On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:48:45AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.28.0755 +0200]:
>>> If you want secure email, encrypt it. Don't depend on the transport.
>> And the envelope?
> I really doubt that you have set up your mail server so t
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:53:21AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote:
>
> > You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's
> > academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via
> > the DUL is a positive measure when co
also sprach Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.28.0755 +0200]:
> > If you want secure email, encrypt it. Don't depend on the transport.
>
> And the envelope?
I really doubt that you have set up your mail server so that your
provider couldn't *trivially* launch a man-in-the-middle att
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:31:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 03:30:56PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Plus, it gives my provider an easier path into snooping my
>> mail. With direct-MX delivery, there is a least a chance that the
>> SMTP session will be TLS-encry
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 03:30:56PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Plus, it gives my provider an easier path into snooping my mail. With
> direct-MX delivery, there is a least a chance that the SMTP session
> will be TLS-encrypted. My provider would have to mount an _active_
> attack (vs passive
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
>> DULs are considered stupid, you might as well just deny mail from
>> 0.0.0.0/0.
> I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> serv
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:44:21AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't quite agree with Branden's page that it is entirely
> > the blocker's fault - there's some blame with his ISP, or maybe
> > his ISP's relations with abuse.net and friends.
>
> I don't
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> Again, for those who are reading in a hurry:
> As of 10 May 2005, when I find myself blacklisted when sending mail as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], I fall back to a host that is not blacklisted.
Great news. Th
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:44:21AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I don't quite agree with Branden's page that it is entirely
> the blocker's fault - there's some blame with his ISP, or maybe
> his ISP's relations with abuse.net and friends.
I don't understand how you are inferring an assignment of blame
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:55:58PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As DPL he is the public face of the project and should make extra effort to
> > contact people when doing so would benefit the project.
>
> Sure, but many of these people don't put telephone numbe
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I originally sent this mail to:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> i.e. Leader and Project SCUD
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As DPL he is the public face of the project and should make extra effort to
> contact people when doing so would benefit the project.
Sure, but many of these people don't put telephone numbers on
their emails. Some put a web address and then you can work o
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:46:34AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> You missed:
> > > I received an interview request from Andy Channelle of the UK
> > > publication Linux Format, but unfortunately was unable to get my
> > > response to him because he's `blocking my mail`_. A freelancer for
> > > the
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Adam McKenna]
> > It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckwits.
>
> Sure. Just carry on the way you are. :)
>
> > It is not acceptable for our DPL to behave that way (not when acting
> > in his role a
[Adam McKenna]
> It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckwits.
Sure. Just carry on the way you are. :)
> It is not acceptable for our DPL to behave that way (not when acting
> in his role as DPL, anyway).
Good thing he isn't behaving like that. He is not the one rejecti
Manoj Srivastava wrote on 22/06/2005 07:07:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:35:31 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
>>
>>>1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
>>>
>>>2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse t
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:03:15AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't see him trying to fix anything. Rather, I see him not wasting
> time on trying to fix brainlessly broken crap but instead just
> ignoring it and carrying on.
It is fine for individual developers to act like antisocial fuckw
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:42:30AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:30:14PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or
> > best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which
> > isn't on that list) in o
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:30:14PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or
> best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which
> isn't on that list) in order to help the Debian project's image and
> not just been seen as bit
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> No. The DPL, hopefully, jas better ways to spend his time, and
> more critical tasks to perform, than to jump through hoops to please
> people who just drop mail without paying any attention to content.
Note that this mi
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.22.1642 +0200]:
> > how is whinging a valid option? it won't even achieve anything
> > (aside from making you look like a whinging loser)
>
> http://ursine.ca/Craig_Sanders Or yourself.
Wow. Are we going passive aggressive now?
Things like h
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:10:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:26 +0100, Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on,
> > but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe
> > that o
On Wednesday June 22 2005 12:19 am, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > You wrongly assume it isn't a valid option when for many people
> > it's the only option. Deal.
>
> how is whinging a valid option? it won't even achieve anything
> (aside from making you look like a whinging loser)
http://ursine.ca/Cra
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:44:00PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
> >
> > because you can't do it yourself for free -
On Tuesday June 21 2005 9:12 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> > > also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242
+0200]:
> > > > > And if your argument here is that t
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:30:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am sick and tired of hearing this argument.
>
> Guess how many choices I have for broadband where I live.
>
> The answer: ONE.
you also have access to any of the hundreds of email service providers
on the net, with secure access m
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:05:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:12:55 +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights
> > are being infringed because your dynamic-IP mail is being
> > blocked. you
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:37:14AM -0400, Blu Corater wrote:
> I reject at SMTP time any mail to which I can't answer, with a polite
> 550 message explaining that the server is blocking legitimate mail
> arbitrarily.
it's your server, it is your right to use whatever arbitrarily stupid
blocking r
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:35:31 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
>> 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
>>
>> 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
>> claim to be from my d
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:26 +0100, Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on,
> but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe
> that occasional jumping through hoops may be required.
I don't. Peopl
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:12:55 +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights
> are being infringed because your dynamic-IP mail is being
> blocked. you do not have ANY right to demand that your mail must be
> accepted by anyone
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 02:12:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 05:04:32AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> > > also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > > > > And if your argument here i
do
not have ANY right to demand that your mail must be accepted by anyone.
nobody has that right.
craig
ps: as for branden's mail policies - IMO, if he can't email someone because
they block him, he is under no obligation to lose any sleep over it.
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:57:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Marino Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, I support Branden's general approach, but think it would be
> > better to include some more active announcement. I think it's
> > unreasonable to demand post-holders work to accommoda
Matthew Garrett writes:
> I have no objection to Branden *as Branden* refusing to deal with users
> who drop mail. However, I think Branden as DPL ought to deal with reality
> rather than trying to fix everything that's broken with the world. His
> job there is to benefit Debian, not to reduce gene
Marino Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I support Branden's general approach, but think it would be
> better to include some more active announcement. I think it's
> unreasonable to demand post-holders work to accommodate daft
> mailserver configurations.
I have no objection to Branden *as Br
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Simon Huggins wrote:
> Our elected leader, when faced with a problem that he knows will
> stop his mail being delivered to certain recipients, should IMHO
> work around it in order to fulfill his role.
Sure, it would be nice if the DPL would, but it would also be nice if
the D
also sprach Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.20.0252 +0200]:
> I'd be impressed if your ISP can rewrite the Received: header
> produced by the hop after them to change the IP address of their
> SMTP server into your IP address.
That's really not difficult, and it's being done. Remember:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 06:32:49PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> > > For what it's worth: how do you know they don't intercept the
> > > mail that your mail spool then sends out?
> >
> > Eventually you get a bounce with the
Simon Huggins wrote:
> I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a problem the
> project needs to address if the leader is going to continue to send mail
> =66rom a blacklisted host and not care about doing so.
Blocking based solely on blacklists (instead of using them as one
part in
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:49:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Blacklisting based on dial-up or dynamic status is nothing more than
> an effort to turn the internet into an oligarchy, where only the rich
> and powerful can control mail. It's a power grab. That's all it does
> and all it's inten
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> > 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
> > 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
> > claim to be from my dropbear address
On Sunday June 19 2005 9:32 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> > So punish them specifically. There are blackholes that do that.
> > bl.spamcop.net, sbl.spamhaus.org, xbl.spamhaus.org and
> > bl.ursine.ca all do that.
>
> And then t
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1544 +0200]:
> So punish them specifically. There are blackholes that do that.
> bl.spamcop.net, sbl.spamhaus.org, xbl.spamhaus.org and bl.ursine.ca
> all do that.
And then they just hang up and dial in again to get a new IP.
> You need
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:40:19PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I disagree. These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it
> against relaying. I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spoo
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:31:28AM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> Blacklisting via the DUL is a
> positive measure when coupled with virus scanning smarthosts as it
> reduces the number of virus mails spread by clients like Outlook.
So is dropping all incoming mail.
Virtually ANYTHING reduces the
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
>
> 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
> claim to be from my dropbear address instead of the ISPs domain.
>
> 3) If I can't afford DSL or cable,
On Sunday June 19 2005 6:22 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1404 +0200]:
> > Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
>
> The problem is not you, the problem are the other morons who think
> like you *and* can't operate mail ser
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1404 +0200]:
> Why pay someone else to do what I can do myself for free?
The problem is not you, the problem are the other morons who think
like you *and* can't operate mail servers. With that I mean: I have
no reason to believe that you ca
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I se *no* (read that again: NO) reason why anyone
> should run a mail spool on a dial-up.
1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that?
2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they
claim to be from my dropbear address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-06-2005 12:40, martin f krafft wrote:
> These days, any moron and their father can set up a mail
> server with proper queuing. That does not mean they can protect it
> against relaying.
And because some (alot) can do it wrong, noone should be al
Hallo Paul,
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-19 14:06]:
> On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > > > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > > > sucks, delays or drops
On Sunday June 19 2005 3:55 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > > sucks, delays or drops mail, or whatever, well... switch your
> > > goddamn provider then.
> >
> >
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1242 +0200]:
> > And if your argument here is that their provider's mail spool
> > sucks, delays or drops mail, or whatever, well... switch your
> > goddamn provider then.
>
> Can't. Monopoly.
Get yourself a separate mail provider then. gm
On Sunday June 19 2005 3:40 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> And if your argument here is
> that their provider's mail spool sucks, delays or drops mail, or
> whatever, well... switch your goddamn provider then.
Can't. Monopoly.
--
Paul Johnson
Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): [EMAIL PROTECTED
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.06.19.1153 +0200]:
> Y'all do realize that greylisting takes care of those about 9 out
> of 10 times, and the overhead to do virus scanning is minimal on
> what does keep retrying long enough to get greylisted, right?
> DULs are considered stupid,
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:53:21AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's
> > academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via
> > the DUL is a positive measure when coupl
On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote:
> You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's
> academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via
> the DUL is a positive measure when coupled with virus scanning
> smarthosts as it reduces the number of virus
Hi all,
I originally sent this mail to:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i.e. Leader and Project SCUD
I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a
59 matches
Mail list logo
