[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