Michelle,
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 07:25:27PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2007-05-17 20:45:54, schrieb Derek Martin:
> > that's true, I am arrogant. But I'm also right. My methods minimize
> > the time spent reviewing unwanted mail, while also GUARANTEEING ZERO
> > LOST MAIL WITH 100% CER
This whole thread has already died. Before it died, some of us (myself
included) went too far, and way too off topic. I'm not going to add any
more to this, and I ask you to consider leaving it alone as well.
Back to discussing mutt! :-)
--
Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group |
*
* Do not Cc: me, because I am on THIS list, if I write here.*
* Keine Cc: an mich, bin auf DIESER Liste wenn ich hier schreibe. *
* Ne me mettez pas en Cc:, je suis sur CETTE liste, si j'ecris ici. *
***
Hey Derek,
I hit List-Reply and...
Why do you have setup a Mail-Followup-To: for Darrin?
He has not requested to do this and I do not want to
bother him with such unrequested BS.
Please stop it!
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux
Am 2007-05-17 20:24:11, schrieb Derek Martin:
> *want*, or possibly even mail from people I know who maintain their
> own mail server, but aren't so good at configuring it. You usually
This is BS (bullshit) since all queuing MTA's know about
"temporary unavaillable" ant try to resend the messages
Am 2007-05-17 20:45:54, schrieb Derek Martin:
> that's true, I am arrogant. But I'm also right. My methods minimize
> the time spent reviewing unwanted mail, while also GUARANTEEING ZERO
> LOST MAIL WITH 100% CERTAINTY. No other anti-spam methodology can do
This is not right, since IF someone w
Am 2007-05-17 17:18:24, schrieb Derek Martin:
> Which is highly annoying for people who legitimately want to send you
> mail, but aren't already whitelisted. I personally hate it, and
> refuse to subject people I know to such irritation.
!!! THIS LIST IS SUBSCRIBER ONLY !!!
So you can grek y
Moin, even though I missed the heat of this thread, there are some
technical aspects I must address for the future, especially to those
against Derek's view, but Derek, too.
This has gone very off-limits for different reasons.
I understand on the receiving end now that I did bad in the past
myself
On 17May2007 17:18, Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:09:36PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
| > You're probably aware of greylisting already.
| indeed.
| > The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
| > doesn't make suspected spam disapp
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:47:09AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:06:12AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
> > >> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until
> > >> it gets widespread enough for sp
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:22:28PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > The greylisting implementation that I use works very well for me.
> [...]
> > There is no mail that goes missing because of false positives.
>
> That you know about
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> The greylisting implementation that I use works very well for me.
[...]
> There is no mail that goes missing because of false positives.
That you know about. But you didn't receive it, so, how would you
know? The only way is if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, May 18 at 10:47 AM, quoth Darrin Chandler:
> Spammers will not adapt to greylisting until they absolutely must.
Mmmm, not true. I already get spam from all manner of people whom I
did business with once and now can't convince not to send
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:06:12AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
> >> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until
> >> it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide to do something
> >> about it (they own enough always-o
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:36:56AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> You make it sound like the entire community is upset by my practice,
> when as far as I'm aware, it's only a handful of exceptions.
> WHY? What makes it so terrible? Why is it so important to YOU that
> YOU should be able to contact
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:06:12AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
> >> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until
> >> it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide to do something
> >> about it (they own enough always-o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, May 18 at 11:54 AM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
>> is that it's one of these anti-spam measures that only work until
>> it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide to do something
>> about it (they own enough always-on Windows spam-bots aft
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:55:12PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Ah, you're right, I was confused.
>
> My only objection to greylisting (aside from the inherent delay that
> it introduces into email)
email is a store and forward system, not an instant message system! :)
> is that it's one of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, May 18 at 10:36 AM, quoth Derek Martin:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:36:50AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> Mmm, I guess it all rests on the specific definition of "people I care
>> about receiving mail from", and in your case, it requires t
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:28:20PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> Yes, you have stopped listening. Otherwise it would have penetrated that
> whatever the technical merits of your "solution" you are still making
> people unhappy after 5 years.
You make it sound like the entire community is upset
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:36:50AM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Mmm, I guess it all rests on the specific definition of "people I care
> about receiving mail from", and in your case, it requires that people
> find a way to contact you in non-private-email (or non-email) form
> first, to request
Come on folks. It's a public mailing list we're talking about here. You
ask a question in public. You get an answer in public. I've seen Derek's
sig line here for years, but be insulted by it??? You got to be kidding.
It's an effing ".signature"!
festus
--
It is not unusual for those at the wron
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 06:30 PM, quoth Derek Martin:
> And the comment in my sig is anything but glib.
Oh come now. Given that "glib" means "insincere" (and shallow), and
that I really doubt you expect anyone to give the spammers a heartfelt
thanks,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 03:05 PM, quoth Darrin Chandler:
>> And one of these is supposed to be less irritating than the other?
>
>
> Ok, you made me laugh!
:)
> FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
> manually interve
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:47:16PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > No. I don't demand that people be humble. I was talking more about the
> > problem that you've stopped listening to people because you're smarter.
> > You're not so smart, after all.
>
> I haven't stopped listening... but people do
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:24:23PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant.
>
> No. I don't demand that people be humble. I was talking more about the
> problem that you've stopped listening to people because you're smarter.
> You're not so smart,
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:45:54PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > Wow. I mean, wow.
> >
> > You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
>
> Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
>
> Perhaps you mean to suggest that yo
Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Wow. I mean, wow.
You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant. Well, if so,
that's true, I am arroga
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> Wow. I mean, wow.
>
> You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant. Well, if so,
that's true, I am arrogant. But I'm also
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Well where's the fun in that? ;-)
--
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:05:40PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
> manually intervene.
Challenge-response anti-spam methodologies are also often referred to
as greylisting, e.g. in this document:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/M
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:56:23PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I assure you, I'm not
> interested. People provide them anyway. No offense at all meant
> (sincerely)... it's just that I've already thought this through in a
> lot of detail, and I'm very
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:53:06PM -0400, Omari Norman wrote:
> It comes off pretty glibly. If it works for you, great, but it is
> definitely a turn-off. Ordinarily I wouldn't care enough about it to
> tell you, but since you seem very interested in receiving opinions on
> this subject...
I'm not
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:30:26PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> And the comment in my sig is anything but glib. A great deal of
> thought and effort went into all parts of my spam management scheme,
> including weighing any potential irritation of people who might want
> to send me mail against t
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:49:03PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Now, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on either of these
> methods (though I acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses)...
> but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black here?
Obviously I don't think so. I think
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:49:03PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Now, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on either of these
> methods (though I acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses)...
> but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black here?
>
> I mean, you have two potential so
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:38:15PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > > For your current setup, you might consider adding a reply-to header
> > > pointing at the list so that mails don't go to the bogus address by
> > > default for humans.
> >
> > You will note that such reply-to already exists, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 05:18 PM, quoth Derek Martin:
>> The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique
>> that doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery.
>> So a false positive means someone gets a bounce, which a
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
> > doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery. So a
> > false positive means someone gets a bounce, which alerts them to the
> > problem.
>
> W
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:09:36PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> You're probably aware of greylisting already.
indeed.
> The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
> doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery. So a
> false positive means someone get
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:36:35PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Actually I don't think spam management is off topic, and even if it
> were I'm not on mutt-ot and not going to sign up. It's completely
> natural that off-topic discussions arise from on-topic threads on
> mailing lists, and I think t
Actually I don't think spam management is off topic, and even if it
were I'm not on mutt-ot and not going to sign up. It's completely
natural that off-topic discussions arise from on-topic threads on
mailing lists, and I think trying to reroute them is largely pointless
and a bit misguided. I don
=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 16.May'07 at 21:21:34 -0400 -=
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:09:20PM +0200, René Clerc wrote:
>
> > * Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [15-05-2007 17:25]:
> >
> > > On 2007-05-15 10:29:19 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > > This message is posted from an inva
43 matches
Mail list logo
