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 08:37:49PM +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 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
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 "challenges".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:43:55AM -0400, TR wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:17:56 +0100
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[I didn't write this; Alan Connor did.]
> > > Anyone with a C-R program would just put the bug-tracking addresses
> > > on their pass list.
>
> What does C-R stand for
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:17:56 +0100
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyone with a C-R program would just put the bug-tracking addresses
> > on their pass list.
What does C-R stand for? catch and remove?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
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.
A fair proportion of my spam comes from debian.org addresses; spam
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
