On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
> > Um. Can't speak for everyone else, but I think that being dead would be
> > somewhat more disruptive to my "normal course of events" than having my
> > mailbox flooded.
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:28:57AM +1000, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
> > Spam is just marketing.
>
> SWEN isn't marketing. Part of this is about SWEN (and
> other similar viruses/worms).
>
SWEN is about propogating a spam delivery system.
> > Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:28:57AM +1000, Joyce, Matthew wrote:
> Spam is just marketing.
SWEN isn't marketing. Part of this is about SWEN (and other similar
viruses/worms).
> Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
> Terrorism is about scaring people.
> imo we need to move towards a '
Joyce, Matthew writes:
> Marketing is about making people buy stuff.
Marketing is about _convincing_ people to buy stuff.
> If it were allowed, some tv stations would use picture-in-picture to
> always have ads running while you watch tv.
AFAIK that is entirely legal in the US, and yet it isn't
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
> I'm left wondering what kind of person could seriously claim that
> there's no significant difference between the deliberate killing of
> civilians and junk mail.
Granted, it's a stretch. That's why I said "yet" -- not what's coming
ou
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 1:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More on spam
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:58:16 -0400,
> Bill Marcum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:11:37PM -0400, ScruLoose wrote:
> Um. Can't speak for everyone else, but I think that being dead would be
> somewhat more disruptive to my "normal course of events" than having my
> mailbox flooded.
You're focusing on the thousands that died in the towers and at the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:12:24PM -0700, Tom Ballard wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> > >
> > > it's becoming a distinction without a difference
> > >
> > WTF is this supposed to mean?
> >
> > Starting t
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
> > > Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
> > > lethal (thank God!).
> > > -Shane
>
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:49:09PM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
> it's becoming for Tom, sentances without purpose.
Aw, you're just mad because in your circles everybody agrees with you
about the war, and you met somebody who gave you good arguments.
It bugs you, so you attack the person.
--
To
> > > Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
> > > lethal (thank God!).
> > > -Shane
>
> On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> > yet
> >
> > it's becoming a distinction without a difference
> >
> >
> WTF is this supposed to mean?
>
> Starting to think
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:22:23PM -0200, klaus imgrund wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
> > > Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
> > > lethal (thank God!).
> > > -Shane
>
>
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
> > Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
> > lethal (thank God!).
> > -Shane
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 12:39, Tom wrote:
> yet
>
> it's becoming a dis
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:58:16 -0400,
Bill Marcum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:56:59AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >
> > ..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a
> > gun your way, you do not want the police doing
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:09:25AM -0500, Shane Hickey wrote:
> Let's try to keep a little perspective here. SPAM sucks, but it's not
> lethal (thank God!).
> -Shane
yet
it's becoming a distinction without a difference
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
> > ..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a gun
> > your way, you do not want the police doing _anything_ about it?
I mean, seriously, I don't like to flame ANYONE, but that has got to be
the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Matter of fact,
I feel dumbe
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:56:59AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> ..Swen is no different than 9/11. So, next time someone points a gun
> your way, you do not want the police doing _anything_ about it?
>
How many people have been killed by swen? Should the US shut down all
internet traffic like
On 20 Oct 2003, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 14:03 GMT, Anthony Campbell penned:
> >
> > The problem has appeared in the last few weeks, since when I've been
> > seeing an increasing number of messages to say that outgoing mail has
> > not been delivered (see below for some exa
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 at 14:03 GMT, Anthony Campbell penned:
>
> The problem has appeared in the last few weeks, since when I've been
> seeing an increasing number of messages to say that outgoing mail has
> not been delivered (see below for some examples). None of these are
> messages I have sent m
On Monday 20 October 2003 11:23 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Stop trying to fix the problem by changing everyone else, instead,
> secure your system against these kinds of attacks. Duh.
He is not trying to change everyone else, he's trying to change this list
defaults. I think that the decision of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:47:57PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> Why does debian.org expose end-users email addresses for spammers or
> virus-spreaders to utilize?
Because there are readily available, easily implimented solutions to
both problems that
On 20 Oct 2003, Alan Chandler wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2003 09:02, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> > I've realized recently that I'm inadvertently sending out lots of spam.
> > I'd obviously wish to prevent this but how? I've been to the site you
> > recommend but I find the information there too
On Monday 20 October 2003 09:02, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> I've realized recently that I'm inadvertently sending out lots of spam.
> I'd obviously wish to prevent this but how? I've been to the site you
> recommend but I find the information there too complex for me to be sure
> how to do it; it s
On 19 Oct 2003, John Hasler wrote:
> Paul E Condon writes:
> > It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> > what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
> > advocates of spam?
>
> Almost all spam has forged headers. The domains are real and v
Sorry Jeff,
..I hit the wrong triggah. ;-)
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:47:57 -0400,
Jeff Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Swen is only the beginning. However, it's the harbinger of things to
> come that will destroy the utility of public listservs unless policies
This discussion has been enlightening and many of the posters have raised
excellent points. However, I'm still confused on what seems to me to a basic
issue:
Why does debian.org expose end-users email addresses for spammers or
virus-spreaders to utilize?
For the life of me, I don't understand
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 23:17 GMT, Sidney Brooks penned:
>
> --- John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Much if not most spam originates in the US.
>
> So what? Where it originates doesn't matter, it is the purpose.
Well, for one thing, I believe it affects the legal recourse and
jurisdiction
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:23:16 -0400,
Dave Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > I think a more precise definition might be "unsolicited commercial
> > or organizational email from a source in which I have no in
--- John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sidney Brooks writes:
> > Surely, I am not the only person who has thought
> that spam is a tool for
> > attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem
> provincial) by crippling
> > what has become a major means of communication.
>
> Much if not most
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:18:57PM -0500, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dave Harding writes:
> > Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
> > providers?
>
> Some of us have no choice as to providers.
email != connectivity.
If nothing else, find a friend
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I like this suggestion. I know I don't know a lot about what spam
> really is. I sense from reading this thread that others also don't
> know a lot. Some do, but many don't. So research that results in firm
> num
on Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Sidney Brooks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that spam is a tool
> for attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem provincial) by
> crippling what has become a major means of communication. It can also
> b
Sidney Brooks writes:
> Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that spam is a tool for
> attacking the U. S. (yes to some this will seem provincial) by crippling
> what has become a major means of communication.
Much if not most spam originates in the US.
> yes to some this will seem pr
On Sunday 19 October 2003 16:44, John Hasler wrote:
> klaus imgrund writes:
> > I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many
> > people are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10
> > miles from town and got adsl
>
> How large is the town you are ten m
Surely, I am not the only person who has thought that
spam is a tool for attacking the U. S. (yes to some
this will seem provincial) by crippling what has
become a major means of communication. It can also be
a tool to repress ideas that you don't agree with,
e.g. if someone writes a message in fav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:10:47PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> Obvious solutions to other peoples' problems sometimes miss addressing
> an issue that was so obvious to the aflicted person that they did not
> mention it. Many of us have brain dead ISP
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:52:47PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Bijan writes:
> > Heck if you paid me $10-$15 a month I could give you a couple of hundred
> > megabytes of pop/imap/webmail mail, complete with filtering and all
>
> I cannot afford another $10-$15 a month. I also am not completely
>
Bijan writes:
> Heck if you paid me $10-$15 a month I could give you a couple of hundred
> megabytes of pop/imap/webmail mail, complete with filtering and all
I cannot afford another $10-$15 a month. I also am not completely
dissatisfied with my ISPs service. They are totally unresponsive, but o
Paul E Condon writes:
> How do you KNOW where Swen is getting the addresses?
By following the link Karsten posted to an article by an anti-virus vendor
who has studied it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Paul E Condon writes:
> What I think is needed is an 'operational' definition of spam, i.e. one
> that be coded into an automaton.
"Claims to be from a domain which has not authorized the originating IP
number to use it" works for me. This would not eliminate all spam, but it
would make the remai
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:18:57PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Dave Harding writes:
> > Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
> > providers?
>
> Some of us have no choice as to providers.
You may have no choice as to who provides your internet connection (e.g.
d
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 18:10 GMT, Paul E Condon penned:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:53:51AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Why not just ask your ISP to reject virus infected email at SMTP time,
>> or switch to one that does? That's the obvious solution...
>>
>
> Obvious solutions to other pe
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 09:51:43AM -0700, Sidney Brooks wrote:
> It is easy for you to say. I live in a rural area
> where we are lucky to have one ISP.
You can get email service from a different company than the one that
provides you with dial-up service. This may cost a few dollars a month
but i
klaus imgrund writes:
> I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many
> people are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10
> miles from town and got adsl
How large is the town you are ten miles from? The population density of
the US is much lower than
Paul E Condon writes:
> It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
> advocates of spam?
Almost all spam has forged headers. The domains are real and valid but are
being used without the knowledge o
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:46:16AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> That the swen volume picked up over a few hours may indicate that
> the swen virus writer is actually subscribed to the list and harvesting
> email addresses from his own incoming email. Or maybe each copy
> of swen is subscribing. It
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:03:13PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sidney Brooks writes:
> > The price has been the endless spam, almost all which has either MS or
> > Microsoft in the return addresses.
>
> That's not spam. That's Swen worms. Your ISP could filter it (but
> probably won't).
>
> > H
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> I think a more precise definition might be "unsolicited commercial or
> organizational email from a source in which I have no interest."
>
> If I respect an organization, I'll read what it sends me. The problem
> is too many organizations t
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:53:51AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
> > We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
> > have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they limit us to a
> > couple of megabytes. Not e
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
> > It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> > what extent is this actually true? Or is thi
klaus imgrund writes:
> Anyway,some kind of forum kind of deal instead of a mailing list would
> probably help but this will not happen.
I certainly hope not. With a shared dialup I would not be able to
participate even if I wanted to.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
Sidney Brooks writes:
> The price has been the endless spam, almost all which has either MS or
> Microsoft in the return addresses.
That's not spam. That's Swen worms. Your ISP could filter it (but
probably won't).
> Here is a suggested comprise. Let Debian set up two different debian-user
> li
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:58:31PM -0400, Dave Harding wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
> > It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> > what extent is this actually true? Or is thi
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 at 14:20 GMT, David Crane penned:
>
> For the sake of the list, please change the policy of posting e-mail
> addresses on the web and in news groups.
>
> We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
> have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:50:53AM -0700, Sidney Brooks wrote:
> Here is a suggested comprise. Let Debian set up two
> different debian-user lists, one with and one without
> posting of addresses. Let Debian warn new users of the
> situation and let th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
> We do use mailfilter and spamassassin. But we are losing mail. We
> have a 56K modem and a ISP with POP mail, and they limit us to a
> couple of megabytes. Not everyone can afford DSL,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:37:05AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> One addition to Karsten's questions/issues:
> It has been claimed that one person's spam is another person's ham. To
> what extent is this actually true? Or is this just obfuscation by the
> advocates of spam? If we had collections o
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2003 04:13 am, klaus imgrund wrote:
> > On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > > It's a nasty problem that shouldn't be minimized. Many users
> > > won't (or can't)
> > > take "heroic" steps (spamas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 02:21:50PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> Realize, however, that your "security" is lost the second someone
> manages to post it.
Another reason munging just doesn't work.
> I prefer locking down my systems against the crud,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:35:57PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:23:39PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:56:26AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > > > What does this ha
> >
> It is easy for you to say. I live in a rural area
> where we are lucky to have one ISP.
>
I am always shocked when I get to the US and find out about how many people
are on dialup or situations like this - I live in Brasil about 10 miles from
town and got adsl : -) - hell,we are supposed
Dave Harding writes:
> Did you file a complaint with your ISP? Did you investigate alternative
> providers?
Some of us have no choice as to providers.
> Did you write to ... your senator/congressperson (or any elected
> officials that are part of your government)?
They are certain to do more ha
--- klaus imgrund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 October 2003 13:50, Sidney Brooks
> wrote:
> >
> > --- klaus imgrund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one
> per
> > > day since my last
> > > > post here around six weeks ago
On Sunday 19 October 2003 13:50, Sidney Brooks wrote:
>
> --- klaus imgrund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per
> > day since my last
> > > post here around six weeks ago. I posted last
> > night (helping
> > > someone fight Swen), and
--- klaus imgrund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per
> day since my last
> > post here around six weeks ago. I posted last
> night (helping
> > someone fight Swen), and this morning, there were
> 20+ Swens, over 3
> > Megabytes. I was *tha
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, David Crane wrote:
> For the sake of the list, please change the policy of posting
> e-mail addresses on the web and in news groups.
For the sake of the open community, for accountability and the benefit
of the Debian community please _do not_ change the
>
> My Swen volume had dropped to a managable one per day since my last
> post here around six weeks ago. I posted last night (helping
> someone fight Swen), and this morning, there were 20+ Swens, over 3
> Megabytes. I was *that* close to losing e-mail. Never again.
>
I get about 2 'real'
On Friday 17 October 2003 04:13 am, klaus imgrund wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2003 06:32, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > It's a nasty problem that shouldn't be minimized. Many users
> > won't (or can't)
> > take "heroic" steps (spamassassin,mailfilter,etc) but will
> > abandon the list as a resource inst
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:41:16PM -0400, Jeff Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2003 11:59 am, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> >> Not to mention, swen harvests addresses from usenet, not the web archives
> >>(or so I'm told).
>
> I haven't seen these reports. Even if so (a
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:45:40AM -0400, Jeff Elkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm getting hundreds and hundreds of hits daily. This Earthlink
> address is now almost all-swen all-the-time, except for debian and
> zaurus email.
I'm a fellow Earthlink subscriber (originally Netcom, through a
on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:23:39PM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:56:26AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > > What does this have to do with spam? It bemuses and befuddles me to
> > > observe extreme
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:20:15 +0800, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 06:57:40PM +0800, Brian Walker wrote:
>>
>> Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
>> letting spamassassin get to work?
>
> mailfilter operates on the POP3 mailbox on the remote server, no
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:28, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> On Saturday 18 October 2003 03:53, cr wrote:
> > I'm using Kmail 1.3.2 in KDE 2.2.2. in Woody. I thought that POP
> > filter was a feature that was only in Kmail 2.
>
> True, true - that version doesn't have POP filters yet IIRC. It's not
>
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:49:57AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:39:27AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
> > > I think I do not und
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 06:57:40PM +0800, Brian Walker wrote:
>
> Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
> letting spamassassin get to work?
mailfilter operates on the POP3 mailbox on the remote server, not on
stuff you've already retrieved. You can add 'preconnec
Ross Boylan([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:15:21AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
> > Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> > >
> > > Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
> > >
> > > Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter,
This is a bit OT, but here goes ...
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:36:40AM -0700, Tom wrote:
...
> What does this have to do with spam? It bemuses and befuddles me to
> observe extremely intelligent people to swatting the air with tools like
> spamassassin, when the correct solution lies elsewhere.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:15:21AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
> Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> >
> > Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
> >
> > Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
> > letting spamassassin get to work? What about the line to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 09:49:57AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> You presume to much about my knowledge. I use mutt. I turn on full headers.
> Which line in what I see is the 'envelope from'? Which are the 'Received: headers'?
> Are there also headers
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 01:03:10AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 at 05:27 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> >> I am not a reference material; I am a person who
> >> occasionally, when I have the time and inclin
Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>
> Done! Many thanks Wayne :)
>
> Can I add a line to procmail to prefilter spam with mailfilter, before
> letting spamassassin get to work? What about the line to add to delete
> swen messages?
>
Yes - see /usr/share/doc/mailfilter/FA
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:39:27AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
> > I think I do not understand how to make such a determination about where
> > my mail is act
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:20:08 +0800, Wayne Topa wrote:
> Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:24 +0800, John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> As for getting spamassassin installed, I will fumble a bit in the dark,
>> despite the instructions, and scream for hel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:03:31PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I'm curious about how you can know that -every- From: address was valid.
> I think I do not understand how to make such a determination about where
> my mail is actually coming from. I wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:46:53PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> Do you have logs of the addresses you've sent to? If so, is my
> address in there? How about any other address at my domain[1]? I've
> certainly gotten enough "you sent us swen
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 at 05:27 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>
>> I am not a reference material; I am a person who
>> occasionally, when I have the time and inclination, tries to help out
>> others on public fora. If someone has a
On Saturday 18 October 2003 03:53, cr wrote:
> I'm using Kmail 1.3.2 in KDE 2.2.2. in Woody. I thought that POP
> filter was a feature that was only in Kmail 2.
True, true - that version doesn't have POP filters yet IIRC. It's not
KMail 2, though, they just went on with 1.4 and are now at 1.5
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:16:30 -0700,
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > If your email service is unacceptable, complain to your ema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> I am not a reference material; I am a person who
> occasionally, when I have the time and inclination, tries to help out
> others on public fora. If someone has a question prompted
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:27, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> On Friday 17 October 2003 11:50, cr wrote:
> > Sounds like you have a POP account? I had to go the webmail
> > route a couple of times when Kmail showed there was >> 2MB of mail
> > in my account. A pox on
>
> But KMail has POP filters tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:28:03PM -0400, Alfredo Valles wrote:
> A question: The decision of putting your mail address publicly available
> shouldn't be taken by the subscriber?
> I don't remember when I subscribed if I was given the choice.
That's
Jeff Elkins wrote:
However, to slip into SF geekism, I remember Spock saying to Kirk, "The needs
of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I think the needs of the many have spelled an end to email addresses being
posted on debian.org web pages.
OK,
I am going way OT here, but that is not a
--- ScruLoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:57:15AM -0700, Sidney
> Brooks wrote:
>
> > Filters will not solve the problem. The problem is
> > that so much spam is coming in that it overloads
> the
> > allocated mailbox space and then Yahoo, and I
> presume
> > other ser
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:48:49AM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> > If one more person starts a "what's with the spam?" thread ...
>
> ... I'm going to start aggressively killfiling and probably eventually
> just unsubscribe. There's more complaining about spam than ac
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:24:00AM -0600, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 at 16:07 GMT, Derrick 'dman' Hudson penned:
> >
snip...
> Besides which, I've had people email me directly regarding archived
> posts before, and I would really much rather they have posted to the
> newsgroup
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:32:28PM +0200, Dr.-Ing. C. Hurschler wrote:
| But I'm kind of wondering about how swen is still getting propogated
| so much. Are there really that many infected computers who's users
| don't know it???
Maybe, maybe not. Was it SoBig that used the subject "My Detail
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 11:27:04AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
> Brian Walker([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:24 +0800, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > As for getting spamassassin installed, I will fumble a bit in the dark,
> > despite the instructions, and screa
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 08:36, Tom wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> > > On Friday 17 October 2003 12:53, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> Case In Point, every Swen Mail that came from a valid mailing h
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:21:57PM -0400, Alfredo Valles wrote:
| On Friday 17 October 2003 12:07 pm, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > If your email service is unacceptable, complain to your email
| > provider. You must create a business case for them to act. All
| > commercial providers are in
> Although we hate to face the truth, the spammers like the terrorists are
> winning. Just as it seems that we will never go back to the time when we
> could go from our cars to an airplane without layers of security
> protection, we may never be able to have email with messages we want.
Bad analo
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
