Hi,
this will be my last email to linux-kernel for a while since
davem and matti are using DUL on vger.kernel.org
If you need to know something, don't count on me posting
anything here. For memory management things, please use
[email protected] instead.
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
Why has the list become more restrictive?
I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The LKML can't toe the
strictest of lines, without loosing some possibly valuable
contributors..
On 03 Apr 2001 18:01:42 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this will be my last email to linux-kernel for a while since
> davem and matti are using DUL on vger.kernel.org
>
> If you need to know something, don't count on me posting
> anything here. For memory management things, please use
> [email protected] instead.
>
> Rik
> --
> Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
> However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
>
> http://www.surriel.com/
> http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant
LinuxAdministration - Internet Services
NetworkServices - Programming - Security
WizardInternet Services http://www.wizard.ca
Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com
--------------------------------------------------------
(604)589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
> Why has the list become more restrictive?
I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
configurations. It has been unmodified since 21-Mar-2000,
that is, over a year...
If e.g. Rik's ISP has added their dialup pools to DUL registry,
that might be the reason behind the change.
> I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
> from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
> company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The LKML can't toe the
> strictest of lines, without loosing some possibly valuable
> contributors..
Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
I would say our methods are fairly effective.
The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
> On 03 Apr 2001 18:01:42 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this will be my last email to linux-kernel for a while since
> > davem and matti are using DUL on vger.kernel.org
> >
> > If you need to know something, don't count on me posting
> > anything here. For memory management things, please use
> > [email protected] instead.
> >
> > Rik
> > --
> > Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
> > However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
> >
> > http://www.surriel.com/
> > http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
>
> --
> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant
In list.kernel, you wrote:
>
>On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
>> from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
>> company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The LKML can't toe the
>> strictest of lines, without loosing some possibly valuable
>> contributors..
>
> Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
> I would say our methods are fairly effective.
A stupid measure, since you cannot determine what was rejected, i.e. how
many babies you threw out with the bathwater.
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
bad habits besides. Censorship usually does more bad than good
(especially since dealing with 80% of the spam is trivial for
procmail), as has been pointed out in this case. The stupidity of the
this approach is well shown by the email-blacklist groups blacklisting
each other, I would think that lkml had more brains.
Controlling email is a power game, where you set yourself up as a tin
god and proclaim that you alone know what is safe for the "dumb"
masses to read. Perhaps the lkml sheep will abide by such control, but
I would think that 'free software' would have 'free discussions'.
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
> Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
> bad habits besides. Censorship usually does more bad than good
> (especially since dealing with 80% of the spam is trivial for
> procmail), as has been pointed out in this case. The stupidity of the
so you would have all ~8000 subscribers add their own procmail rules?
(and post "where'd my lkml mail go" rants here when they get it wrong)
i certainly prefer matti/davem's approach
j.
--
"Bobby, jiggle Grandpa's rat so it looks alive, please" -- gary larson
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:56:21PM +1000, john slee wrote:
> > Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
having more than one local ISP. That's even more true of broadband
connections. Monopoly service is the rule there, not the exception.
Even in those cases where broadband users are given a choice of providers,
they have to know to ask for that choice since it is never offered and by
exercising that choice you will usually find the price to be at least
double if not triple - often through no fault of your chosen ISP. If you
order DSL without your telco's ISP, you'll usually discover a great many
"fees" they only elect to charge if you don't cooperate.
My beef is and always has been with the DUL specifically. I have no issue
with the RBL or RSS lists. ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs'
mail an open relay when it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify
the situation and remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much
confidence. The DUL however is blatant discrimination based on connection
class rather than any real evidence that spammers are at all affected by
it. In fact, DUL users have no idea if the mail they block is spam or
not.
For the record, my spam filters (procmail rules) stop 19 out of 20 spams
from ever landing in my inbox. Of those, 1 in 30 (or less) was a valid
email that was mistakenly identified. I know this because I check the
folder I save those mails to about once a week on average for false
positives. The rule that catches the most? * ! ^TOknghtbrd - perhaps the
oldest spam detector ever and it catches almost all spam without keyword
match or anything else.
Okay, end of rant, please think about it, etc.
--
Joseph Carter <[email protected]> Free software developer
<_Anarchy_> Argh.. who's handing out the paper bags 8)
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
Surprise - my ISP doesn't even seem to have one. Raw IP, nothing else.
Like god made ISPs.
Ralf
--
"Embrace, Enhance, Eliminate" - it worked for the pope, it'll work for Bill.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
> I would say our methods are fairly effective.
>
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
I guess you will have to explain to me why that is supposed to be a
good thing to force people to go though their ISP. I've had personal
experience where I returned to my University which forces everyone to
go though their mail spool and it took me a week or two before I
realized that any e-mail I sent off campus wasn't getting there and I
was using their mail services. Turns out the university changed the
host names for our ip's and my hostname wasn't changed to reflect that
(stupid name I might add and not for human readability, the previous
ones were understandable.)
To this day I don't know what happened to those e-mails, I do know I
didn't get them and the desired people didn't get them.
There is a lot of comfort looking at /var/log/mail.log and seeing mail
accepted by the computer servicing the other person's account. Now
all I have is, accepted by university, hope it gets there...
--
+---------------------------------+
| David Fries |
| [email protected] |
+---------------------------------+
At 09:02 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
>ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
>are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
>having more than one local ISP. That's even more true of broadband
>connections. Monopoly service is the rule there, not the exception.
Concur. One reason I started up my own sendmail for outgoing mail was
because Pacific Bell Internet (in its various brand names) refused to close
up open relays, even when their large clients ran spam relay servers. When
ORBS caused my mail to be blocked to the Linux Kernel list because of this,
I complained to "technical support". Their response was for me to sue ORBS
for causing my mails to be blocked! When asked when PBI was going to close
up the mail relay from their customers' open servers, they said "never."
I had broadband access with them. Fortunately PBI was clueless enough that
I could run my own outgoing mail server and get connectivity back. It took
nine months before I could move off of them.
Other contributors may not be as fortunate -- I've heard about ISPs that
block all SMTP traffic not involving their mail servers. When they are the
only ISP in town, that makes for a bad situation.
I also expect nothing to come from this off-topic discussion, so this will
most likely be the last you hear from me on this subject.
Satch
How about creating an additional ML,
the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
such mails are not sent to LMKL.
If you join to both ML, you get all mails as before. And if you join
to LKML only, you can reject mails from DUL. Of course you can join
to LKML-DUL only if you have strange curiosity.
Reply address from LMKL-DUL should be carefully considered not to
isolate useful discussion started from a DUL mail.
Using these two ML, you have a right for selection, not by given LKML
management policy.
Matti Aarnio writes:
> Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
> I would say our methods are fairly effective.
>
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
[email protected]
[email protected] writes:
> As an alternative, you could write a procmail script which looks at the
> headers and filters however you want to.
As john Slee already said:
> so you would have all ~8000 subscribers add their own procmail rules?
> (and post "where'd my lkml mail go" rants here when they get it wrong)
>
> i certainly prefer matti/davem's approach
Two ML approach is a practical answer.
--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
[email protected]
Matti Aarnio <[email protected]> writes:
> I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
> configurations. It has been unmodified since 21-Mar-2000,
> that is, over a year...
On the subject of vger configuration, the FAQ states that vger "will"
start using ECN as of 22 Feb 2001. This does not seem to have
happened yet. Has this change been cancelled or merely postponed?
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
Personally, this concerns me.
I have a personal mailserver on my DSL line. Now, DSL isn't dialup,
but it's quite widespread and I'm sure it's even more popular among
spammers than the mass market. The doomsday scenario is that one day
all messages messages will have to be relayed through Hotmail, Yahoo,
or another one of a handful of large, untrustworthy corporations. Of
course I know this isn't likely, but what's to prevent people who
can't afford T1's from becoming unable to run mail servers?
It scares me that peoples' messages would be denied based on what
degree of connection they choose to mail via. I sincerely hope that
the DUL lists only list netblocks that are actively being used for
spam. This would be sort of like the Usenet Death Penalty, instating
bans on providers who refuse to deal with spamming. I think that's a
lot more acceptable than shutting everyone who happens to connect to
the internet in a certain way from sending mail directly out of their
local machines.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> How about creating an additional ML,
> the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
> such mails are not sent to LMKL.
Layering and technology problem.
SMTP receiver does those RBL/DUL/ORBS analysis, and its policy
control does not know where exactly the email is heading into
(that is, the reception policy is system level, not by recipients.)
List-processing is done separately from input at Majordomo.
Long after the reception processing.
....
> --
> Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
> [email protected]
/Matti Aarnio
> It scares me that peoples' messages would be denied based on what
> degree of connection they choose to mail via. I sincerely hope that
> the DUL lists only list netblocks that are actively being used for
> spam. This would be sort of like the Usenet Death Penalty, instating
> bans on providers who refuse to deal with spamming. I think that's a
There's another list to do that: the original RBL. The DUL is only and
explicitly for the purpose of denying access based on the degree of
connection the users can afford.
Olaf
Matti Aarnio writes:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> > How about creating an additional ML,
> > the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
> > such mails are not sent to LMKL.
>
> Layering and technology problem.
It may or may not be possible using the current MTA implementation,
but I know you are one of the authors of zmailer, it is possible for you.
Layering problem can be solved by using two different sendmail configuration
files, one is for DUL and another is for non-DUL.
I don't intend you to do, however I think it can be solved by
technology.
--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
[email protected]
Also sprach Joseph Carter
>Even in those cases where broadband users are given a choice of providers,
>they have to know to ask for that choice since it is never offered and by
>exercising that choice you will usually find the price to be at least
>double if not triple - often through no fault of your chosen ISP. If you
>order DSL without your telco's ISP, you'll usually discover a great many
>"fees" they only elect to charge if you don't cooperate.
This is getting to be *very* far off topic, so I'll post this and leave
it as it, but this is a subject that's very near and dear to me...
If your ILEC is doing the above (charging you more fees for DSL if
you're using an ISP other than their affiliated one), then I *HEARTILY*
encourage you (at least in the states) to contact your state Utilities
Commission. Those actions are *blatently* illegal, and the state
utility commission is the organization that would handle that.
This advice obviously may not hold outside of the states. If you'd like
to see an example of this type of action, check out case 1999-484 at the
Kentucky Public Service Commission at http://www.psc.state.ky.us.
Now, let's get back to actual kernel discussions where I can be totally
lost again. :)
--
Jeff McAdams Email: [email protected]
Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
> it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
> remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
I've heard that accusation many times, and on investigation, on the
occasions I could be bothered, it's _always_ turned out to be false -
generally caused by cluelessness on the part of the reporter.
It's very easy for ISPs to get landed in ORBS by customers who use the
outgoing relay for spam which they've wrongly accepted. The ISP's mail
relay doesn't have to accept the mail from the outside world and blatantly
forward it.
--
dwmw2
john slee wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
> > Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Out here I have choice between
dialup (lots to chose from): $200/month(*), not always online.
cable (one company): $25/month, always online, lowsy performance.
ADSL (one company): $50/month, always online, starting january 2001,
delayed without notice: Not yet available.
My only real option is "cable". So that's what I have. These guys
manage to configure every thing badly. So when their mailserver is
unable to get any outside connections, the mail gets queued without
notice on their server, and I won't hear about it.
To me this is unacceptable, so I have to run my own mailserver. This
is not that bad, as I can be always online. (not being always online
means that Email may sit in the queue quite long if for example I'm
online 10% of the time, and a certain mailserver is online only 10% of
the time. I'd have a 1% chance of getting an Email through to this
server, but being always online increases the chances to 10%).
Roger.
(*) Adding in some telephone charges.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots.
* There are also old, bald pilots.
Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> > How about creating an additional ML,
> > the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
> > such mails are not sent to LMKL.
>
> Layering and technology problem.
>
> SMTP receiver does those RBL/DUL/ORBS analysis, and its policy
> control does not know where exactly the email is heading into
> (that is, the reception policy is system level, not by recipients.)
Then fix it!
SMTP receivers should have the option of inserting a header line
instead of blocking "bad" Emails. Then other layers can decide what to
do with this Email.
I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just like I'd
do with those tagged as such by LKML.
After adding the header line, you could easily make majordomo do
special stuff with this Email, but having the header line probably
makes that unneccesary.
If you're willing to pay a small amount to make this happen, or if
you're willing to earn a few bucks by implementing this, stop by:
http://www.cosource.com/cgi-bin/cos.pl/wish/info/402
and http://www.cosource.com/cgi-bin/cos.pl/wish/info/403
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots.
* There are also old, bald pilots.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:22:49PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
> > it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
> > remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
>
> I've heard that accusation many times, and on investigation, on the
> occasions I could be bothered, it's _always_ turned out to be false -
> generally caused by cluelessness on the part of the reporter.
>
> It's very easy for ISPs to get landed in ORBS by customers who use the
> outgoing relay for spam which they've wrongly accepted. The ISP's mail
> relay doesn't have to accept the mail from the outside world and blatantly
> forward it.
Ah, then every ISP in the world belongs on the ORBS list since they all
will indiscriminantly forward their users' mail to other people. Of
course if someone uses them to deliver spam they usually don't get to keep
their account long, but it's our own fault for using a relay which has
been used to send spam right?
Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
--
Joseph Carter <[email protected]> Free software developer
<taniwha> i'd solve a windows key problem with fdisk :)
On 08-Apr-2001 Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Matti Aarnio wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
>> > How about creating an additional ML,
>> > the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
>> > such mails are not sent to LMKL.
>>
>> Layering and technology problem.
>>
>> SMTP receiver does those RBL/DUL/ORBS analysis, and its policy
>> control does not know where exactly the email is heading into
>> (that is, the reception policy is system level, not by recipients.)
>
> Then fix it!
>
> SMTP receivers should have the option of inserting a header line
> instead of blocking "bad" Emails. Then other layers can decide what to
> do with this Email.
I had the same problem of shifting down along the mail chain the knowledge of
the incoming IP address.
We develop VirusScreening and ContentFiltering MTA ( and appliances ) that
usually goes in front of customers MTA.
By putting our MTA in front of the customer MTAs chain We hide the peer IP
address to MTAs that comes next in the mail chain.
Our MTA uses a new ESMTP command :
XRMTIP remote-ip-address
to let customers MTA to know the remote IP address and let them to take all
relay and generic permissions decisions about the mail path.
We're going to distribute patches for most common MTAs like qmail, sendmail,
exim, XMail and postfix.
The patch rely on the presence of a file ( /etc/xrmtip.hosts ) that list the IPs
from which the XRMTIP command sould be accepted.
- Davide
john slee wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
>
>> Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Some people don't have a choice of ISPs. Some people are lucky if they
can even *get* dial-up.
-b
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> SMTP receivers should have the option of inserting a header line
> instead of blocking "bad" Emails. Then other layers can decide what to
> do with this Email.
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-3.20/doc/html/spec_46.html#SEC810
rbl_domains = dul.maps.vix.com/warn
--
dwmw2
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better,
UNIX power users do know better. They know their ISPs mail
server could show up in RSS or ORBS any moment. Therefor they
use their own machines for sending out email.
IMHO DUL is an unethical list to use because it assumes guilty
by default. This is different from all other spam blocking lists,
which only block hosts _after_ they've found something wrong with
them.
The other exception is untestable-netblocks.orbs.org, which blocks
everything it cannot test and is just as bad as DUL.
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
I won't bother answering VM bugreports or anything here. It's up to
Matti and Davem to decide how useful a place linux-kernel will be.
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
Rik van Riel writes:
> Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
true.
Later,
David S. Miller
[email protected]
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Rik van Riel writes:
> > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
>
> Funny how this posting went through then...
>
> If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
> state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
> true.
I'm temporarily using my ISP's smarthost. However, I'll turn
this off again soon because I'd rather stop with linux-kernel
then give in to the guilty-by-default attitude that comes with
DUL.
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
Rik van Riel writes:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> >
> > Funny how this posting went through then...
> >
> > If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
> > state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
> > true.
>
> I'm temporarily using my ISP's smarthost. However, I'll turn
> this off again soon because I'd rather stop with linux-kernel
> then give in to the guilty-by-default attitude that comes with
> DUL.
It's not a guilty-by-default attitude. The DUL is a way for ISPs to
say "we can't make users accountable for email sent from these IP's,
so if you're concerned about potential SPAM, block them at your
end. We've set up a relay so our users can still send out email but
can be held accountable for abuses".
The ISP could have blocked outgoing port 25 instead, forcing you to go
via the relay. Then you'd have no choice.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: [email protected]
Current: [email protected]
> The ISP could have blocked outgoing port 25 instead, forcing you to go
> via the relay. Then you'd have no choice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard....
Any ISP that blocks any port I want to use will see me in court.
Billy
Joseph Carter <[email protected]> wrote:
>Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
>it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad guys" (spammers) than from
self-appointed net.cops.
Wayne
[email protected] said:
> Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm
> going to get the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad guys"
> (spammers) than from self-appointed net.cops.
"self-appointed"?
Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
actually hacked into vger.kernel.org and changed the MTA configuration to
use those lists? I was of the opinion that it was a free choice made by the
administrators of that machine.
Or are you just spouting random shite?
Can we take this pointlessness off l-k now please?
--
dwmw2
David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>"self-appointed"
>
>Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
>actually hacked into vger.kernel.org and changed the MTA configuration to
>use those lists? I was of the opinion that it was a free choice made by the
>administrators of that machine.
OK, "self-appointed" was too strong a term. What ORBS and its ilk do is provide
a simple, easy-to-use method of blocking large chunks of the net from
communicating with other large chunks, regardless of whether the systems blocked
are assisting in spam propagation or not. The *possibility* of someday being
guilty is enough to quarantine them. Granted, it requires the cooperation of
other administrators to accomplish that.
I'm not denying that the administrators of mailing lists have the right to
control what happens on their lists. It's just that I'm personally opposed to
spam-blocking methods that go above the level of a single system, or maybe even
a single user. My primary email account gets tons of spam every day. Often I
get three or more copies of the same spam, demonstrating both that my address
has been harvested from multiple locations and that the spammers are clueless
about managing their own mailing lists. Yet the only defense I use is my delete
key (and a personal resolve never to do business with any of those companies
under any circumstances). I just accept the fact that only one out of every
dozen or so emails I receive will be of any interest to me. The rest vanish
without wasting more than a few seconds of my day. It's not even worth setting
up killfiles, although that would eliminate most of my repeat offenders.
If individual mailing list administrators want to block email from certain sites
because of spam concerns, fine. But I still hold organizations like ORBS, that
encourage such things and make it easy, in contempt. They conjure up an image
for me of those annoying "hall monitors" in grade school who were always hoping
to find someone breaking a rule, so they could tattle on them.
>Can we take this pointlessness off l-k now please?
Your message included l-k in the headers, so my response does also. But I have
no intention of carrying on this discussion any further, in public or private,
so this is the last post you'll see from me on the subject.
Wayne
Or you can do as I have and setup port 26 SMTP, thereby routing around
nazi ISP created damage. Believe me, the damage that RBL, ORBS, etc can
do is incredible. I still use them, but I use them carefully and I
provide escape routes for people who are still under a global
everybody-is-guilty-by-default umbrella.
Any person who is in such a position is free to contact me and arrange
for SMTP transit.
-d
Richard Gooch wrote:
> It's not a guilty-by-default attitude. The DUL is a way for ISPs to
> say "we can't make users accountable for email sent from these IP's,
> so if you're concerned about potential SPAM, block them at your
> end. We've set up a relay so our users can still send out email but
> can be held accountable for abuses".
>
> The ISP could have blocked outgoing port 25 instead, forcing you to go
> via the relay. Then you'd have no choice.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Joseph Carter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
> >it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
>
> Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
> the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad guys" (spammers) than from
> self-appointed net.cops.
>
> Wayne
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Amen!!!
> I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
> I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
> clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
> sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just like I'd
> do with those tagged as such by LKML.
So run exim. It has supported this for years
Alan
Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
could relay through their servers, then I had better give them some good
advice.. Some places I just pick an available IP and it might not be in
the allowed relay list. And this happens when I am in M$ or Linux..
And sometimes, I even go to locations where they can't tell me their
ISP's SMTP mailer.. Not to mention, I shouln't have to reset my
configuration for each location I happen to be at..
The point is, if it is a pain, then people will be less likely to
contribute..
My point was that.. the LKML shouldn't make it tough for legimate
posters.. And if someone's purpose is to spam the list, they can get
around DULS easy enough..
On 08 Apr 2001 02:32:28 +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> > This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
> > Why has the list become more restrictive?
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post directly
> to the world from dialups. And UNIX powerusers should know
> better, and be able to use ISP relay service anyway.
>
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant
LinuxAdministration - Internet Services
NetworkServices - Programming - Security
WizardInternet Services http://www.wizard.ca
Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com
--------------------------------------------------------
(604)589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
> The other exception is untestable-netblocks.orbs.org, which blocks
> everything it cannot test and is just as bad as DUL.
untestable-netblocks is the killer for 20% of the actual spam I get (almost
entirely from rr.com)
> Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> I won't bother answering VM bugreports or anything here. It's up to
> Matti and Davem to decide how useful a place linux-kernel will be.
Thats ok. Andrea will I am sure be happy to take over as maintainer
Alan Cox wrote:
> > I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
> > I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
> > clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
> > sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just like I'd
> > do with those tagged as such by LKML.
>
> So run exim. It has supported this for years
Someone suggested "rblcheck". Installed, works.
Roger.
--
** [email protected] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots.
* There are also old, bald pilots.
Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> writes:
>Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
>I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
>could relay through their servers, then I had better give them some good
>advice.. Some places I just pick an available IP and it might not be in
>the allowed relay list. And this happens when I am in M$ or Linux..
So, Mr. Admin, setup your laptop to use SSL to your SMTP and POP
server and authenticate with a client side certificate on your
laptop. Welcome to the 21st century. You may, however, need a little
more infrastructure than you can pull from your favourite distribution
box.
>And sometimes, I even go to locations where they can't tell me their
>ISP's SMTP mailer.. Not to mention, I shouln't have to reset my
>configuration for each location I happen to be at..
>The point is, if it is a pain, then people will be less likely to
>contribute..
So you made something wrong. My servers have public IP addresses.
Wherever I am on the Internet, I can connect to them. I can
authenticate myself as being me, and they accept my mails. No problem
here. No reconfiguration, either.
Come on people, stop whining. If everybody here is using mobile clients and
different locations for mail sending and receiving, you should either
- get a hosted or housed box with your own mail server
- use a commercial web or POP/SMTP mail service
- get an ISP which does have a clue and its mail server not in ORBS or RBL
(they may, however not be the cheapest around)
or (as mentioned above), set up a box with TLS, relay from everywhere
and their neigbor with authentication to this box and then go out via
a well known SMTP server into the internet.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
> VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thanks !
To come back to the spamfilter promise I made some time ago,
people can now get a CVS tree with spam regular expressions
and a script to generate a majordomo.cf from it ...
Scripts to automatically generate configuration for other
mailing list and mail delivery programs are very much welcome,
as are people willing to help maintain the set of regexps.
cvs -d :pserver:[email protected]:/home/CVS login
password: cvs
cvs -d :pserver:[email protected]:/home/CVS checkout spamfilter
The (majordomo-run) mailing list [email protected] will
be used for CVS updates and possibly discussion about this
thing. I'm already using a procmail rule to automatically do
a rebuild of NL.linux.org's majordomo.cf whenever something
is changed to the CVS tree...
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 02:50:55AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> > Funny how this posting went through then...
> >
> > If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
> > state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
> > true.
>
> I'm temporarily using my ISP's smarthost. However, I'll turn this
> off again soon because I'd rather stop with linux-kernel then give
> in to the guilty-by-default attitude that comes with DUL.
Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
In few weeks time, I probably implement EXIMish "warn"
feature.
> Rik
> --
> http://www.surriel.com/
> http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
/Matti Aarnio
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:34:04PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
> >I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
> >could relay through their servers, then I had better give them some good
> >advice.. Some places I just pick an available IP and it might not be in
> >the allowed relay list. And this happens when I am in M$ or Linux..
>
> So, Mr. Admin, setup your laptop to use SSL to your SMTP and POP
> server and authenticate with a client side certificate on your
> laptop. Welcome to the 21st century. You may, however, need a little
> more infrastructure than you can pull from your favourite distribution
> box.
RFC 2487 STARTTLS
RFC 2554 SMTP-Auth, + M$ Exchange / + Netscape
( + a bunch of other authenticator methods )
Under encryption, plaintext username + password login.
The IETF protocols DO NOT support plaintext login for
obvious security reasons.
No hazzles about autenticating by certificates.
Availability of the feature is probably excidingly rare..
> Regards
> Henning
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
> INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
/Matti Aarnio
>
>
>> So, Mr. Admin, setup your laptop to use SSL to your SMTP and POP
>> server and authenticate with a client side certificate on your
>> laptop. Welcome to the 21st century. You may, however, need a little
>> more infrastructure than you can pull from your favourite distribution
>> box.
>
>
> RFC 2487 STARTTLS
> RFC 2554 SMTP-Auth, + M$ Exchange / + Netscape
> ( + a bunch of other authenticator methods )
>
> Under encryption, plaintext username + password login.
> The IETF protocols DO NOT support plaintext login for
> obvious security reasons.
>
> No hazzles about autenticating by certificates.
>
> Availability of the feature is probably excidingly rare..
Actually TLS/SASL is exactly what I use on my systems and I offer it to
whomever needs it. The way I do it is at
http://blue-labs.org/clue/sendmail.html.
-d
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
>
> VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely to
object to these lists.
--
Joseph Carter <[email protected]> Free software developer
C'mon! political protest! sheesh. Where's that anarchist spirit? ;-)
-- Decklin Foster
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
> >
> > VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
>
> Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely
> to object to these lists.
It might even be good to add inputs.orbs.org to vger. This list
is basically the same as RSS, except that sites can get on and
off faster (RSS is sometimes slow in adding sites to the list
and it is at times also slow in removing sites that have already
been fixed).
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 11:17:29PM -0500, David Fries wrote:
> There is a lot of comfort looking at /var/log/mail.log and seeing mail
> accepted by the computer servicing the other person's account. Now
> all I have is, accepted by university, hope it gets there...
>
While I operate my own mail server at home and work, and agree that having
logs for the entire transaction is great, I may have a solution for you:
Setup your email program to bcc to an address that is also on the internet
(bigfoot.com is what I use) and have it forward to your account at the
university. That way, when it comes back you'll have a good idea that the
other recipient on the internet received the message also.
Mike