[bf1942] Verification required for whoccares at comcast.net, protected by 0Spam.com.
Neal Clayton
xayd at vae-victus.org
Sat Mar 20 16:26:21 EST 2004
Well it's easy if you use Sendmail, and doesn't everyone use Sendmail?
/sarcasm
It's not too bad with Postfix and Exim, but I still don't like the
wrapper, I've had it exploited by people trying to relay spam a couple
of times on my server. Not a fun problem to deal with.
Rick Thompson wrote:
> I agree with your sentiments on Qmail and majordomo. Don't get me
> wrong, I have always thought majordomo was a pita to install and way,
> way overly complicated to manage. Nothing wrong with this list
> software at all, it's just different and going to take a few years
> before people get used to how it operates.
>
> Your logic on a 2/3 punch is a good idea. After this thread subsides I
> am just going to add a filter for "[bf1942] + 0spam" and forget about
> it.
>
> Rick
>
> At 01:20 PM 3/20/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> Well the obvious reason for not having majordomo is the fact that
>> this domain is running qmail and ezmlm works with qmail out of the
>> box, whereas majordomo still has security issues with its wrapper and
>> is a royal pain in the ass to get working with qmail.
>>
>> And in this case, unless the person in question owns the comcast.net
>> domain, it is in fact some person who has decided to transfer his
>> individual spam problem to everyone who sends him an email rather
>> than dealing with the problem himself. Either way, most other people
>> have figured out by now that they can make a yahoo address to use for
>> a spam-dump and use their real email address for real email. If some
>> can't grasp that concept, then they can deal with the spam, there's
>> no way I'm gonna go through their retarded filter myself to
>> accomodate them and their spam problem, though.
>>
>> " The simple fact of the matter is that people use this stuff for
>> spam protection and there is nothing anyone can do about that. "
>>
>> And with that in mind I would suggest a hybrid of 2 and 3. Put a big
>> warning in the welcome email that users of any email-verification
>> antispam service will be removed from the list ;).
>>
>>
>>
>> Rick Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> I tried to discuss this rationally a few weeks ago but was shouted
>>> down for bringing up the reality of it.
>>>
>>> The reason we see this over and over and over again on this list is
>>> because of the way it operates. People are used to majordomo because
>>> it has been the standard for mailing lists forever. Nothing wrong
>>> with this software but most people are automatically going to assume
>>> it's majordomo and whitelist icculus.org.
>>>
>>> There will be the occasional clueless idiot who uses a protected
>>> email without whitelisting at all and then wonder why they never get
>>> any mail. The majority of them are not ignorant rookies though, they
>>> will whitelist icculus.org, find the error quickly and correct it.
>>> Nobody whitelists "Mailing-List:" anymore because it whitelists a
>>> large number of spammers.
>>>
>>> As long as you guys use this software instead of majordomo we might
>>> as well get used to seeing this because it is going to continue to
>>> happen often. I don't know if you can config it to use a list domain
>>> instead of the senders but that is the only thing that would prevent
>>> it. The simple fact of the matter is that people use this stuff for
>>> spam protection and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
>>>
>>> Before I get accused of being off topic again or slammed just for
>>> bringing up the obvious, let me say that I don't care what your take
>>> on spam or spamprotection is. The question of 0spam type services
>>> being effective is not relevant. People use it and because mailman
>>> functions differently than majordomo, we are going to have to get
>>> used to seeing that reply.
>>>
>>> There *are* several solutions however.
>>>
>>> 1. Kill every spammer out there (preferably with a claw hammer,
>>> starting at the ankles).
>>> This solution is not very realistic but it does give me a warm
>>> feeling inside to think about.
>>>
>>> 2. Adopt an auto-cancel policy when seeing that subject. This would
>>> not be real effective because the person would just signup again not
>>> even knowing what went wrong. I am aware there are people out there
>>> who think of this option as the best solution but I am confident
>>> more rational minds would not consider it.
>>>
>>> 3. Put a big notice at the top of the list signup response with
>>> "NOTICE TO SPAM PROTECTION USERS" that tells people email will be
>>> coming from the senders address and not to whitelist just the
>>> icculus.org domain.
>>>
>>> This is probably the most practical solution and I think the
>>> majority of people would get it right the first time.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 01:32 AM 3/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:52, Neal Clayton wrote:
>>>> > Can we PLEASE get these people yanked from the list? They're
>>>> spamming
>>>> > each of us individually with this crap each time a message goes
>>>> out from
>>>> > the list.
>>>> >
>>>> > whoccares at comcast.net, please remove this person and if you see
>>>> him in
>>>> > real life break his fingers to keep him away from any and all
>>>> computers
>>>> > or something.
>>>>
>>>> fwiw, even after jumping through the spam-verification hoops, I didn't
>>>> get a response from the whoccares account owner, so I removed him from
>>>> the list manually.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any intention of breaking his fingers, but if you
>>>> happen to
>>>> be reading that account still and want to be on the list, please
>>>> resubscribe from an account that doesn't auto-respond to each list
>>>> post.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --ryan.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>> Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>
>
More information about the Bf1942
mailing list