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 Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mailman holds some suspicious messages for filtering by the admin.
>However, for samba.org, this means about 80 messages per week, which
>have to be handled through a clunky web interface, and which take time
>away from more useful tasks
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
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. forged headers.
Am I the only one, or is this something the admin needs to fix in t
32 matches
Mail list logo
