On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:50:59AM +1100, Tomasz Ciolek wrote:
> yes but most RFC complaint mailers will append the plaintext version
> of the email as well as the HTML version.
Not necessarily. A mail with the multipart/alternative mime type will
(should) have the plaintext attached. HTML-
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:22:25PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > Some time last fall apparently Korea passed an OPT-OUT with the
> > equivalent of "ADV" in the headers law. Right after that, list that I
> > subscribe to at a major university went from 2 spams a week to over 8
> > spams a day.
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Martin Pool) 12.12.02 12:39
>People writing from (say) China may be using
>a mail client that sends messages in a Chinese character set. Some of
>those character sets contain latin characters, so they may have in
>fact been writing a purely English message, or perhaps an Englis
On 10 Dec 2002, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First let me say that Martin (and any others list managers)
> is doing pretty well. Although there was a breif rise in
> the volumen of spam leaking through during the transition
> it has settled down quite nicely. This is an arms war and
>
On 9 Dec 2002, "John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will agree that the SAMBA lists are being kept more spam free than
> some of the other mail servers that I get e-mail on.
Just as an interesting data point: our bogofilter setup caught 60 spam
messages in the last 24 hours aimed a
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> One word of warning on assuming all html mail is bad. Some of us are on
> corporate email systems, subject to pointless arbitrary changes to our
> settings.
A good point. The instructions for turning off mime/HTML for particular
MUAs on the ht
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 12/10/02 03:08 PM
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS)
> Subject:Re: SPAM on List...
> Classification:
>
>
>
> Greetings list admins
>
> I'd just li
cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject:Re: SPAM on List...
Classification:
Greetings list admins
I'd just like to add that as almost all the SPAM I receive is HTML, a very
effective way to get rid of a very large fraction of spam would be to
refuse
all HTML po
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:37:43AM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:08:19PM +1300, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> > Greetings list admins
> >
> > I'd just like to add that as almost all the SPAM I receive is HTML, a very
> > effective way to get rid of a very large fraction of
First let me say that Martin (and any others list managers)
is doing pretty well. Although there was a breif rise in
the volumen of spam leaking through during the transition
it has settled down quite nicely. This is an arms war and
I don't expect perfection. Cudos!
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:0
While on the subject of spam, wouldn't it be an idea to maybe strip
senders' email
addresses from the mail archives, or just making a version with email
addresses
available to subscribers?
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but it occurred to me that
keeping them
publicly visible might n
Greetings list admins
I'd just like to add that as almost all the SPAM I receive is HTML, a very
effective way to get rid of a very large fraction of spam would be to refuse
all HTML posts. I've not seen any genuine posts to this list which have been
web pages.
--
Sincerely etc.,
Christopher
Martin Pool wrote:
You describe a long-term solution in which spam-friendly ISPs are
gradually ostracised. I'm not quite sure I believe you that there is
a clear distinction, that bonafide ISPs are really able to stop spam,
and that being ostracised will ever really cut them off. But
regardless
On 9 Dec 2002, "John E. Malmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it was on any of the reputable blocking lists, I would not be able to
> receive any of the SAMBA lists, and you would be getting the
> bounces.
It has since been removed from some of them.
> I.P. based blocking has shown to be th
Martin Pool wrote:
On15 Nov 2002, Tim Potter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:05:27PM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
The SAMBA-TECHNICAL list reported that they have gone to the
bl.spamcop.net blocking list, and it has been relatively spam
free since then. The bl.spamcop.net is an aggressi
On 15 Nov 2002, Tim Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:05:27PM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
>
> > The SAMBA-TECHNICAL list reported that they have gone to the
> > bl.spamcop.net blocking list, and it has been relatively spam free since
> > then. The bl.spamcop.net
On 14 Nov 2002, Rainer Zocholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the "list owner" should see thru (after spam filtering) the
> remaining messages "on hold".
>
> That would be very nice.
Mailman holds some suspicious messages for filtering by the admin.
However, for samba.org, this means about 80 m
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:50:00PM +0100, Rainer Zocholl wrote:
> The last spam originates from a computer
> listed in RBL ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org
>
>
> I don't think that any regular would have any problem
> if emails from boxes listed as "RfC Ignorant" are rejected, or?
I don't know who cou
The last spam originates from a computer
listed in RBL ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org
I don't think that any regular would have any problem
if emails from boxes listed as "RfC Ignorant" are rejected, or?
U-Received: from black-wizards (unknown [62.248.1.189]) by lists.samba.org
(Postfix) with S
[EMAIL PROTECTED](jw schultz) 14.11.02 12:41
Once upon a time jw schultz shaped the electrons to say...
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:01:02PM +, Bruno Ferreira wrote:
>> - Hold its message
>> - Send an email to that address stating that, once it is not
>> a
>> subscribe
Tim Potter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:05:27PM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
The SAMBA-TECHNICAL list reported that they have gone to the
bl.spamcop.net blocking list, and it has been relatively spam free
since then. The bl.spamcop.net is an aggressive blocking list with
a quick trig
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:05:27PM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> The SAMBA-TECHNICAL list reported that they have gone to the
> bl.spamcop.net blocking list, and it has been relatively spam free since
> then. The bl.spamcop.net is an aggressive blocking list with a quick
> trigger.
We did
Re: Per the discussions about spam on this list.
Sending a confirming message to an unregistered poster is not a good
idea. The return/reply-to addresses in spam is forged, and that is just
adding to some victims e-mail.
Filtering runs the risk that a legitimate message gets lost, and the
se
jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. Sounds like an ideal candidate for DoS.
FWIW, I've used the mentioned setting on all my mailinglists and never
had a problem. I know of other large mailinglists that have done the
same and I have never heard of an DoS attacks on them.
Erik.
--
To
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:01:02PM +, Bruno Ferreira wrote:
> At 12:42 14-11-2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >I was surprised that the list seems to be "open",
> >that i can post with an other eMail address i'm subscribed with.
> >
> >Many other lists are "closed", only "subscribers" can post
> >on th
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Bruno Ferreira) 14.11.02 15:01
Once upon a time Bruno Ferreira shaped the electrons to say...
>At 12:42 14-11-2002 +0100, you wrote:
>>I was surprised that the list seems to be "open",
>>that i can post with an other eMail address i'm subscribed with.
>>
>>Many other lists are
At 12:42 14-11-2002 +0100, you wrote:
I was surprised that the list seems to be "open",
that i can post with an other eMail address i'm subscribed with.
Many other lists are "closed", only "subscribers" can post
on them, making spaming much more difficult.
On those "closed" lists i have 2 accoun
[EMAIL PROTECTED](jw schultz) 13.11.02 20:19
Once upon a time jw schultz shaped the electrons to say...
>On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:07:10PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Howdy...
>>
>>
>> I do not know what is going on, but either I am getting a large
>> amount of SPAM that is being submitt
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:19:52PM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
> I can't say what you got but i know a few minutes ago i had
> three come in, all in a strange charset. The last few days
> have been actually better than before Martin installed the
> new filter.
The charset was gb2312, a variant of th
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:07:10PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Howdy...
>
>
> I do not know what is going on, but either I am getting a large amount of
> SPAM that is being submitted to the list, or I am getting a lot of spam that
> is sent under disguise as coming from the list, i.e. forge
30 matches
Mail list logo
