Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it

Robert Jakowenko/KONSTANTYNOW/SWEDWOOD is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 2004-06-10 and will not return until 2004-06-17. I will respond to your message when I return.

Re: Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

On 11/06/04 01:28, Alex Owen wrote: Are there any plans to change the position stated at: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan "Q: How long will security updates be provided? A: The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year after the next stable distributi

Florian Schmitz [tecorange] ist außer Haus.

Ich werde ab 10.06.2004 nicht im Büro sein. Ich kehre zurück am 28.06.2004. Guten Tag, leider können Sie mich zur Zeit nicht persönlich erreichen. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an Frau Natalie Kamac (2736-857 / [EMAIL PROTECTED]) oder Herrn Matthias Platz (Tel. 2736-827 / [EMAIL PR

Re: Spam fights

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:03, Alain Tesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it

Robert Jakowenko/KONSTANTYNOW/SWEDWOOD is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 2004-06-10 and will not return until 2004-06-17. I will respond to your message when I return. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

On 11/06/04 01:28, Alex Owen wrote: Are there any plans to change the position stated at: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan "Q: How long will security updates be provided? A: The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year after the next stable distribution

Florian Schmitz [tecorange] ist außer Haus.

Ich werde ab 10.06.2004 nicht im Büro sein. Ich kehre zurück am 28.06.2004. Guten Tag, leider können Sie mich zur Zeit nicht persönlich erreichen. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte an Frau Natalie Kamac (2736-857 / [EMAIL PROTECTED]) oder Herrn Matthias Platz (Tel. 2736-827 / [EMAIL PR

Re: Spam fights

> > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in > > response to virus messages. > > Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's de

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only. > For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in > confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages

Re: Spam fights

> > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list > > subscriber-only. For individual accounts such behaviour is very > > anti-social as it results in confirmation messages being sent in > > response to virus messages. > > Not if the message if refused by the smtp server before it's de

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:58:33 +1000 Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For mailing lists this can be achieved by making the list subscriber-only. > For individual accounts such behaviour is very anti-social as it results in > confirmation messages being sent in response to virus messages

Re: Spam fights

hi ya jaroslaw On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > In mean time, I've found additional way for spam filtering, but it > requires some development. The basic idea is simple and already in use: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. already done ... most MTA support a whitelist and

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from > > what you thing about this idea. > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the pro

Re: Spam fights

hi ya jaroslaw On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jaroslaw Tabor wrote: > In mean time, I've found additional way for spam filtering, but it > requires some development. The basic idea is simple and already in use: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. already done ... most MTA support a whitelist and

Chris Luton/CBR/IPAustralia is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 09/06/2004 and will not return until 27/06/2004. I will respond to your message when I return.

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 04:58, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm planning to develop this feauture, but It will be nice to hear from > > what you thing about this idea. > > Don't do it. Confirmation systems are just as bad as the pro

Re: Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:28:49PM +0100, Alex Owen wrote: > I ask as I'm commisioning a woody system and cannot upgrade to sarge till > July/August 2005 so I'll probably need a year of woody security updates. I don't think you have much to worry about. The infrastructure is in place and was used

Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

Are there any plans to change the position stated at: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan "Q: How long will security updates be provided? A: The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year after the next stable distribution has been released, except when ano

Chris Luton/CBR/IPAustralia is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 09/06/2004 and will not return until 27/06/2004. I will respond to your message when I return. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:28:49PM +0100, Alex Owen wrote: > I ask as I'm commisioning a woody system and cannot upgrade to sarge till > July/August 2005 so I'll probably need a year of woody security updates. I don't think you have much to worry about. The infrastructure is in place and was used

Security for woody after woody->sarge ?

Are there any plans to change the position stated at: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan "Q: How long will security updates be provided? A: The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year after the next stable distribution has been released, except when ano

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: > I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it! That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with my address in the

challenge-response antispam systems in the BTS (was Re: Spam fights)

[this is offtopic here, but since the issue was raised on d-security, I thought I'd follow up there and move to d-devel if it's worth a discussion.] * Dmitry Golubev [Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:27:04 +0300]: > On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:58, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 10

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who are replyin

cvs exploits - when triggerable?

Hi all! In most cases, this is a bit vague on when an attacker can trigger the bugs. pserver without authentication? pserver anonymous access? pserver readonly access? pserver commit access? ssh/local access? In a few cases, it is mentioned

Re: Spam fights

I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! (well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works - that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I do not want to waste my time answering to that spam. Dmitry On Thur

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. Who is "we" in this context? Individual users or mailing list administrators? > For unknown sender, automated confirmation request is send. If For mailing lists this can be achieved

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: > I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! If *I* receive a confirmation message, I always respond to it! That's because all confirmation messages I get are in response to spam with my address in the

challenge-response antispam systems in the BTS (was Re: Spam fights)

[this is offtopic here, but since the issue was raised on d-security, I thought I'd follow up there and move to d-devel if it's worth a discussion.] * Dmitry Golubev [Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:27:04 +0300]: > On Thursday 10 June 2004 11:58, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 10

Spam fights

Hi all! As I see, there ia a lot of issues regarding spam, so I'd like to add something from me:) Because my email was used on many discussion lists, I was receiving sometimes over 100 spam emails per day. A long time ago I've started fighting with them using many different methods

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:27:04PM +0300, Dmitry Golubev wrote: I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! Me three. I take a confirmation thingy as a sign that the person doesn't really need my email. Hint: if you require confirmations from people who are replying t

cvs exploits - when triggerable?

Hi all! In most cases, this is a bit vague on when an attacker can trigger the bugs. pserver without authentication? pserver anonymous access? pserver readonly access? pserver commit access? ssh/local access? In a few cases, it is mentioned

Re: Spam fights

I second that. If I receive a confirmation message I never respond to it! (well, when I first received such a message, I wanted to try how it works - that was the only confirmation I responded to). Maybe that's impolite, but I do not want to waste my time answering to that spam. Dmitry On Thur

Re: Spam fights

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:21, Jaroslaw Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are allowing all emails from whitelits. Who is "we" in this context? Individual users or mailing list administrators? > For unknown sender, automated confirmation request is send. If For mailing lists this can be achieved

Re: [bulletproof.net.au #27507] [Comment] [SECURITY] [DSA 515-1] New lha packages fix several vulnerabilities

> > The Gateway seems not have security.debian in its sources list. > wanted to download the package manually with wget, however a dpkg shows > that is needs other libs I am stalling this for now until I know > what I want to do. > > Intel IA-32 architecture: > > http://security.debian.org/pool

Spam fights

Hi all! As I see, there ia a lot of issues regarding spam, so I'd like to add something from me:) Because my email was used on many discussion lists, I was receiving sometimes over 100 spam emails per day. A long time ago I've started fighting with them using many different methods