Re: Getting Totally [OT] was Re: MS mail bombs

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:09:50 -0400, Roberto Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > >>On hindsight a reformed Soviet Union probably wasn't a bad idea. > >>Now we have all these little despots waging their little wars and > >>sometimes getting

Re: Getting Totally [OT] was Re: MS mail bombs

Arnt Karlsen wrote: On hindsight a reformed Soviet Union probably wasn't a bad idea. Now we have all these little despots waging their little wars and sometimes getting smart-bombed for it. ..this notion or whatever, _might_ be worth a mention in http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Re: Getting Totally [OT] was Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:29:15 +0800, csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:47:46 +0200, > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > [...] > > > ..WWII was won on 3 major factors: Russian (and Chechen!) blood, > > FDR's New Deal policy reforming US capitalism by

Getting Totally [OT] was Re: MS mail bombs

At Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:47:46 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [...] > ..WWII was won on 3 major factors: Russian (and Chechen!) blood, > FDR's New Deal policy reforming US capitalism by "banning" it ;-), > giving _all_ of American industry a fair deal on re-tool flexing, and, > "everybody knew _dee

Re: MS mail bombs

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:49:12 -0500, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 18:33, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:13:20 +0800, > > csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > At Fri, 26 Sep 2

Re: MS mail bombs

On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 18:33, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:13:20 +0800, > csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > At Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:13:53 +0100, > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > [1 ] > > > on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:44:57AM +0800, csj ([E

Re: MS mail bombs

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:13:20 +0800, csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:13:53 +0100, > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > [1 ] > > on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:44:57AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:26:05 +0100, >

Re: MS mail bombs

At Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:49:00 +0300, Shaul Karl wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > > popservers before fetchmail'ing? > mailfilter? There are others: popsneaker

Re: MS mail bombs

At Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:13:53 +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > [1 ] > on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:44:57AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:26:05 +0100, > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > If Swen is the shape of things to come, it's the end of dial-up > > > POP3 m

Re: MS mail bombs

At Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:59:53 +0100, Pigeon wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:51PM +0800, csj wrote: > > > Why not? Mailfilter has a log feature of varying degrees > > > of verbosity. So if I accidentally delete a notice say

Re: MS mail bombs

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:59:53PM +0100, Pigeon wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:51PM +0800, csj wrote: > > > Why not? Mailfilter has a log feature of varying degrees of > > > verbosity. So if I accidentally delete a notice

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > popservers before fetchmail'ing? > mailfilter? -- Shaul Karl,shaulk @ actcom . net . il -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:22:47PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:51PM +0800, csj wrote: > > Why not? Mailfilter has a log feature of varying degrees of > > verbosity. So if I accidentally delete a notice saying "Subject: > > Congratulations: You've just won a million

Re: MS mail bombs

on Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 08:20:34PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Karsten M. Self said: > > on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:03:47PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I've received far more invalid, than valid, C-R challenges. This is > > simply spam by anoth

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:51PM +0800, csj wrote: > Why not? Mailfilter has a log feature of varying degrees of > verbosity. So if I accidentally delete a notice saying "Subject: > Congratulations: You've just won a million $$", I could always ask the > sender to resend it. Any email which ca

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:22:33AM +0100, Pigeon wrote: > > 3) modify my attached ~/.mailfilterrc with your POP3 username and >password details. The DENY rules to filter out viral crap are >translated from posts by Greg Lehey and David Lloyd on the LinuxSA >list. These rules are no

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:02:20 -0400, Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > > popservers before fetchmail'ing? > > mutt and telne

Re: MS mail bombs

Karsten M. Self said: > on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:03:47PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> There's a company that provides this service. First time emails to you >> get >> an auto-response "You aren't authorized to send me email, visit this web >> page to get authorized" or

Re: MS mail bombs

on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:46:45PM -0500, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 19:40, Joyce, Matthew wrote: > > > > > > Maybe this would be the future for e-mail, deny all but specified... > > It is probably (should be imo) the future of all computing. > > > > Permit th

Re: MS mail bombs

on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:03:47PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There's a company that provides this service. First time emails to you get > an auto-response "You aren't authorized to send me email, visit this web > page to get authorized" or something like that. I Googled and

Re: MS mail bombs

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:31:34 -0600 (MDT), "Jacob Anawalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If it's a real server, I thought that it would just try the connection > again because it didn't get a yes 250 or a no 5xx or even a maybe > later 3-4xx, and you might not want t

Re: MS mail bombs

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:49:00 +0300, Shaul Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > ..someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > > popservers before fetchmail'ing? > > > > > mail

Re: MS mail bombs

on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:07:26AM +0200, Elie De Brauwer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I don't think that many isp's are concerned about the -> > connection, who needs to pay extra for that ? It's the -> > connection that eats all the money. > > The isp will simply apply a quota, if I use over

Re: MS mail bombs

on Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:42:37AM -0500, Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote:

Re: MS mail bombs

Bob McElrath said: > Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Bob McElrath said: >> > Darn, I was hoping (aren't we all) for a way to reject it before the >> > whole thing is sent. You know...it wouldn't be hard to scan the input >> > for the EXE header and close the connection as soon as it'

Re: MS mail bombs

on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:44:57AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:26:05 +0100, > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > If Swen is the shape of things to come, it's the end of dial-up > > POP3 mail accounts. > > There's a simple solution. Have the list munge the email > add

Re: MS mail bombs

Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bob McElrath said: > > Darn, I was hoping (aren't we all) for a way to reject it before the > > whole thing is sent. You know...it wouldn't be hard to scan the input > > for the EXE header and close the connection as soon as it's seen. Then > > you'd on

Re: MS mail bombs

Bob McElrath said: > Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Bob McElrath said: >> > Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I guess that's as effective for reducing the bulk of your inbox as >> >> sending >> >> "550 executables not accepted", especially if you don't have control >> >> o

Re: MS mail bombs

Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bob McElrath said: > > Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I guess that's as effective for reducing the bulk of your inbox as > >> sending > >> "550 executables not accepted", especially if you don't have control > >> over > >> the mail server and

Re: MS mail bombs

Bob McElrath said: > Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I guess that's as effective for reducing the bulk of your inbox as >> sending >> "550 executables not accepted", especially if you don't have control >> over >> the mail server and you match this virus with 100% accuracy. >> >> Either

Re: MS mail bombs

Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I guess that's as effective for reducing the bulk of your inbox as sending > "550 executables not accepted", especially if you don't have control over > the mail server and you match this virus with 100% accuracy. > > Either way, /dev/null or 550 after DATA

Re: MS mail bombs

Bob McElrath said: > Wayne Gemmell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >>>"Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails >> > that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming >> > is increasing exponentially. >> >> I

Re: MS mail bombs - This does work ;)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 06:05:35PM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote: > Apologies to Pigeon - this does work ;) Accepted :-) > I have the SHOW_HEADERS option and being either stupid or inexperienced > (you take your pick) didn't realise that it would show me all headers > rather than just the deleted it

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:51PM +0800, csj wrote: > Why not? Mailfilter has a log feature of varying degrees of > verbosity. So if I accidentally delete a notice saying "Subject: > Congratulations: You've just won a million $$", I could always > ask the sender to resend it. On my system, that

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne Gemmell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>>"Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails > > that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming > > is increasing exponentially. > > I recieved 10Mb of mail ove

Re: MS mail bombs

In linux.debian.user, Jacob Anawalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael C. wrote: > > >I asked this on alt.os.linux. I was told to search freshmeat.net for a > >perl script called "poppy." It will get headers only, and ask what you > >want to do with the mail one by one, but it also includes

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:48:43AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote: > On (24/09/03 04:22), Pigeon wrote: > > I've just found getting mailfilter up on woody to be a suitable > > means of passing the time while microwaving pizzas. It's dead easy: > I think my pizza would be crisped by now ;) but thanks fo

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:43:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Pigeon writes: > > apt-get install mailfilter - it only depends on libc, libstdc++ and > > debconf, so no baddies there. > > Mailfilter is not in Woody. I didn't try installing the deb from Unstable: > just the source package. It has

Re: MS mail bombs - This does work ;)

Apologies to Pigeon - this does work ;) On (24/09/03 11:48), Clive Menzies wrote: > On (24/09/03 04:22), Pigeon wrote: > > I've just found getting mailfilter up on woody to be a suitable > > means of passing the time while microwaving pizzas. It's dead easy: > I think my pizza would be crisped by

Re: MS mail bombs

Clive writes: > I am not sure I agree with you You're right. Mailfilter is in Woody. I had forgotten that I had been mucking about with sources.list. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject o

Re: MS mail bombs

At Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:14:27 -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > [1 ] > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:52:20AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:02:20 -0400, > > Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > For telnet simply run: > > > telnet

Re: MS mail bombs

On (24/09/03 07:43), John Hasler wrote: > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MS mail bombs > From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:43:10 -0500 > > Pigeon writes: > > apt-get install mailfilter - it only depends on libc, libstdc++ and &g

Re: MS mail bombs

Pigeon writes: > apt-get install mailfilter - it only depends on libc, libstdc++ and > debconf, so no baddies there. Mailfilter is not in Woody. I didn't try installing the deb from Unstable: just the source package. It has some source dependencies I didn't feel like bothering with. -- John Has

Re: MS mail bombs

On (24/09/03 04:22), Pigeon wrote: > I've just found getting mailfilter up on woody to be a suitable > means of passing the time while microwaving pizzas. It's dead easy: I think my pizza would be crisped by now ;) but thanks for this. Coincidentally, I was trying to confilgure mailfilter last nigh

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wednesday 24 September 2003 12:38, Vineet Kumar wrote: > * cr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 20:47]: > > I love Kmail too, but I'm running 1.3.2 (the version that comes with > > Woody) and I'm not sure it offers that facility.I believe the newest > > version does, but when I installed it brief

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:29:50 -0600 Jacob Anawalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While reading that certainly clarified the woes of the > challenge-response system, I'm unsure if it would have cleared me of > your charges since they said to read the thread: Touche'. I think that reading the es

Re: MS mail bombs

Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:59:00 -0600 Jacob Anawalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe they gave up early on it due to content. I just forced myself to drudge through the whole of it. Lots of good ideas and reasons to not use C-R* from the "I'll take it all to not miss one email"

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:12:40 -0500 > Legitimate attachments of over 140k in size are rarely sent to me. For the > time being if any are I'll lose them. When the current worm storm abates I > will stop the deletion. When? Ladies and gents, we have an optimist in the house. :) --

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:59:00 -0600 Jacob Anawalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe they gave up early on it due to content. I just forced myself to > drudge through the whole of it. Lots of good ideas and reasons to not > use C-R* from the "I'll take it all to not miss one email" camp. Eas

Re: MS mail bombs

Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:26:42 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And wasn't there a big, long thread last month where most in the thread excoriated C-R? Yup. Which goes to show that these people clearly didn't read it, don't care, or are just plain stupid. I

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:18:48PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Wayne writes: > > I guess you could use fetchmail to weed them out but I found that > > spending time on the DENY rules in mailfilter was better spent. > > Fetchmail can be used alone to delete oversize mails on the server. I do > so

Re: MS mail bombs

I wrote: > Fetchmail can be used alone to delete oversize mails on the server. I do > so because I am too lazy to get mailfilter up on Woody. mds writes: > What do you do about legitimate attachments sent to you? Legitimate attachments of over 140k in size are rarely sent to me. For the time be

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:14:27 -0400, Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:52:20AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:02:20 -0400, > > Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: MS mail bombs

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:09:23:21:18:48-0500] scribed: > Wayne writes: > > I guess you could use fetchmail to weed them out but I found that > > spending time on the DENY rules in mailfilter was better spent. > > Fetchmail can be used alone to delete oversize mails on the server. I d

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne writes: > I guess you could use fetchmail to weed them out but I found that > spending time on the DENY rules in mailfilter was better spent. Fetchmail can be used alone to delete oversize mails on the server. I do so because I am too lazy to get mailfilter up on Woody. -- John Hasler [EMA

Re: MS mail bombs

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:52:20AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:02:20 -0400, > Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > For telnet simply run: > > telnet pop.server.com 110 > > USER username > > PASS password > > LIST > > TOP number (t

Re: MS mail bombs

Arnt Karlsen([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:11:48 -0500, > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Wayne writes: > > > With fetchmail and mailfilter, it is. > > > > It is possible with fetchmail alone, though at a smal

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:49:33 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I stopped reading the thread soon after the acrimony started > flying. Calling people stupid without a valid reason is pretty much > *wrong*. Given the verbage written about C-R and the problems it causes one ha

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:02:20 -0400, Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > > popservers before fetchmail'ing? > > mutt and telne

Re: MS mail bombs

* csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 15:54]: > This "delete-before-download" feature can be done by other, stand > alone applications applications: popsneaker, popcheck, pop > surgeon, pop browser, Save My Modem. mail filter, and for those > with the fortitude, telnet. mutt is good at this, too. Yo

Re: MS mail bombs

* cr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 20:47]: > I love Kmail too, but I'm running 1.3.2 (the version that comes with Woody) > and I'm not sure it offers that facility.I believe the newest version > does, but when I installed it briefly (with RedHat 9, before I switched to > Debian) it warned me

Re: MS mail bombs

* Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 20:41]: > My only wish is that I knew exiscan-acl well enough to figure out if I > could have a custom script run upon a positive hit. In doing so have the > infected IP automatically added to Shorewall's blacklist. It would also Don't deny the initia

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:10:42 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:11:48 -0500, > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Wayne writes: > > > With fetchmail and mailfilter, it is. > > > > I

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 12:31, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:26:42 -0500 > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And wasn't there a big, long thread last month where most in the > > thread excoriated C-R? > > Yup. Which goes to show that these people clearly didn't read it, do

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:10:42PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..someone on this list mentioned some other program to check > popservers before fetchmail'ing? mutt and telnet are my favourite programs. For mutt simply run: mutt -f pop://pop.server.com then it will ask you for username and pass

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:11:48 -0500, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Wayne writes: > > With fetchmail and mailfilter, it is. > > It is possible with fetchmail alone, though at a small risk of loss of > mail. ..case in point: fetchmail: 5.9.11 querying pop

Re: MS mail bombs

Ron Johnson said: > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:22, Steve Lamb wrote: >> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:08:42 -0600 >> > > "Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > Is there anyone else o

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:26:42 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And wasn't there a big, long thread last month where most in the > thread excoriated C-R? Yup. Which goes to show that these people clearly didn't read it, don't care, or are just plain stupid. I vote for all three.

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne writes: > With fetchmail and mailfilter, it is. It is possible with fetchmail alone, though at a small risk of loss of mail. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub

Re: MS mail bombs

Jacob Anawalt writes: > There's a company that provides this service. First time emails to you > get an auto-response "You aren't authorized to send me email, visit this > web page to get authorized" or something like that. I Googled and can't > find it again. Interesting idea. I've received spam

Re: MS mail bombs

Ron Johnson([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:28, John Hasler wrote: > > Wayne Gemmell writes: > > > I can't see any solution to this. Downloading this amount of mail during > > > the day would cost me a fortune *sniff* > > > > Set up fetchmail or mailfilter t

Re: MS mail bombs

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:22, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:08:42 -0600 > > > "Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed

Re: MS mail bombs

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:22, Steve Lamb wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:08:42 -0600 > > "Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails > > > that look like there from M$? The rate at whi

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 21:25, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:46:45 -0500 > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't this kindred to C-R? > > No. It is C-R. At least the message they were replying to was. And wasn't there a big, long thread last month where most in the thr

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:46:45 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't this kindred to C-R? No. It is C-R. At least the message they were replying to was. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connect

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:28, John Hasler wrote: > Wayne Gemmell writes: > > I can't see any solution to this. Downloading this amount of mail during > > the day would cost me a fortune *sniff* > > Set up fetchmail or mailfilter to delete messages over 140k on the server. Is that possible with fet

RE: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 19:40, Joyce, Matthew wrote: > > > > Maybe this would be the future for e-mail, deny all but specified... > > > > -- > > -daniel > > > It is probably (should be imo) the future of all computing. > > Permit this > Permit that > Deny everything else Isn't this kindred to

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne Gemmell writes: > I can't see any solution to this. Downloading this amount of mail during > the day would cost me a fortune *sniff* Set up fetchmail or mailfilter to delete messages over 140k on the server. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNS

Re: MS mail bombs

daniel said: > Wayne Gemmell wrote: [snip] >> I can't see any solution to this. Downloading this amount of mail during >> the >> day would cost me a fortune *sniff* >> >> > Maybe it sounds drastic but I even thought of making some type of acl of > who can send me e-mail and deny the rest with a ms

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne Gemmell([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > > >>>"Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails > > that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming > > is increasing exponentially. > > I recie

RE: MS mail bombs

> > Maybe this would be the future for e-mail, deny all but specified... > > -- > -daniel It is probably (should be imo) the future of all computing. Permit this Permit that Deny everything else -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

Re: MS mail bombs

Wayne Gemmell wrote: "Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming is increasing exponentially. I recieved 10Mb of mail over the weekend, and I the last 12 hours I recieved

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 16:07, Wayne Gemmell wrote: > > >>>"Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails > > that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming > > is increasing exponentially. > > I recieved 10Mb

Re: MS mail bombs

At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:26:05 +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > > > The other way is a neat little trick I use on my ISP > > > account- limit th

Re: MS mail bombs

> >>>"Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails > that look like there from M$? The rate at which their coming > is increasing exponentially. I recieved 10Mb of mail over the weekend, and I the last 12 hours I recieved

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:07, Elie De Brauwer wrote: > On Monday 22 September 2003 10:54, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 03:09, Olav Lavell wrote: > > > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > on Sun, Sep 21,

Re: MS mail bombs

On Monday 22 September 2003 10:54, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 03:09, Olav Lavell wrote: > > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MS mail bombs

On Monday 22 September 2003 10:09, Olav Lavell wrote: > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -070

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 03:19, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:09:53 +0200 > Olav Lavell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > > What's going to happen (nay, *is* happening) is that ISPs are starting > > > to offer spam & virus filtering. > >

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 03:09, Olav Lavell wrote: > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:09:53 +0200 Olav Lavell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > > What's going to happen (nay, *is* happening) is that ISPs are starting > > to offer spam & virus filtering. > Yeah, but for a fee... ...and even then it is very poor sp

Re: MS mail bombs

Op ma 22-09-2003, om 09:42 schreef Ron Johnson: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > [snip] > > If Swen is the shap

Re: MS mail bombs

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: [snip] > If Swen is the shape of things to come, it's the end of dial-up POP3 > mail account

Re: MS mail bombs

On Monday 22 September 2003 07:26, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > > > The other way is a neat little trick I use on my ISP account- limit > > > the

Re: MS mail bombs

on Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:09:50PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:19:32AM -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > > The other way is a neat little trick I use on my ISP account- limit > > the size of messages to download, I limit them to 2000 bytes. You > > c

Re: MS mail bombs

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 09:59, csj wrote: > At Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:36:00 -0500, > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 09:35, csj wrote: > > > At Sat, 20 Sep 2003 06:16:31 -0400, > > > Michael C. wrote: > > > > > > > > In linux.debian.user, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >

Re: MS mail bombs

Michael C. wrote: In linux.debian.user, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:22, Steve Lamb wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:08:42 -0600 "Walt L. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there anyone else out there being mail bombed with emails that look like

Re: MS mail bombs

At Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:05:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 04:39, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: > > El sábado, 20 de septiembre de 2003, a las 21:03, Ron Johnson escribe: > > > There goes "Britany kissing Madonna"... > > > > Did she? I should watch more TV... What about Ju

Re: MS mail bombs

At Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:18:20 -0700, Carla Schroder wrote: > > On Saturday 20 September 2003 2:27 pm, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > The other way is a neat little trick I use on my ISP > > > account- limit the size of messages to download, I limit > > > them to 2000 bytes. You can try different sizes to

Re: MS mail bombs

At Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:36:00 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 09:35, csj wrote: > > At Sat, 20 Sep 2003 06:16:31 -0400, > > Michael C. wrote: > > > > > > In linux.debian.user, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:22, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > >

  1   2   >