On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 11:55:54PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-03-15 15:33:28, schrieb Marc Haber:
> > Looks like the CR system is quite selective in whom it bothers. I am a
> > regular poster on the Debian mailing lists, and I never receive these
> > CR messages.
>
> Maybe your (exce
Am 2006-03-15 14:45:25, schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
> > There were < 100 subscribers from uol.com.br and that ISPs challenge /
> > response mechanism is affecting (at least) > 5000 people.
>
> First, the hurt of even one innocent person being kicked out is, again
> in my opinion, bigger than the pain
Am 2006-03-15 15:33:28, schrieb Marc Haber:
> Looks like the CR system is quite selective in whom it bothers. I am a
> regular poster on the Debian mailing lists, and I never receive these
> CR messages.
Maybe your (excessiv) spamfilter has eaten it? It seems, becasue I
have gotten more then 100
**
* Do not Cc: me, because I am on THIS list, if I write here *
* Keine Cc: am mich, bin auf DIESER Liste wenn ich hier schreibe *
**
Hello Anand and all others.
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> > No. Without users, UOL would not exist, as far as I can tell.
>
> Let me give you people all an idea of scale here.
>
> You are going against something as hard to target as UU.net.
I realise that. However, w
Hallo! Du (Henning Makholm) hast geschrieben:
>Out of curiosity, how did the probe emails some time ago manage to
>*not* locate the subscriber address that generates the bounces? None
>of them bounced?
correct, i got exactly one response to the personalized probe i sent out,
and that was a windo
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:42:40PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:33:28PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, how did the probe emails some time ago manage to
> > > *not* locate the subscriber address that generates the bounces? None
> > > of them bounced?
>
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:33:28PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, how did the probe emails some time ago manage to
> > *not* locate the subscriber address that generates the bounces? None
> > of them bounced?
> Looks like the CR system is quite selective in whom it bothers. I am a
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:40:54PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There's nothing that the mailing list managers can really do to stop
> > the messages unless somehow the address that's doing the forwarding
> > can be identified, and they've already tr
Scripsit Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's nothing that the mailing list managers can really do to stop
> the messages unless somehow the address that's doing the forwarding
> can be identified, and they've already tried all the obvious things.
Out of curiosity, how did the probe emails
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> -announce and -news are moderated lists. I think it's off-topic
> for -announce (not major news or very important announcement)
When you factor that this will affect just about every tier-1 Debian user
(i.e. those who deal with us directly for support), it is e
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> * Ask someone in Brazil to call up the petsupermarket people on the
> phone and see who there is interested in Debian and if they could please
> not forward their Debian list subscriptions to uol.com.br?
It has been attempted already, and it was not wel
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ke, 2006-03-15 kello 05:48 +1100, Anand Kumria kirjoitti:
> > So an uncooperative ISP isn't a valid reason, in your book?
>
> That is correct, at least this early in the process. Before this step, I
> would have liked to see, say, a message to debian-announce a
ke, 2006-03-15 kello 05:48 +1100, Anand Kumria kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Kicking people off Debian lists without proper reason is really, really
> > bad for the project.
>
> So an uncooperative ISP isn't a valid reason, in your book?
That is
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:45:42 +1100, Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well that is the judgement call I made. I'm aware that a number of
> listmasters disagree with this method. And a number agree with it.
> On balance I believe our efforts to resolve this have been extensive
> and that t
Matthew R Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:34:35AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> Since it's not Debian mail *to* uol.com.br that's the problem, but mail
>> *from* them, I'd just habe blacklisted all @uol.com.br sender addresses
>> and their IP space for incomin
Hi Guilherme,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:46:25PM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu:
> > uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
> > we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
> >
Leo Antunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> but have you checked the LDAP database of developers for @uol.com.br
> addresses?
I think any DD can do that. There's probably a better way, but
I used: ldapsearch -x -H ldap://db.debian.org -b dc=debian,dc=org \
emailForward | grep uol.com.br
I'd expect someone
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 05:48 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> There were < 100 subscribers from uol.com.br and that ISPs challenge /
> response mechanism is affecting (at least) > 5000 people.
Going through all the flames in this thread I haven't been able to check
if this has been suggested before, s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
>thing on their users seem right?
Yes. Technically this is called a "fuck you block", and it is often the
only way to get the attention of an uncooperative ISP which is causing
you troubles.
>You are
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:48:13AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Hei Lars,
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > Posting to -devel already brings one a certain amount of spam.
> > > Anything that reduces that will make posting to -devel more
> > > attractive and
Hei Lars,
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:48:58PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Posting to -devel already brings one a certain amount of spam.
> > Anything that reduces that will make posting to -devel more
> > attractive and help improve communication in the project.
>
> Kicking people off Debian
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I freely admit that I am being hostile, because you are defending
> collateral damage from an action that has no actual benefit and does not
> help solve the problem.
Jumping to the wrong conclusions again? I am not defending
the damage. It hurts. I am trying
On 3/14/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ti, 2006-03-14 kello 11:28 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
> > Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
> > > send to -devel is not so great as to warrant kicking out Debian
> > > c
ti, 2006-03-14 kello 11:28 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
> > send to -devel is not so great as to warrant kicking out Debian
> > contributors from Debian mailing lists. Get a life.
>
> I feel y
On 3/14/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ti, 2006-03-14 kello 01:57 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
> > Debian contributors are being cost time and money dealing
> > with UOL's crap anyway.
>
> The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
> send to -devel is not so g
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, MJ Ray wrote:
> No. Without users, UOL would not exist, as far as I can tell.
Let me give you people all an idea of scale here.
You are going against something as hard to target as UU.net.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
> send to -devel is not so great as to warrant kicking out Debian
> contributors from Debian mailing lists. Get a life.
I feel you're being unreasonably hostile. "Many discussions
become aggr
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 22:46 -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> You have dropped a nuclear bomb to kill a
> cockroach, and the cockroach is still alive.
I consider this a bit of a hyperbole. Appearently you can still read and
post to the lists, albeit through another account. It might be anno
"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 =C3=A0s 03:40 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > it seems like a direct fix wasn't expected, but other fix may be.
>
> Yeah, sure, let's just cause pain to their customers, which *are*
> effective Debian contributors, even if it is not go
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 06:06:59AM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> It only affects the contributors, which might not be a problem,
> though, as they may quite possibly turn into ex-contributors soon...
Which exactly makes it a problem. I hope we lose no valued contributors
(including you)
Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 03:40 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> it seems like a direct fix wasn't expected, but other fix may be.
Yeah, sure, let's just cause pain to their customers, which *are*
effective Debian contributors, even if it is not going to help, instead
of accepting their help offers or direct
"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
> thing on their users seem right? You are punishing people which have
> nothing to do with the problem. You have messed with people's work for
> no practical reason. You h
ti, 2006-03-14 kello 01:57 +, MJ Ray kirjoitti:
> Debian contributors are being cost time and money dealing
> with UOL's crap anyway.
The cost of having to delete an autoreply message for every mail you
send to -devel is not so great as to warrant kicking out Debian
contributors from Debian ma
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:34:35AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Since it's not Debian mail *to* uol.com.br that's the problem, but mail
> *from* them, I'd just habe blacklisted all @uol.com.br sender addresses and
> their IP space for incoming mail instead. But I'm not listmaster.
The chal
On Monday 13 March 2006 21:08, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam
> > > addresses and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has no
Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 01:57 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> Banning UOL moves some cost onto
> Debian contributors who are UOL customers. Share and Enjoy.
What part of "the listmasters have always known it would not work, it
did not work and petsupermarket is still subscribed, just as annoying as
ever b
Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 11:26 +1100, Anand Kumria escreveu:
> uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
> we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
> course of last year) to determine where the problem is.
I have offered help with dealing with
Em Ter, 2006-03-14 às 00:30 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> 6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.
Yeah, sure, and also cost Debian contributors time and money. This
measure hasn't punished UOL to any extent, and hasn't helped in any way
to fix the problem. It is simply frustrating and demanding t
"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 =C3=A0s 01:57 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > Banning UOL moves some cost onto
> > Debian contributors who are UOL customers. Share and Enjoy.
>
> What part of "the listmasters have always known it would not work, it
> did not work and
On 3/13/06, Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> > > debian-user.
> > >
> >
> > I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
> > worked as the listmasters
> > thought.
"Guilherme de S. Pastore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Em Ter, 2006-03-14 =C3=A0s 00:30 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> > 6. To compensate, we need to cost UOL money.
>
> Yeah, sure, and also cost Debian contributors time and money. This
Debian contributors are being cost time and money dealing
with UOL's cra
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> > > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no general problem with that domain,
> > > right? [...]
> >
> > The Cha
Hi Guilherme,
Unfortunately we are caught between a rock and a hard place here.
uol.com.br aren't willing to listen to our requests for assistance and
we aren't able to work around them (by sending out probes during the
course of last year) to determine where the problem is.
The only people uol.
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:23:04AM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.c
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 10:23 +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br a
On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 08:23 +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > and anyone with that add
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts to
> > debian-user.
> >
>
> I see, and it's just other reason that this unsubscribe thing not
> worked as the listmasters
> thought. I would like to suggest that they unsubscribe the original
> email ad
On 3/13/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are
I've just mailed a person in UOL, but i still need a better technical
contact that probably i'll obtain through a nic.br person until the
end of this week. If the listmasters or somebody else has a good
summary that was already sent for UOL, please forward it to me.
Thanks,
-- stratus
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > > and anyone with that address (uol.com.
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> have been unsubscribed. In December the Debian listmasters sent a mail
> to every subscriber to see if that would help track down the offender,
> but it seems not. Rumor also has it that the ISP has not been helpful in
> identifying culprit.
No, UOL was
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 às 14:12 -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
[ Breaking the thread as I have been one of the unceremoniuously
unsubscribed ]
Do not be surprised (as someone has already been) if this is of no use:
the listmasters already knew the offender was not using his uol.com.br
e-mail address to subscribe to the lists. Hence, this whole mess simply
did
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:12:12PM -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed
Hi listmasters,
Can you send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and me explaining the problem ? If you already
did, please forward to me the original message.
Thanks in advance,
-- stratus
On 3/13/06, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
>
> Just curiou
On Monday 13 March 2006 04:20, Anand Kumria wrote:
> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].
Just curious: how many accounts where these? I have blocked quite a bit
of .co
On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hi Anand,
>
> Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project.
>
> > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no general problem with that domain,
On 3/13/06, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ma, 2006-03-13 kello 17:53 -0300, Daniel Ruoso kirjoitti:
> > I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
> > stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
> > him from receiving messages until he
ma, 2006-03-13 kello 17:53 -0300, Daniel Ruoso kirjoitti:
> I would recomend sending a private message for those who have this
> stupid antispam asking them to remove or just killfile him or disable
> him from receiving messages until he remove this crap.
The problem is, and has been all the time,
On 3/13/06, Matthew R. Dempsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> > and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> > unsubscribed[1].
>
> I
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Anand,
Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project.
> Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only
> petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no general problem with that domain,
> right? [...]
The Challenge-Response system appears to
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:19:55PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].
I am still receiving those obnoxious messages in response to my posts
On 3/13/06, Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (...)
> That means that as of now, uol.com.br are now considered spam addresses
> and anyone with that address (uol.com.br) has now been unceremoniously
> unsubscribed[1].
>
> Perhaps this action will prompt some kind of response from th
65 matches
Mail list logo
