very good success with the following:
>
> 1) Send all e-mails with your name not listed as a receipient to a
> probable spam folder. After a few weeks of tweaking (mailing lists and
> newsletters will get send
> It isn't just people on listserv's that will be annoyed: please never
> send automatic replies; the "from" address is a lie anyway.
This is one of the reasons I put a caveat about listservs not following
rules. However, FWIW, on a business only address (which isn't
subscribing to a list
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:25:16PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote:
> 5) Make anybody e-mailing to your address who is not on your whitelist
> (besides listservs!) respond to an automatic reply to be added to your
> whitelist. Most spammers won't respond (although people on the listserv
> may get angry
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:58:46 -0700, Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote:
>> [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if
>> those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense
>> whatsoev
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 18:13, Jon Earle wrote:
> This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm
> placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional
> newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple
> addresses) the ability to post[1],
On 03 Oct 2003, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
[snip]
>
> Personally I gave up on the idea of hiding my email address a long time
> ago. I want people with a legitimate reason to be able to reach me
> without jumping through hoops. With dictionary attacks against mail
> servers and third-party leaks of
I've had very good success with the following:
1) Send all e-mails with your name not listed as a receipient to a
probable spam folder. After a few weeks of tweaking (mailing lists and
newsletters will get send there too) you will find just about everything
in there the probable spam folder is sp
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle said:
> I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
> to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
> open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of
> addresses
Yes, this is a pain. I am subscribed with two addresses. It's a long story,
but at the other one, I get no spam. This email address I subscribed about 48
hours ago and instantly got attacked with virus emails. I am getting 50 to 60
of them a day. It's very annoying. But, there doesn't seem
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned:
> I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
> to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
> open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availabili
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote:
> [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if
> those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense
> whatsoever.
+1
I could not agree more.
--
Bill Moseley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UN
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote:
> This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm
> placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional
> newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple
> addresses) the abilit
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote:
> I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
> to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
> open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of
> addresses i
I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected
to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their
open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of
addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I
started re
26 matches
Mail list logo
