[bf1942] Verification required for whoccares at comcast.net, protected by 0Spam.com.
xayd at vae-victus.org
Sun Mar 21 00:42:02 EST 2004
One thing that might fix our 0spam guy here that I've noticed, I don't
know if this is possible with ezmlm or not but...
From looking at headers of majordomo lists that I'm on, it puts a
sender value in its header of "owner-list at domain.xyz" that's sent in
addition to the from value. The only other thing I see different from
this ezmlm header is the precedence being set to bulk rather than normal.
Is there an option to put a sender value in the header with ezmlm? That
might solve the problem if these services specifically look for
Majordomo and let its messages go through based on that "sender" value.
Just slap a fake name on that sender header of "owner-bf1942" or
something that looks exactly like Majordomo and you'll probably fool the
filter if that's how it works ;).
Patrick Scott wrote:
> Is there a way to BLOCK him from joining?
> On Mar 20, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Rick Thompson wrote:
>> Encartis looks like a nice project, thank you for pointing that out.
>> It does work with qmail according to the docs btw.
>> I was not endorsing the use of 0spam or any other anti-spam methods.
>> I also didn't want it to go off on a tangent away from the primary
>> issue of why we see that subject so often and what could
>> realistically be done to prevent it.
>> At 12:36 PM 3/20/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2004 11:47 AM, 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
>>> I recommend ecartis instead: http://www.ecartis.org - Been using it
>>> for years. It's easy to set up, works great, etc. Not sure about how
>>> it works with qmail, because I use postfix, but I imagine it's
>>> pretty much the same.
>>> I don't agree with you on your opinion on this btw. Whitelists are a
>>> dumb way to solve the spam problem regardless of how the list
>>> software works. If everyone used a whitelist system, no-one would
>>> ever see the whitelist requests and email would stop working
>>> entirely. Increasing the hassle for everyone trying to send email
>>> simply moves the inconvenience of spam away from the recipient and
>>> into the lap of every single other person sending them mail. I think
>>> that's kind of an arrogant way to behave.
>>> I personally like the idea of greylisting, although it has some
>>> problems that need to be overcome before it really takes off, but
>>> it's a good idea. For details see here:
>>> 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
>> Rick Thompson
>> Network Admin - Fortweb.com
>> Email: rick at fortweb.com
>> Voice & Fax: 260.493.1280
>> 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