Bob Hoffman wrote:
> You would think the program they use to present the information would
> obscure that mail address. Really no reason to show it forever is it?
So you haven't looked. pipermail *does* obscure the addresses.
Ralph
pgpNIp9In8xlb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:43 -0400, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
> So, in that spirit, some orgs have setup auto responders telling you
> how to get in touch with them. In my opinion, this is a perfectly
> reasonable solution that accomplishes the same goal. Why you feel like
> you are too good to communica
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 14:31 -0400, Bob Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > Dang, and I had money on this being October's useless thread
> > with (what seems like) 1000 or more responses!
> >
> \
> Naw, someones gonna go into the bailout rep vs dem thing and that will be
> the winner
I wouldn't think so,
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 19:25 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> Toby Bluhm wrote:
> > MHR wrote:
> >> Hello? This is way off topic for the CentOS list.
> >>
> >> Enough already.
> >>
> >
> > The audience groans with dismay. We shuffle off, looking for a Springer
> > inspired Reality Internet Game Show.
>
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 19:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Bob Hoffman wrote:
> >> Dang, and I had money on this being October's useless thread
> >> with (what seems like) 1000 or more responses!
> >>
> > \
> > Naw, someones gonna go into the bailout rep vs dem thing and that will be
> > the winne
>
> Dang, and I had money on this being October's useless thread
> with (what seems like) 1000 or more responses!
>
\
Naw, someones gonna go into the bailout rep vs dem thing and that will be
the winner
:)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.o
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 12:42 -0400, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
> >Well, there are ways and there are ways. An e-mail that allows a single
> >reply to confirm an abuse report (avoiding spurious reports/spams) could
> >be sent to the original reporter. Have a single change needed, varied
> >with an arbitra
Bob Hoffman wrote:
Dang, and I had money on this being October's useless thread
with (what seems like) 1000 or more responses!
\
Naw, someones gonna go into the bailout rep vs dem thing and that will be
the winner
I hope you guys realise that you are not really helping the cause much
wi
Toby Bluhm wrote:
MHR wrote:
Hello? This is way off topic for the CentOS list.
Enough already.
The audience groans with dismay. We shuffle off, looking for a Springer
inspired Reality Internet Game Show.
Dang, and I had money on this being October's useless thread with (what
seems li
MHR wrote:
Hello? This is way off topic for the CentOS list.
Enough already.
The audience groans with dismay. We shuffle off, looking for a Springer
inspired Reality Internet Game Show.
--
tkb
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://li
At 12:46 PM 10/3/2008, you wrote:
Hello? This is way off topic for the CentOS list.
Enough already.
mhr
Sorry. My last one slipped-in before you called 'cease-fire.'
I'm done.
Thanks Moderator!
Cheers!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.or
At 12:34 PM 10/3/2008, you wrote:
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> I wait until a legitimate company spams me...then I call them
> up and see if it was themthen I let years of spam aggression
> boil out to the company over the phoneand hope they take me
> off the list.
> Now that is how to blow off
Hello? This is way off topic for the CentOS list.
Enough already.
mhr
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> And what are they going to do, spam people with Yahoo's auto
> reply? It's not like it's an open relay. Possible it could be
> used for a DOS attack, but not for spamming.
>
Spoof the return headers and send a million or two mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
just
for funif the responder al
>
> Sadly you have a long way to go ... I'm willing to bet that
> the eircom.net spammer has spammed many on this list but due
> to no-one taking action he was still in business.
...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.or
>Well, there are ways and there are ways. An e-mail that allows a single
>reply to confirm an abuse report (avoiding spurious reports/spams) could
>be sent to the original reporter. Have a single change needed, varied
>with an arbitrary value to avoid mechanical responses, could accomplish
>the sam
At 11:56 AM 10/3/2008, you wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
>>This is why the RFC clearly states that you must answer certain email
>>addresses; abuse@ being one! If you don't follow the RFC's than how
>>can anyone expect your protocols or operations to be compliant with
>>any st
>Just the idea of a autoresponder for abuse mail account is dang scary. Would
>make a spammers job easy.
>I do not use autoresponders ever for any accounts. I have the server eat all
>mail that comes in and not bounce them off, Again, a good thing for a
>spammer to find.
And what are they going to
>Male Bovine Defecation! If yahoo is going to provide mail services,
>they damn well should do it in a responsible manner. Just becaue
>they are big does not exempt them from this responsibility. On
>the contrary, the large free mail providers, yahoo, hotmail,
>gmail, etc. are frequently used by
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> I wait until a legitimate company spams me...then I call them
> up and see if it was themthen I let years of spam aggression
> boil out to the company over the phoneand hope they take me
> off the list.
> Now that is how to blow off spam steam.
Sadly you have a lon
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 11:43 -0400, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
> The spirit of the RFC is that you could send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> get in touch with someone. When the RFC was written, the idea that
> someone will monitor this mailbox was reasonable. Today, it is not in
> all cases. So, in th
Just the idea of a autoresponder for abuse mail account is dang scary. Would
make a spammers job easy.
I do not use autoresponders ever for any accounts. I have the server eat all
mail that comes in and not bounce them off, Again, a good thing for a
spammer to find.
With today's spoofing there is
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008, Mark A. Lewis wrote:
>>This is why the RFC clearly states that you must answer certain email
>>addresses; abuse@ being one! If you don't follow the RFC's than how
>>can anyone expect your protocols or operations to be compliant with
>>any standards?
>>
>>Now, someone decided,
>This is why the RFC clearly states that you must answer certain email
>addresses; abuse@ being one! If you don't follow the RFC's than how
>can anyone expect your protocols or operations to be compliant with
>any standards?
>
>Now, someone decided, in their infinite wisdom, that if you send an
>au
At 01:47 AM 10/3/2008, you wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Vandaman wrote:
>
>> 1. Go to the eircom page or type abuse at eircom in google to get the web
>> form. The form looks like it goes direct to their tech support,
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Chris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Vandaman wrote:
>
>> 1. Go to the eircom page or type abuse at eircom in google to get the web
>> form. The form looks like it goes direct to their tech support, they
>> responded very fast.
>
> Ye
On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Vandaman wrote:
1. Go to the eircom page or type abuse at eircom in google to get
the web
form. The form looks like it goes direct to their tech support, they
responded very fast.
Yes, but the trend is for the big ISPs to use ARF, which sort of
defeats the idea
MHR wrote
> Sounds like they have a serious problem with spam from their users,
> they know it, but they don't know how to deal with it (or don't care),
> in which case (either way) they deserve to be blacklisted. That kind
> of "support" we can do without.
1. Go to the eircom page or type abuse
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As it was, the original poster of the thread did not post his email headers,
> so we are just taking his word for it that it came from eircom.net. However,
> emailing their [EMAIL PROTECTED] now gets an auto-response that they wi
At 03:13 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote:
John R Pierce a écrit :
except, 99% of spam has forged FROM addresses,
Yeah, but at least one sender IP that can't be
forged. Run jwhois on that, which usually gives
you an [EMAIL PROTECTED] adress, and then simply
forward them the spam. Normal providers
John R Pierce a écrit :
except, 99% of spam has forged FROM addresses,
Yeah, but at least one sender IP that can't be forged. Run jwhois on
that, which usually gives you an [EMAIL PROTECTED] adress, and then simply
forward them the spam. Normal providers hate hosting spammers. Unless,
of
Bob Hoffman wrote:
> Great.. Guess best thing to do is get a gmail account to use
> with mailing lists to lower spam scanners on your main email..
>
> Sigh..too late for this one...lol
Gmail? Yahoomail is just fine too. I use the addressguard and have
disposable addresses, so my main email is
>
> Apparently you have not looked there? Yes, it does. That's
> what archives are for - historical records and information.
> It's a goldmine if you can remember how to look something up
>
> mhr
Yes I have, just never looked at anything other than what I was reading.
Great..
Guess
John R Pierce wrote:
> except, 99% of spam has forged FROM addresses, often an
> innocent address
> randomly picked from the same lists being used to send the
> spam TOO.
>
> 95% of the spam is sent from hacked/infected servers acting
> as relays,
> so complaining to the owner of the IP space t
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Bob Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This list does not publish the actual mails in the archive does it?
>
Apparently you have not looked there? Yes, it does. That's what
archives are for - historical records and information. It's a
goldmine if you can rem
> > This might be slightly off-topic but as the source of spam
> is probably
> > a spammer getting emails from this list, I reported him and his
> > service provider should cut off his/her ugly head. I got an
>
> except, 99% of spam has forged FROM addresses, often an
> innocent address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OT Mailing List Spam
This might be slightly off-topic but as the source of spam is probably
a spammer getting emails from this list, I reported him and his service
provider should cut off his/her ugly head. I got an email of the classic
419 scam from a "El Amir
OT Mailing List Spam
This might be slightly off-topic but as the source of spam is probably
a spammer getting emails from this list, I reported him and his service
provider should cut off his/her ugly head. I got an email of the classic
419 scam from a "El Amir Assadallah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
T
38 matches
Mail list logo
