[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> It works as advertised, and the FAQ says that it should not be used to
> block mail.
Hmmm, I looked at the FAQ, and found this -- buried in the middle of a
paragraph: "SpamCop encourages SCBL users to tag and divert email,
rather than block it outright."
On Jan 08, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:51:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >On Jan 07, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
> >I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:51:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On Jan 07, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
>I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by a reputable DNSBL.
In that logic, Spamcop is not a reputa
On Jan 07, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
I have never seen a joe job resulting in a listing by a reputable DNSBL.
Did you?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 06:10:37PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> There is some minor inconvenience to sender when a message is rejected due to
> the spamcop DNSBL, but that falls into one of two categories:
You forgot one:
3) Some wants to damage the ISP and sends faked mails.
Bastian
--
Tota
On Friday 07 January 2005 10:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of
> > trade-offs. If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you
> > will accidentally delete
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If spamcop was as bad as people claim then I'm sure that throughout
> this discussion people would be CCing me on their messages to the
> list and then flaming me on the list when my server rejected their
> email due to the Spamcop DNSBL. I conclude tha
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
> > that they are the only way to get the good goals
On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
> that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
The problem with spam filtering is that i
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is of course another reason to avoid analogies such as the one Thomas
> used. A discussion about whether the US army is good or bad is not on topic
> for this list and has nothing to do with spamcop.
Of course, I didn't discuss whether the US ar
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Thomas is capable of making a point without reference to the Bush regeime
> then there might be a possibility of doing so.
I already did, but you ignored it.
You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
that they are the only
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 15:13, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, it's clear that trying to discuss thing swith you is a pointless
> excercise in frustration, so I guess it doesn't matter one way or
> another if you stop; hopefully others can continue the discussion in a
> more t
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 03:34, Darren Salt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
>
> > El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The worst case costs of well-implemented graylisting should be
> > something like a short delay in an email message; the worst case of a
> > false positive rejection can be much much worse indeed.
>
> The worst case for graylisting is the same as a fals
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 03:31:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was just following your line of reasoning:
> >
> > "You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
> > actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached wi
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:36:45AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you have any serious point to make then it can be made without reference
> to
> such people. However all your messages recently have been ad-hominem
> attacks, trying to compare me to Rumsfeld and now claiming that I have a
>
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have any serious point to make then it can be made without
> reference to such people. However all your messages recently have
> been ad-hominem attacks, trying to compare me to Rumsfeld and now
> claiming that I have a "problem with reality".
Um
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 07:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
> > > Laden:
> >
> > It's the same thing.
> >
> > References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's l
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
> > Laden:
>
> It's the same thing.
>
> References to Goebbels will invoke Godwin's law...
But I didn't reference Goebbel's or Hitler. You seem to have a
serious problem with rea
I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
> El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
[snip]
>> Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is over.
> Of course, but in each field, a bad equipped army is as bad as a bad
> equipped
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:32, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > What is this, "you go to
On Friday 31 December 2004 06:22, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:43:32 +1100, Russell Coker
> > Everyone who has a legitimate cause to send me email
> > knows to use English.
>
> Your arrogance is remarkable.
Why is it arrogant?
If you see anything I have written
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > This is true whether the bad
El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribiÃ:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > This is t
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 03:25:11PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > > t
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > > the deaths
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What is this, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want"?
Consider the full context of the quote[0], yes.
[0]
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was just following your line of reasoning:
>
> "You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
> actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached without such bad
> things happening", where:
>
> action = greylisting
> bad things
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you,
> > because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all.
>
> When have I ever made such a demand?
I was just fo
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
> > wa
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:17:43AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
> > wa
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> > the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
> > wasn't comparing false
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you,
> because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all.
When have I ever made such a demand?
Thomas
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
> wasn't comparing false positives to deaths.
>
> I was explaining why your st
On 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> My point was that you cannot justify the bad things that happen as a
> result of your actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached
> without such bad things happening.
However, the same could be said about the result of our *inactions*.
When bad
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions of a
> scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless deaths of
> hundreds of people from his own country with typical actions of a Unix
> administrator (which do
On Sunday 02 January 2005 20:19, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions
> > of a scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless
> > deaths
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions of a
> scumbag (I am being nice) who deliberately caused the needless deaths of
> hundreds of people from his own country with typical actions of a Unix
> admi
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Any anti-spam measure that gets an
[Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > What is this, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army
> > you want"?
>
> Coker's law: As a
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
> > > some false positives.
> >
> > What is thi
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
> > some false positives.
>
> What is this, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have some
> false positives.
What is this, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you
want"?
Thomas
paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In which case, is there something fundamentally broken about the spamcop
> system ? Or is there some technically insoluble problem here ?
It seems to be more that they just don't really give a crap:
(1) they trust users, (2) users are stupid, and (3) there's
44 matches
Mail list logo
