On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:57:21PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> > Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness of people to
> > answer challenges.
>
> I won't respon
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:00:11AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:37:49PM +0200, David Fokkema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > Spam is a growing, heck, exploding problem. No doubt.
> > > Chall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:55:11AM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> Agreed. Although the 'very high' depends on the willingness of people to
> answer challenges.
I won't respond to TMDA challenges anymore. Some spammers actually
send out TMDA-like messa
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:41:19PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> Can we PLEASE cut this thread?
> It is way off topic and it starts to get really annoying.
>
> This list is already high-volume, and I don't mind a good discussion, but
> this is a bit too much don't you think?
Sorry. Thi
on Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:37:49PM +0200, David Fokkema ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
> > screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> Can we PLEASE cut this thread?
> It is way off topic and it starts to get really annoying.
>
> This list is already high-volume, and I don't mind a good discussion, but
> this is a bit too much don't you think?
I tend to be laid back in aski
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:41:19PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> Can we PLEASE cut this thread?
> It is way off topic and it starts to get really annoying.
>
> This list is already high-volume, and I don't mind a good discussion, but
> this is a bit too much don't you think?
Oh my god,
Can we PLEASE cut this thread?
It is way off topic and it starts to get really annoying.
This list is already high-volume, and I don't mind a good discussion, but
this is a bit too much don't you think?
Thanx!
Regards,
Pim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:49:03PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> Yes, thanks to a lot of great feedback off the list, I have modified
> the program significantly.
>
> Thanks for the feedback,
If you are _really_ sincere about the feedback part, why not read
tmda.sourceforge.net? See what parts and
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> As some here are aware, I maintain a rant-o-matic with some standard
> screeds on frequently iterated issues. The C-R issue is one that's been
> nagging at me for a while, here's the draft of why C-R is considered
> harmful. Criti
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:47:54PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:06:22 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know that, :-) However, Steve was telling how much time he invested in
> > manually downloading and checking keys because of problems. I was
> > respondin
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:35:25AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:33:01 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you send a _lot_ of e-mails. I can see C-R to be annoying for you.
>
> Several hundred a month.
>
> > > As I pointed out there are static, we
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:45:54AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> Also sprach David Fokkema (Sun 03 Aug 02003 at 08:26:11AM +0200):
> > A receives challenge from B's C-R system which originates (of course)
> > from B's e-mail address.
>
> Isn't that a shaky assumption? I use eight (8) differe
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:33:01 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then you send a _lot_ of e-mails. I can see C-R to be annoying for you.
Several hundred a month.
> > As I pointed out there are static, well known spammers. I listed two
> > that have been hitting my machine reg
I'm bailing out of this thread. It is REALLY OT and has gone on long
enough.
I received a flurry of mails this evening.
They went directly to my quarantine mailbox which was then re-gzipped.
If those who sent the mails don't return the auto-responses, they will
be dumped without me ever seei
Also sprach David Fokkema (Sun 03 Aug 02003 at 08:26:11AM +0200):
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:31:10AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Travis Crump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > >What's worse is that so far noone's told me h
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:18:27PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:32:50 -0500
> Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, either way, once your fingered as a kiddie porn distributer,
> > I'm assuming that your reputation is ruined. Its the Western's world
> > equiva
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:53:39PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:17:05 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Friendly configured, in my point of view, means that mailing lists are
> > whitelisted. Or do you mean that you really send mail to 3 'new' persons
> > a da
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:25:05PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> David writes:
> > Well, I am led to believe that most spam doesn't have a valid reply
> > address.
>
> You are misled. Much of it has a very valid reply address: mine.
That really sucks. Sorry to hear that, :-(
David
--
To UNSUBS
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:31:10AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Travis Crump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Steve Lamb wrote:
> > >What's worse is that so far noone's told me how two people using C-R
> > >ever
> > >*start* communicating. Person
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 04:47:23 +0100
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And this is more legitimate than you scanning the messages yourself, and
> adding the addresses to your whitelist or spamlist, appropriately, how?
The fact that it would be on the order of .01% or lower of all mes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:13:26AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
>
> > Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email)
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 19:45:43 -0700
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know what they call people who pass judgement on things that they
> are ignorant of?
> Alan
Yup, that's about the gist of it.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:32:50 -0500
Jesse Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, either way, once your fingered as a kiddie porn distributer,
> I'm assuming that your reputation is ruined. Its the Western's world
> equivalent of leprosy. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal
> concept,
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:38:58 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, tmda works around this. If you send a mail, the receiver is
> whitelisted because you kindof expect a reply.
Which is done how? See the problem here?
> > Now tell me how much legitimate mail you've lo
on Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 31 16:34:18 2003
> Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and stopping it can only be done
> with a Challenge-Response mail program, such as the one I put together.
> There isn't
M. Self
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 9:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.
on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:59:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:23:59 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&
on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:59:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:23:59 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm using SA. It's just that I don't mind C-R and like the general
> > concept, but I see many people who's opinions I value and who's m
on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Travis Crump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> >What's worse is that so far noone's told me how two people using C-R
> >ever
> >*start* communicating. Person 1 mails person 2. Person 2's C-R sends off
> >a
> >challenge to Person 1
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 2 19:40:42 2003
>
> > > Which is why, if you're careful, you'll want to doublecheck the
> > > messages marked as spam.
> > >
> >
> > There are no messages marked as spam.
> >
> > Please do your homework. You obviously do not understand C-R systems
> > at all.
>
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:23:59 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using SA. It's just that I don't mind C-R and like the general
> concept, but I see many people who's opinions I value and who's mails
> I'd rather not send to /dev/null would not respond to a challenge,
> either out o
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:17:05 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Friendly configured, in my point of view, means that mailing lists are
> whitelisted. Or do you mean that you really send mail to 3 'new' persons
> a day? Or do you send bulk email? I guess I misunderstand you...
3 ne
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:06:22 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that, :-) However, Steve was telling how much time he invested in
> manually downloading and checking keys because of problems. I was
> responding to that.
Of course I am going to take a few steps. I have a ve
David writes:
> Well, I am led to believe that most spam doesn't have a valid reply
> address.
You are misled. Much of it has a very valid reply address: mine.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:
> What a lot of people don't understand, is that CR programs protect THEM.
> With a regular spamblocking program, anyone can use YOUR address and cause
> How wwould you like it if someone sent kiddie porn to a thousand people and
> used your address in the F
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:40:07 +0200
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which is why, if you're careful, you'll want to doublecheck the
> > messages marked as spam.
> >
>
> There are no messages marked as spam.
>
> Please do your homework. You obviously do not understand C-R systems
> at
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 2 13:17:11 2003
>
>
>
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me, if you can automate C-R, then spammers can too. Or do y=
> ou have to verify that your a 'legitimate organization' to some sort of cer=
> tificate authority to get the softw
On Saturday 02 August 2003 21:34, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:36:57PM +0100, Richard Lyons wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 August 2003 21:23, ScruLoose wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > (anyone knows of a trick to automatically whitelist all
> > > > correspondents on debian-user? ;-)
> >
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:36:57PM +0100, Richard Lyons wrote:
> On Saturday 02 August 2003 21:23, ScruLoose wrote:
> [...]
> > > (anyone knows of a trick to automatically whitelist all
> > > correspondents on debian-user? ;-)
>
> Yes: those nice spammers have just the tools you want...
Maybe I s
On Saturday 02 August 2003 21:23, ScruLoose wrote:
[...]
> > (anyone knows of a trick to automatically whitelist all
> > correspondents on debian-user? ;-)
Yes: those nice spammers have just the tools you want...
--
richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:23:59PM +0200, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > I'm sorry you have objections to C-R systems. But hey, it's your
> > > right to
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:06:25AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> I am REALLY sick of ignorant (or disinformational ) posts like this one.
I am REALLY sick of posts like your one.
> The argument to the X-CR header is a password. A unique password to the
> transaction.
And then the address is whitel
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:24:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:36:35 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Depends on what you call "false positives." I don't accept
> > anonymous email. Period.
>
> Through the last couple of decades, both in my busin
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:01:10PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700
> > If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't on my
> > pass list, it goes to /dev/null and an auto-response is sent to whatever
> > return address the sender supplied.
>
>
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:52:30AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> Also sprach David Fokkema (Sat 02 Aug 02003 at 05:20:34PM +0200):
> >
>
>
> > What did people think about the debian mailing lists subscription
> > mechanism?
>
> Mailing list subscription is an entirely different animal. It
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:
> > It seems to me, if you can automate C-R, then spammers can too. Or do you have to
> > verify that your a 'legitimate organization' to some sort of certificate authority
> > to get the software? That is the last thing anyone wants.
>
> The argument to
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Then send your answer to the list.
>
> Had it been appropriate to send it to the list, I would have
> done so. I am not going to do things I co
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:43:46AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:07:44 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only requirement (and drawback) is that other people reply to a C-R
> > from time to time. If configured friendly, only one time for each new person
> >
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:18:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:07:44 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Got your point. However, it is still a matter of principle. I
> > suspect that if people didn't _really_ mind C-R, they would consider
> > simply re
Alan Connor([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>
> Depends on what you call "false positives." I don't accept anonymous email.
> Period.
>
> If anyone wants me to read their mail, then they are going to have to prove
> to me that the address they are using is their actual machine. (Or
Also sprach Travis Crump (Sat 02 Aug 02003 at 01:00:53PM -0400):
>
> And if it was Alan's challenge-response system which caused his mail to
> not thread properly, I'd either laugh or cry, probably both.
O, I thought that I was the only one subject to this rude snub ;>
--
Best Regards,
mds
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 2 09:52:03 2003
>
>
> --=.4Icb)PSAb3o(C_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 17:00:14 +0200
> Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have just persuaded a large non-profit organization t
Steve Lamb wrote:
What's worse is that so far noone's told me how two people using C-R ever
*start* communicating. Person 1 mails person 2. Person 2's C-R sends off a
challenge to Person 1. Person 1's C-R sends off a challenge to Person 2.
Repeat.
I think the theory is that Person 1 autom
Also sprach David Fokkema (Sat 02 Aug 02003 at 05:20:34PM +0200):
>
> What did people think about the debian mailing lists subscription
> mechanism?
Mailing list subscription is an entirely different animal. It is in my
best interest that the mailing list confirms that I truly do want to
subsc
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:20:34 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What did people think about the debian mailing lists subscription
> mechanism?
The difference is that _I_ wanted to be on the mailing list,
and I was willing to jump through the hoops. Most of the times when I
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:07:44 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Got your point. However, it is still a matter of principle. I
> suspect that if people didn't _really_ mind C-R, they would consider
> simply replying to be a lot less effort than retrieving the keys,
> checking them, wr
On Saturday 02 August 2003 16:20, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:52:36PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> > How dare you ***ASSUME*** that I am spamming you! Who are you
> > that I ought to feel compelled to jump through your hoops, simply
> > to say -- in an email -- hello ?!
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:36:35 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 2 06:52:59 2003
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the
>> > current genera
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:09:20 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, they make it clear that they _do_ want to hear from you. Yes,
> that requires more time on your part and nothing on the part of the
> receiver.
No, they haven't. The person hasn't seen my message. His mach
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:07:44 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only requirement (and drawback) is that other people reply to a C-R
> from time to time. If configured friendly, only one time for each new person
> you start mailing.
But that is a big requirement. Look at my re
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200, David Fokkema
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> >
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 07:36:35 -0700
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on what you call "false positives."
False positive - Treating a message as spam when it is, in fact, not spam.
> I don't accept anonymous email. Period.
Funny. You seem to want a buttload of it since you
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 03:52:36PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> How dare you ***ASSUME*** that I am spamming you! Who are you that I
> ought to feel compelled to jump through your hoops, simply to say -- in
> an email -- hello ?!?!
I'm very sorry you feel that way. I gather from the replies
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:35:48PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you send mail directly to a person, off-list, in private, why not
> > respond to his challenge? In any decent MUA, you just have to hit 'r'.
>
> Why
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:10:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200
> David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Because we chose not to? Because we have objections in
> > > principle to people
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 2 06:52:59 2003
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the current
> > generation of spamming technology. I merely claim that they are far
> > from invulnera
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Because we chose not to? Because we have objections in
> > principle to people offloading their spam fighting effort to innocent
> > correspondent
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> >> Colin Watson writes:
> >> > Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people
n Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:08:39 -0700
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get none, and I'd be willing to bet that you save that spam and have to
> examine at least the headers to make sure the program didn't make any
> mistakes. And that you have to spend time updating the filter expressions.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the current
> generation of spamming technology. I merely claim that they are far
> from invulnerable, in particular to false positives. Some people
> care about th
Well, this is interesting... I just received a "Sorry, Access Denied"
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I wasn't aware of having sent him
anything (see attachment). How come...? My mail filtering inserts a
"Reply-To: " header into list mails, so I just hit 'r'
and it automatically goes to the list. Turns
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:02:18PM +, Andrew McGuinness wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
> >That's how C-R programs work. The bug-track folks wouldn't even know it
> >was operating.
> >
> >
> Um.. He *is* "the bug-track folks", and he just said he can see it
> operating.
>
> Thats 3 idiotic claim
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:01:10 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of that 602 spam know how much got through?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/t# grep spamd * | grep identified | awk '{print $8}' |
> grep\(\[567\] | wc -l
> 22
Actually, I am wrong about this. This was still marked
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and stopping it can only be done
> with a Challenge-Response mail program, such as the one I put together.
> There isn't ANY other approach that works.
You're wrong.
> There
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:18:23 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 11:15:16 2003
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:38:10AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
>> > I should have added that debian.org is on my pass list. The
>> > domain name.
>> >
>> > Anyone mail
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:15:01 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 11:10:43 2003
>>
>> Which is why, if you're careful, you'll want to doublecheck the
>> messages marked as spam.
>>
> There are no messages marked as spam.
Then you are using a su
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:53:19 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 10:49:26 2003
>>
>>
>> Colin Watson writes:
>> > Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people operating
>> > the Debian bug tracking system don't always bother to respond to
>> >
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200
David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you send mail directly to a person, off-list, in private, why not
> respond to his challenge? In any decent MUA, you just have to hit 'r'.
Why should I? I sent my message. They have made it clear they don't want
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:55:54 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Colin Watson writes:
>> > Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people operating
>> > the Debian bug tracking system don't always bother to respond
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:06:42 +0200, David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If you decide to go off channel and send a mail in private, why not
> just reply to a resent request?
As a matter of principle, I refuse to jump through these
ridiculous hoops.
> At least with tmda (and I gat
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:46:28AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:04:28AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > > Anyone with a C-R program would just put the bug-tracking addresses on
> > > their pass list.
> > >
> > > That's how C-R programs work. The bug-
Also sprach David Fokkema (Fri 01 Aug 02003 at 10:06:42PM +0200):
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:30:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't
> > > on
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:18:23AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:38:10AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > > I should have added that debian.org is on my pass list. The
> > > domain name.
> > >
> > > Anyone mailing me from any address there wouldn't ev
Alan Connor wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 02:00:32 2003
Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people operating the
Debian bug tracking system don't always bother to respond to
"challenges". If people don't want BTS mail, that's their problem; we
don't have time to babysit that
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:13:25PM +0100, Richard Lyons wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 18:55, David Fokkema wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> [...]
> > > And I can guarantee you that I will never respond to
> > > "challenges".
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > If you s
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:30:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't
> > on my pass list, it goes to /dev/null and an auto-response is sent
> > to what
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:20:01 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:38:10AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
>> I should have added that debian.org is on my pass list. The domain
>> name.
>>
>> Anyone mailing me from any address there wouldn't even know I was
>> runnin
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't
> on my pass list, it goes to /dev/null and an auto-response is sent
> to whatever return address the sender supplied.
> It asks them to re-send the mail
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My version of C-R is not a "spam-reduction system" it is an spam-elimination
> system.
Incidentally, what do you do about spam sent to mailing lists you are on?
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks.
What good is make-believe if you don't
Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is the "user" of the C-R program that enters the bug-tracking addresses
> (in this case) in their passlist. The C-R program is transparent to the
> bug-track folks, in this case.
Colin's point was that in his experience, users of C-R programs don't
alw
On Friday 01 August 2003 18:55, David Fokkema wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> > And I can guarantee you that I will never respond to
> > "challenges".
>
> Why?
>
> If you send mail to a list and you get a challenge, sure, ignore
> it. If a user of the m
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:18:23AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 11:15:16 2003
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:38:10AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > > I should have added that debian.org is on my pass list. The domain name.
> > >
> > > Anyone mailing me
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:46:28AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > > Anyone with a C-R program would just put the bug-tracking addresses on
> > > their pass list.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's how C-R programs work. The bug-track folks wouldn't even know
> > > it was operating.
> >
> > Speaking as one
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 11:15:16 2003
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:38:10AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > I should have added that debian.org is on my pass list. The domain name.
> >
> > Anyone mailing me from any address there wouldn't even know I was running
> > a C-R system.
>
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 11:10:43 2003
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Alan Connor wrote:
> >=20
> > Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) and stopping it can only be do=
> ne
> > with a Challenge-Response mail program, such as the one I put together.
> > There isn't ANY other approach
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 10:55:48 2003
>
>
> On -6007-Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake thus,
> > What people mean when they say they are fed up with spam, is that they are
> > fed up with SOME spam, but want to get the others.
> >
> > The
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 10:49:26 2003
>
>
> Colin Watson writes:
> > Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people operating the
> > Debian bug tracking system don't always bother to respond to
> > "challenges".
>
> And I can guarantee you that I will never respond to "challe
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 10:39:44 2003
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:04:28AM -0700, Alan Connor wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Jesse Meyer wrote:
> > > > Spam tends to be an automated, bulk emailing of addresses, but not
> > > > all
>
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:48:36AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Colin Watson writes:
> > Yup. For example, I can guarantee you that the people operating the
> > Debian bug tracking system don't always bother to respond to
> > "challenges".
>
> And I can guarantee you that I will never respond to "c
On -6007-Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:57:30PM -0700, Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake
thus,
> What people mean when they say they are fed up with spam, is that they are
> fed up with SOME spam, but want to get the others.
>
> There simply is no way that a "negative" approach will work. The "don't
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
