On 31 Jul 2015, at 13:23, Christian Jaeger wrote:
On July 31, 2015 4:51:02 PM CEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
John Levine wrote a definitive debunking of e-postage schemes
including
hashcash over a decade ago (http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf) and
published an update (substantively unchanged) via Viru
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, RW wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:47:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
nevermind, envelope recipient, but that's also easy and contained in
the Received headers
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
by mail-gw.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE GATEWAY) with
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> On July 31, 2015 9:13:03 PM CEST, RW wrote:
>> On 31 Jul 2015 17:57:28 +0200
>> Christian Jaeger wrote:
>>
>>> On July 31, 2015 4:37:14 PM CEST, RW
>>> wrote:
SA usually gets envelope information from headers. Since there are
several headers that could contain
On July 31, 2015 9:13:03 PM CEST, RW wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2015 17:57:28 +0200
> Christian Jaeger wrote:
>
> > On July 31, 2015 4:37:14 PM CEST, RW
> > wrote:
> > > SA usually gets envelope information from headers. Since there are
> > > several headers that could contain the envelope recipient, it
On 31 Jul 2015 17:57:28 +0200
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> On July 31, 2015 4:37:14 PM CEST, RW
> wrote:
> > SA usually gets envelope information from headers. Since there are
> > several headers that could contain the envelope recipient, it would
> > need to be configured, so still wouldn't work by
On July 31, 2015 4:51:02 PM CEST, Bill Cole
wrote:
> John Levine wrote a definitive debunking of e-postage schemes
> including
> hashcash over a decade ago (http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf) and
> published an update (substantively unchanged) via Virus Bulletin in
> 2009
> (https://www.virusb
On July 31, 2015 4:37:14 PM CEST, RW wrote:
> SA usually gets envelope information from headers. Since there are
> several headers that could contain the envelope recipient, it would
> need to be configured, so still wouldn't work by default.
That's why I mentioned RECIPIENT. The MTA knows where
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:47:34 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> nevermind, envelope recipient, but that's also easy and contained in
> the Received headers
>
>
> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
> by mail-gw.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE GATEWAY) with SMTP id
> 3mjWRW6GLQz1
On 31 Jul 2015, at 7:36, Christian Jaeger wrote:
On July 30, 2015 2:40:35 AM CEST, RW
wrote:
The plugin is on by default and use_hashcash defaults to 1, but you
need to set hashcash_accept to an appropriate value
That's disappointing. For me that barely counts as "on by default". I
was
nevermind, envelope recipient, but that's also easy and contained in the
Received headers
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
by mail-gw.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE GATEWAY) with SMTP id 3mjWRW6GLQz1l
for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:37:43 +0200 (CEST)
Am 31.07.2015 um 16:4
Am 31.07.2015 um 16:37 schrieb RW:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:36:21 +0200
Christian Jaeger wrote:
On July 30, 2015 2:40:35 AM CEST, RW
wrote:
The plugin is on by default and use_hashcash defaults to 1, but you
need to set hashcash_accept to an appropriate value
That's disappointing. For me t
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:36:21 +0200
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> On July 30, 2015 2:40:35 AM CEST, RW
> wrote:
> > The plugin is on by default and use_hashcash defaults to 1, but you
> > need to set hashcash_accept to an appropriate value
>
> That's disappointing. For me that barely counts as "on
On July 30, 2015 2:40:35 AM CEST, RW wrote:
> The plugin is on by default and use_hashcash defaults to 1, but you
> need to set hashcash_accept to an appropriate value
That's disappointing. For me that barely counts as "on by default". I was
thinking that implementing hashcash would help get m
On 29 Jul 2015 20:55:55 +0200
Christian Jaeger wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've implemented (or at least so I thought) Hashcash for my outgoing
> mail (in a Perl wrapper around qmail-remote that I already had to do
> DKIM), using the `hashcash` tool as provided by Debian, using the
> `-X` command-line option
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
Hello,
how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by
default, right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried
to do above:)
I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre "loadplugin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>> Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by
>>> default, right?
>> Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried
>> to do above:)
decoder wrote:
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
Hello,
how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by default,
right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried to do
above:)
I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre "loadplugin
Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Hashcash". How
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Arik Raffael Funke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> how does spamassassin handle hashcash? It is turned on by default,
> right?
Yes but you still need to define your accept range as you tried to do
above:)
>
> I am using v3.1.2 and have in init.pre "loadplugin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coffey, Neal wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>
>> Mailing lists dont stamp anything. Read the hashcash FAQ part
>> about mailing lists.
>
> Ok; you're right. Apologies for not reading up on it better.
> Reading through the whole FAQ, though, it still leaves m
decoder wrote:
> Mailing lists dont stamp anything. Read the hashcash FAQ part about
> mailing lists.
Ok; you're right. Apologies for not reading up on it better. Reading
through the whole FAQ, though, it still leaves me with the impression of
being far less than ideal. Which is not to say tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Coffey, Neal wrote:
> Dirk Bonengel wrote:
>> Kelson schrieb:
>>> So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of
>>> compromised machines out there.
>>>
>> Maybe so. But it sure will be more expensive for most spammers to
>> rent 10 times as many
Dirk Bonengel wrote:
> Kelson schrieb:
>> So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
>> machines out there.
>>
> Maybe so. But it sure will be more expensive for most spammers to rent
> 10 times as many machines.
Only barely so. And at the same time, it will be much more e
Kelson schrieb:
decoder wrote:
This would slow spammers down by a factor of 10-100 or more per
compromised machine (depending on whether the messages sent are sent
individually or to many users at once)."
So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
machines out there.
Ma
decoder wrote:
This would slow spammers down by a factor of 10-100 or more per
compromised machine (depending on whether the messages sent are sent
individually or to many users at once)."
So they get a bigger botnet. There's no shortage of compromised
machines out there.
--
Kelson Vibber
Sp
decoder wrote:
> SpamAssassin supports verification of these hashes (this is enabled by
> default, you only need to configure the mail adresses you accept mails
> for in the local.cf
> (http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.0.x/dist/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Plugin_Hashcash.html)
>
I read:
hashcash_
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 17:22 +0200, decoder wrote:
> Well, you can read about the hashcash system at hashcash.org,
> basically, it is a per recipient hash generation that assures that a
> specific amount of time was required to compute this hash per
> recipient. Spammers don't have this time, they s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kelson wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>> basically, it is a per recipient hash generation that assures that a
>> specific amount of time was required to compute this hash per
>> recipient. Spammers don't have this time, they send thousands of mails
>> per min
decoder wrote:
basically, it is a per recipient hash generation that assures that a
specific amount of time was required to compute this hash per
recipient. Spammers don't have this time, they send thousands of mails
per minute.
A great solution... for 2002.
These days, when most spam is sent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> decoder wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> since SpamAssassin supports the hashcash signatures but support
>> for MUAs is rare, I wrote a plugin which is able to stamp all
>> outgoing emails of a postfix server. If anyone is inte
decoder wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> since SpamAssassin supports the hashcash signatures but support for
> MUAs is rare, I wrote a plugin which is able to stamp all outgoing
> emails of a postfix server. If anyone is interested in testing this
> alpha version of the content_filter, please mail me.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Torsten Bronger writes:
> Hallöchen!
>
> I sent a test mail to myself which included
>
> X-Hashcash:
> 1:26:051006:[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]::GydjlgtM9KXnHYAH:000493gL
>
> in the header (generated by "hashcash"). However, t
This sounds like it is probably worth a bugzilla report.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 5:29 AM
Subject: Hashcash plugin bugs
> Hello
>
> I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (and have checked Bugzilla and late
32 matches
Mail list logo
