Marc Shapiro wrote:
I hadn't seen any SWEN in months, so I slipped up and posted a few
messages to the list using my regular account (instead of this HOTMAIL
account set up only for posting to debian-user and receiving all of my
SWEN). Yesterday, I received what looked like a SWEN e-mail.
Marc Shapiro wrote:
I hadn't seen any SWEN in months, so I slipped up and posted a few
messages to the list using my regular account (instead of this HOTMAIL
account set up only for posting to debian-user and receiving all of my
SWEN). Yesterday, I received what looked like a SWEN e
on Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:14:15PM -0400, Marc Shapiro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I hadn't seen any SWEN in months,
Until I finally caved and activated my ISP's virus blocking/stripping
solution (I'd rather just block the fsckers at SMTP time -- and *shock*,
my ISP appears t
I hadn't seen any SWEN in months, so I slipped up and posted a few
messages to the list using my regular account (instead of this HOTMAIL
account set up only for posting to debian-user and receiving all of my
SWEN). Yesterday, I received what looked like a SWEN e-mail. The
subjec
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:40:58AM +0100, Wilko Fokken wrote:
> DENY<>^X-Mailing-List:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> DENY=^Content-Type:.*text/html
> DENY=^Subject:.subscribe
> DENY=^Subject:.unsubscribe
That looks like a remarkable sensible set of rules.
What's your false positive/negative hit rate?
It shou
y to delete them
> > right afterwards :-)
>
> mailfilter is good for filtering out swen and the like. I have set it to
> delete all messages over 146888K on this email account (this is not my
> main account, so I don't expect to receive large attachments here anyway).
>
My pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:52:54PM +0100, Andreas Janssen wrote:
> Thanks, but I am connected to the internet using an analog modem, so the
> way for me to get rid of them is deleting them on the server.
You're on a dialup ISP and they don't offer a s
ting them on the server. I really
> don't want to download some MB of viruses every day only to delete them
> right afterwards :-)
>
> best regards
> Andreas Janssen
If your downloading from a pop3 server take a look at mailfilter.
It deletes mail at the server
hi ya
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Lou Losee wrote:
> * Alphonse Ogulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-19 08:01]:
> > Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I used Kmail
> > and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size greater than 40Kb. Just
&
hem on the server. I really
> don't want to download some MB of viruses every day only to delete them
> right afterwards :-)
mailfilter is good for filtering out swen and the like. I have set it to
delete all messages over 146888K on this email account (this is not my
main account,
ery incoming message of size
>> > greater than 40Kb. Just wondering, is swen back from holiday? How
>> > you people managing?
>>
>> From my point of view, it looks like it never really went away. Over
>> the last months, I get between 30 to 50 of this viruse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:18:09PM +0300, Alphonse Ogulla wrote:
> Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning.
Do this to your mail server: http://ursine.ca/~baloo/clamd-exiscan.txt
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:18:09 +0300, Alphonse Ogulla wrote:
> Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I used Kmail
> and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size greater than 40Kb. Just
> wondering, is swen back from holiday? How you people managing?
Andreas Janssen writes:
>
> Alphonse Ogulla (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> > Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I
> > used Kmail and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size
> > greater than 40Kb. Just wondering, i
* Alphonse Ogulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-19 08:01]:
> Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I used Kmail
> and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size greater than 40Kb. Just
> wondering, is swen back from holiday? How you people mana
Hello
Alphonse Ogulla (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I
> used Kmail and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size
> greater than 40Kb. Just wondering, is swen back from holiday? How you
> people managing?
Got 200 plus mail bombs in my pop3 account this morning. Luckily I used Kmail
and filtered (deleted) every incoming message of size greater than 40Kb. Just
wondering, is swen back from holiday? How you people managing?
--
Alphonse Ogulla
Nairobi, Kenya
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Kevin Mark wrote:
more viruses, more cpu time, more MONEY. Its always money in the end.
Well, not always money. Money is the final factor, to be sure, but I can
say with a resonable level of assurance that there are other factors. Factors
such as space and power. Granted one can get more
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:53:20PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>
> Then that is my mistake; I offer my apology to you and to Ross. I
> found out about it several days ago during a normal routine check of
> services offered on earthlink's web site, and immediately turned it on,
I did the same.
>
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:58:34 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:31:55PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote:
>
>> - if you don't read communications from earthlink, then no wonder you
>> don't know what's going on
>>
> I did check my backed up folder and found the last 8 months of earthl
ipeline) customer, the virus
option is very recent and the spam option is somewhat recent. I recall
reading the spam options about a year ago and noticed nothing about
virus checking. KMS said the virus was very recent also. I am not
100% sure, but if I called Earthlink, I would think it was added w
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:56:48 -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
>
> Although filtering should "obviously" be done by service providers, it
> seems they have a lot of trouble getting it right. Mail to me goes
> through two service providers (one of them is just a forwarder, and I
> only recently found out
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:56:48PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:15:45PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Earthlink have implemented virus and spam filtering within the past
> > month or so, early November, if time serves.
>
Yea!
> headers. They may have resi
on Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 08:56:48PM -0800, Ross Boylan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:15:45PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Earthlink have implemented virus and spam filtering within the past
> > month or so, early November, if time serves.
>
> That explains
e is no option for user
> training of filters.
>
> Upshot: I've not enabled any of the filtering. I want to know what is
> blocked. I want blocking at SMTP level. And I want context-sensitive
> spam filters (e.g.: Bayesian filters). I can apply this through my own
> r
ount/help/virusblocker/
> >
> >
> > > Hi KMS,
> > > Funny, I am a subscriber to this ISP and I didn't notice any email
> > > announcements (but then I ususally just delete the isp mail site unseen).
> > > I'm sure
> > > this recent
> > announcements (but then I ususally just delete the isp mail site unseen).
> > I'm sure
> > this recent additions was because I (and i'm sure others) were really
> > pissed at them during the swen 'flash flood' and sent quite a few
> > emails.
* Kevin Mark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031208 03:17]:
> I guess this is as 'responsive' as they get. Now if they only
> get of their duff and get encrypted pop or the like!!! This would
> decrease my spam further!
By "encrypted pop" do you mean pop3/ssl? If so, how do you expect would
this decrease th
t additions was because I (and i'm sure others) were really
> pissed at them during the swen 'flash flood' and sent quite a few
> emails. I guess this is as 'responsive' as they get. Now if they only
> get of their duff and get encrypted pop or the like!!! This woul
any email
announcements (but then I ususally just delete the isp mail site unseen).
I'm sure
this recent additions was because I (and i'm sure others) were really
pissed at them during the swen 'flash flood' and sent quite a few
emails. I guess this is as 'responsive&#x
using connections attempts which are generally attacks by Windoze worms.
>
> I had a long talk with earthlink a month or two ago in which they told
> me they were not filtering out swen (and they certainly weren't; I got
> a ton). Soon after that, I did see some swen-like stuff in th
using connections attempts which are generally attacks by Windoze worms.
>
> I had a long talk with earthlink a month or two ago in which they told
> me they were not filtering out swen (and they certainly weren't; I got
> a ton). Soon after that, I did see some swen-like stuff in th
the reason I'm surprised is based on my own experience with
> earthlink, including their explicit statements that they weren't
> blocking Swen.
>
> What the mail you attached below is supposed to demonstrate, I don't
> know. You don't provide any context with whic
ting like 10 Svens per day). I do see, from time to time, Apache
> >> refusing connections attempts which are generally attacks by Windoze worms.
> >
> > I had a long talk with earthlink a month or two ago in which they told
> > me they were not filtering out swen (and
are generally attacks by Windoze worms.
>
> I had a long talk with earthlink a month or two ago in which they told
> me they were not filtering out swen (and they certainly weren't; I got
> a ton). Soon after that, I did see some swen-like stuff in their spam
> filter for my a
mpts which are generally attacks by Windoze worms.
>
> I had a long talk with earthlink a month or two ago in which they told
> me they were not filtering out swen (and they certainly weren't; I got
> a ton). Soon after that, I did see some swen-like stuff in their spam
> filte
o in which they told
me they were not filtering out swen (and they certainly weren't; I got
a ton). Soon after that, I did see some swen-like stuff in their spam
filter for my account (but I also saw plenty still coming at me).
What's your basis for saying they are filtering out swen, rat
it
> possible to write a script to automate this work ?
> (perhaps perl is my friend ?)
>
> Thanks in advance for any help and advises.
140k executable attachments? That's the Swen viral mail:
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/[EMAIL PROTECTED
on Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:54:25PM +, Pigeon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 06:03:06AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > I've prepared a couple of scripts which I'm using to report swen headers
> > and body to originating ISPs.
> >
> >
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 06:03:06AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> I've prepared a couple of scripts which I'm using to report swen headers
> and body to originating ISPs.
>
> - Scripts work on directory-based mail folders (Maildir, MH, etc.).
> *NOT* mbox. Sorry.
I've prepared a couple of scripts which I'm using to report swen headers
and body to originating ISPs.
I don't know if it's a result of this or not, but my received Swen has
fallen of significantly Friday 14 Nov. compared with the 24 hours
preceding.
Do *not* trust the script
Am Do, den 13.11.2003 schrieb David Palmer. um 13:06:
> Is it my imagination, or is it really happening?
At least the number of Swens is increasing again...
joerg
--
Gib GATES keine Chance!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
Is it my imagination, or is it really happening?
Seem to be new headers involved, too.
The rumoured new one should be easy to deal with,
headers are obvious, called mimail with an attachment.
Regards,
David.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
for many days, the infected machines
> >which have your email address in their lists of targets gradually get
> >disinfected, and your incoming swen gradually goes to zero. But, if you
> >post, you run the
> >risk of a new wave of swen.
>
> That is why all of my p
ts gradually get
disinfected, and your incoming swen gradually goes to zero. But, if you
post, you run the
risk of a new wave of swen.
That is why all of my posting is now done through this hotmail account,
which I use for nothing else. So far, I have received no spam of any sort
through it. It is
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 16:23, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> finally be seein the end of this mess?
I was getting 200-300 Swen's
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> finally be seein the end of this mess?
135 in 12 hours here, and it'll probably ju
is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> finally be seein the end of this mess?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >This > is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN.
> >Could we > finally be seein the end of this mess?
> > No, but perhaps Hotmail took heed of suggestions to reject viruses at
> >SMTP time.
>
> If so, then that gives us ONE good t
in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> > > finally be seein the end of this mess?
nope ...
different people get different amts of junk
i was getting hundreds per day ... but now its just one-z two-z per
hour and i REJECT those incoming junk ... hopefully bouncing
the junk
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:47:09PM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
>
> It is possible that it has
> just stopped gathering email addresses and is just propogating around
> to emails that have been collected in the past.
>
Else the machines have been disinfected or mail servers are bl
Marc Shapiro wrote:
I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list.
This is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN.
Could we finally be seein the end of this mess?
Nope.
dmiyu:/var/log/exim4# grep malware mainlog | wc -l
90
90 so far today
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:23:51 -0500,
"Marc Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list.
This is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 at 21:23 GMT, Marc Shapiro penned:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list.
> This is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN.
> Could we finally be seein the end of this mess?
>
> -- Marc Shapiro
>
E
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 18:39, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> > is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:46:31 -0800 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list.
This > is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 05:39:05PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> > is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> finally be seein the end of this mess?
>
I'm getting one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:23:51PM -0500, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
> is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
> finally be seein t
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:23:51 -0500,
"Marc Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list.
> This is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN.
> Could
I opened this hotmail account specifically for posting to this list. This
is my fourth post in 2 days. So far, no spam, including no SWEN. Could we
finally be seein the end of this mess?
--
Marc Shapiro
_
Concerned that messages
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 08:08:22PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:25:38PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > Even if exim spoke SSL to the smarthost, the email would still be
> > plaintext between there and the originator. At least, I think that's
> > how it works. If yo
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 05:31 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:25:38PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> Sure, but everyone has their own limit when it comes to privacy.
>> Maybe I don't want you to know that I have been sending messages to
>> the "hot gerbil sex" mail
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 22:38, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 04:08 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:25:38PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> >> Even if exim spoke SSL to the smarthost, the email would
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 04:08 GMT, Paul Johnson penned:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:25:38PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> Even if exim spoke SSL to the smarthost, the email would still be
>> plaintext between there and the originator. At leas
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 08:08:22PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> So they know where it came from and is going to. Whoop-de-doo...
Actually that's my philosophy when it comes to all privacy: fuck it.
Come look. If it creeps you out, that's on you.
It's a remarkably effective stance to take.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:25:38PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> Even if exim spoke SSL to the smarthost, the email would still be
> plaintext between there and the originator. At least, I think that's
> how it works. If you really want to hide t
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 17:59 GMT, Tom penned:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:16:55AM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
>> You're using a plaintext pop password on the wire and you're worried
>> about some file in your home directory?
>
> I use the SSL option in my .fetchmailrc, so I hope my pwd and more
>
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:05:58 -0500 (EST)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, David Palmer. wrote:
>
>
> > > --
> > > David Jardine
>
> > >
> > The way I see it is that with all the separate componentry available
> > with Debian, you can configure for any eventuality accordin
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 09:16:55AM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> You're using a plaintext pop password on the wire and you're worried
> about some file in your home directory?
I use the SSL option in my .fetchmailrc, so I hope my pwd and more
importantly email bodies come over the cable modem encr
* Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031026 12:10]:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
> >
> > If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
> > pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop:// will connect
> > without typeing so much. :-)
> >
> >
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 21:42, Robert Storey wrote:
> > > But even for non-root users of the same system, all they'd have to
> > > do is do 'cat ~/.muttrc', unless .muttrc is only owner-
> > > readable(like .fetchmailrc).
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but that can be fixed, as you say, with permissions chan
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, David Palmer. wrote:
> > --
> > David Jardine
> >
> The way I see it is that with all the separate componentry available
> with Debian, you can configure for any eventuality according to the
> individual need, whether that be for high volumn or otherwise. Standard
> config
> > But even for non-root users of the same system, all they'd have to
> > do is do 'cat ~/.muttrc', unless .muttrc is only owner-
> > readable(like .fetchmailrc).
> >
>
> Sure, but that can be fixed, as you say, with permissions changes.
> You can't fix the fact that superusers can read your
x27;t work because
> > it has an @ inside). pop.gmx.net is your providers pop server.
> >
> > Then you are asked for your password and see the contents of your mailbox.
> > Use arrow keys to move up and down, press D to delete a message. Q exits
> > mutt, it asks you to
Try Animail. I don't see it on the list of Debian packages, but you can
download it from Sourceforge as a .deb binary or source tarball. It is
much easier to use than Fetchmail, and it can delete spam from the mail
server without having to download.
Another option (which I haven't tried yet) is Ma
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 05:41:12PM +0100, David Jardine wrote:
> One problem I had with it is that it gave the message lengths as
> zero, which didn't aid swen-spotting.
I do get the message lengths so this may be a problem with how mutt
interfaces with your particular pop server. It
Try Animail. I don't see it on the list of Debian packages, but you can
download it from Sourceforge as a .deb binary or source tarball. It is
much easier to use than Fetchmail, and it can delete spam from the mail
server without having to download.
Another option (which I haven't tried yet) is Ma
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 23:48 GMT, Ron Johnson penned:
> On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 13:31, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
>> >
>> > If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
>> > pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop:/
Monique Y. Herman([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>
> Of course, your password will then be in plain-text in a file. If you
> are the only person with root access, this probably isn't a big deal
> until your box gets hacked, but this sort of thing always gives me the
> willies.
You
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 09:11:44AM -0500, Wayne Topa wrote:
> If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set pop_pass=
> to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop://
> will connect without typeing so much. :-)
Additionally, within a running mutt, you could choose to activate a
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
>
> If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
> pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop:// will connect
> without typeing so much. :-)
>
> This works in version 1.5.4-1 (testing) as well
>
> Isn't linux
a message. Q exits
> mutt, it asks you to delete the marked ("D") messages. Just press enter
> and you are done.
>
> I do have a dial-up connection too, so this is my way to get rid of SWEN...
If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set pop_pass=
to yo
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 13:31, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
> >
> > If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
> > pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop:// will connect
> > without typeing so much. :-)
> >
> > T
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
>>
>> If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
>> pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop:// will connect
>> without typeing so much. :-)
>>
>> This works i
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 21:41 GMT, Bijan Soleymani penned:
> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 14:11 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
>>>
>>> If you add set pop_host=pop.gmx.net, set pop_user=xxx and set
>>> pop_pass= to your .muttrc then mutt -f pop://
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 at 21:29 GMT, Wayne Topa penned:
> Monique Y. Herman([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>>
>> Of course, your password will then be in plain-text in a file. If
>> you are the only person with root access, this probably isn't a big
>> deal until your box gets hacked,
r
> > > providers pop server.
> > >
> > > Then you are asked for your password and see the contents of your
> > > mailbox. Use arrow keys to move up and down, press D to delete a
> > > message. Q exits mutt, it asks you to delete the marked ("D"
ere xxx is my customer number from GMX (you can use both
> > e-Mail address and customer number as login but I guess E-mail won't
> > work because it has an @ inside). pop.gmx.net is your providers pop
> > server.
> >
> > Then you are asked for your password and see
ow keys to move up and down, press D to delete a message. Q exits
> mutt, it asks you to delete the marked ("D") messages. Just press enter
> and you are done.
>
> I do have a dial-up connection too, so this is my way to get rid of SWEN...
For a high-volume account, this
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:33:30PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:28:26PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:39:43AM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:14:38AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > > > It is beyond my capability (but only slig
is your providers pop server.
Then you are asked for your password and see the contents of your mailbox.
Use arrow keys to move up and down, press D to delete a message. Q exits
mutt, it asks you to delete the marked ("D") messages. Just press enter
and you are done.
I do have a dial-up con
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:28:26PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:39:43AM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:14:38AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > > It is beyond my capability (but only slightly, I feel, and it
> > > should be very easy for lots of peop
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:36:53PM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
>
> And is it only my ISPs getting their acts together or is the flow
> of swens starting to dry up?
>
I've been killing swen at my ISP with mailfilter every hour for the
past 100 hrs (>4d). I get about 6/hr. I
ages
>> piling up and guessed, from the length, that they were all swen,
>> although it is theoretically possible that I deleted something that
>> was not swen.
>>
> Ron's script which he sent to me also is a good one and works fast. But
> if there
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:39:43AM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:14:38AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
> > It is beyond my capability (but only slightly, I feel, and it
> > should be very easy for lots of people here) to produce a sort of
> > interactive fetchmail that reads the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:54:05AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
> On (25/10/03 01:14), David Jardine wrote:
> > ...
> > ...
> > I've read the fetchmail documentation and concluded that fetchmail
> > will never delete anything without consulting exim or whatever.
> > I've tried to follow all the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:20:56AM +0100, Brian Potkin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:14:38AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
>
> > It is beyond my capability (but only slightly, I feel, and it
> > should be very easy for lots of people here) to produce a sort of
> > interactive fetchmail that
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:14:38AM +0200, David Jardine wrote:
>
> Ron Johnson kindly sent me a Python script that deleted all the
> large files from the server. All right, I had seen these messages
> piling up and guessed, from the length, that they were all swen,
&
us .mailfilterrc files post in the last few weeks. Some
> > filter on size. I use a combination of Subject, From and To headers to
> > filter most of it out. Let me know if you want my rc file.
>
> The problem with mailfilter, regarding swen, is that mailfilter only
> loots at
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
