Hello Andre,
I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email agents.
If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages from
people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just impoliteness.
G?rard.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Mail Delivery Service wrote:
> - These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
>
> [email protected]; Action: Failed; Status: 5.3.0 (other or undefined mail system status)
> Remote MTA mail.linuxdiskcert.org: network error
>
> - SMTP protocol diagnostic: 550 <[email protected]>... We don't accept mail from spammers
G?rard Roudier wrote:
> Hello Andre,
>
> I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email agents.
>
> If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages from
> people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just impoliteness.
>
> G?rard.
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Mail Delivery Service wrote:
>
>
>> - These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
>>
>>[email protected]; Action: Failed; Status: 5.3.0 (other or undefined mail system status)
>> Remote MTA mail.linuxdiskcert.org: network error
>>
>> - SMTP protocol diagnostic: 550 <[email protected]>... We don't accept mail from spammers
>>
>
I'm not sure we are specific targets: I have an "@free.fr" mail address
too and using it gives me the same 550. Using a secondary mail address
was ok. The whole "free.fr" domain might simply be rejected.
I don't know the reality behind this as I didn't get any reply from
Andre (still battling with sis5513.c and my SIS735 to make them work
together if anyone cares).
Lionel.
PS : In fact Daniela Engert cares and I thank her again for her time,
but I don't expect anybody to be available 24/24, 7/7 for ugly code
analysis (look at current sis5513.c) especially in these holyday times.
On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> Hello Andre,
>
> I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> agents.
>
> If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages
> from people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just
> impoliteness.
Andre isn't the only one that does this. It seems many people enjoy
blocking people with access to only one smtp server. Esspecialy when
that server is on a very small, isolated ISP, or an ISP that people
just ASSUME is up to bad things.
David Weinehall sent me a private email recently, to which I responded,
but didn't go through because, oh wonder of wonders, the pocketinet
smtp server is listed on A spam list, and an apparent alias,
white.pocketinet.com, is on two.
Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them? I know
for a fact that if someone had actually contacted pocketinet about the
problem customer that sent spam, they would have taken care of it
promptly. It's a very small ISP in a remote area of Washington State,
and it's run by friendly and competent people.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> > Hello Andre,
> >
> > I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> > agents.
> >
> > If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages
> > from people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just
> > impoliteness.
>
>
> Andre isn't the only one that does this. It seems many people enjoy
> blocking people with access to only one smtp server. Esspecialy when
> that server is on a very small, isolated ISP, or an ISP that people
> just ASSUME is up to bad things.
>
> David Weinehall sent me a private email recently, to which I responded,
> but didn't go through because, oh wonder of wonders, the pocketinet
> smtp server is listed on A spam list, and an apparent alias,
> white.pocketinet.com, is on two.
>
> Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
> providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them? I know
> for a fact that if someone had actually contacted pocketinet about the
> problem customer that sent spam, they would have taken care of it
> promptly. It's a very small ISP in a remote area of Washington State,
> and it's run by friendly and competent people.
I just tried the following email address:
[email protected] writing to [email protected] -> spammer
[email protected] writing to [email protected] -> spammer
[email protected] writing to [email protected] -> accepted
So, it may look that 'free.fr' is in some spam list.
Thanks for the reply,
G?rard.
> On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> > Hello Andre,
> >
> > I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> > agents.
> [...]
> Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
> providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them?
Nope. My personal experience with these orbses is: f*ck them.
A good lot of them are _not_ contacting blacklisted ISPs. But on the
other hand, some at least allow fast _unlisting_.
I give you the simple and well-thought hint _not_ to use a mail
configuration relying on _external_ databases whatsoever. I mean why
do you trust somebody you have never met or seen or maybe even talked
to to _filter_ your email traffic. This is obviously most ridiculous
and has _nothing_ to do with security.
I mean just sit down and think it over for a minute...
Regards,
Stephan
> > > Hello Andre,
> > > I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> > > agents.
> > [...]
> > On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> > Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
> > providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them?
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Nope. My personal experience with these orbses is: f*ck them.
> A good lot of them are _not_ contacting blacklisted ISPs. But on the
> other hand, some at least allow fast _unlisting_.
> I give you the simple and well-thought hint _not_ to use a mail
> configuration relying on _external_ databases whatsoever. I mean why
> do you trust somebody you have never met or seen or maybe even talked
> to to _filter_ your email traffic. This is obviously most ridiculous
> and has _nothing_ to do with security.
> I mean just sit down and think it over for a minute...
Would you like to be cc'ed on my spam folder? 50 to 100 spams a day?
Try being a member of the internet since the darpanet days and having
1400 domains with your email address.
Not an easy task. At least in my country and specifically the
internet people are free to interact with others in the way they
find best.
Some people have spam filters, some don't.
--
Brian Litzinger <[email protected]>
Copyright (c) 2001 By Brian Litzinger, All Rights Reserved
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:38:17 -0800
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > Nope. My personal experience with these orbses is: f*ck them.
> > A good lot of them are _not_ contacting blacklisted ISPs. But on the
> > other hand, some at least allow fast _unlisting_.
> > I give you the simple and well-thought hint _not_ to use a mail
> > configuration relying on _external_ databases whatsoever.
> [...]
> Would you like to be cc'ed on my spam folder? 50 to 100 spams a day?
> Try being a member of the internet since the darpanet days and having
> 1400 domains with your email address.
Two notes on that:
1) Please re-read my mail. I wrote "_external_ databases". I did not tell you
to _not_ filter _yourself_. 2) We are just on the brink of the "communication
century". Even if you don't like it, direct communication between people grows
immensly, whereas broadcasting the same information to many people is stepping
back. The reason is simple: people are beginning to dislike filtered (read
censored) information quite a bit, they have simply been told lies too often.
SPAM is of nature broadcasted information, but anyway you would probably not
mind getting the complete same info as a mail _only_ addressed to you. Still
you would choose to delete it, because it may be of no special interest for
you, but you would most certainly not get that angry about it. What I basically
want to say: just live with it. I personally decided so, because I can very
well see the good point: no need to rely on censored (may be for political or
economical reasons) (tv-)broadcasted information about the world out there.
Today you can just talk to a lot of people around the world _personally_.
> Not an easy task. At least in my country and specifically the
> internet people are free to interact with others in the way they
> find best.
Well, I think this is good, you don't?
> Some people have spam filters, some don't.
In the end it's all a matter of who to trust more: yourself or others.
Just to give you a small glimpse: I get several hundred mails a day, my top day
in 2001 reached 832. Interestingly spam is no more than about 5%, and I use
_no_ filter at all (besides my brain :-).
And to end it: I don't want to have _any_ worldcontrol ;-)
Regards,
Stephan
PS: If you want to go ahead in this talk, please keep it off LKML, it doesn't
look like common interest to me.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 01:38:17 -0800
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Would you like to be cc'ed on my spam folder? 50 to 100 spams a day?
[snip]
> > Some people have spam filters, some don't.
>
> In the end it's all a matter of who to trust more: yourself or others.
It's my mailbox, I'll filter it the way I want it filtered.
> And to end it: I don't want to have _any_ worldcontrol ;-)
So why are you telling us how to (not) filter our email ? ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Shortwave goes a long way: irc.starchat.net #swl
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:11:31PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > > Nope. My personal experience with these orbses is: f*ck them.
> > > A good lot of them are _not_ contacting blacklisted ISPs. But on the
> > > other hand, some at least allow fast _unlisting_.
> > > I give you the simple and well-thought hint _not_ to use a mail
> > > configuration relying on _external_ databases whatsoever.
> > [...]
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Would you like to be cc'ed on my spam folder? 50 to 100 spams a day?
> > Try being a member of the internet since the darpanet days and having
> > 1400 domains with your email address.
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Two notes on that:
> 1) Please re-read my mail. I wrote "_external_ databases". I did not
> tell you to _not_ filter _yourself_.
I use external databases.
> 2) We are just on the brink of the "communication century". Even if
> you don't like it, direct communication between people grows immensly,
> whereas broadcasting the same information to many people is stepping
> back. The reason is simple: people are beginning to dislike filtered
> (read censored) information quite a bit, they have simply been told
> lies too often. SPAM is of nature broadcasted information, but anyway
> you would probably not mind getting the complete same info as a mail
> _only_ addressed to you. Still you would choose to delete it, because
> it may be of no special interest for you, but you would most certainly
> not get that angry about it.
Trying to find interesting email among 'Hot Young Teen Girls', which
is at least honest, and among the less forthright emails trying to
masquarade as something else in order to get me to read them certainly
makes me angry regardless of how they are addressed.
> What I basically want to say: just live with it.
Interesting philosophy. You are saying that anyone may speak at you
and you have to at least read the subject line. I wonder what your
corrollary for real life would be?
We are at absolutely opposite extremes.
Go see what my current company does:
http://www.highregard.com
> > Not an easy task. At least in my country and specifically the
> > internet people are free to interact with others in the way they
> > find best.
>
> Well, I think this is good, you don't?
I don't believe my statement implies that I don't.
> > Some people have spam filters, some don't.
> In the end it's all a matter of who to trust more: yourself or others.
I find it a matter of time.
> Just to give you a small glimpse: I get several hundred mails a day,
> my top day in 2001 reached 832. Interestingly spam is no more than
> about 5%, and I use _no_ filter at all (besides my brain :-).
I am glad for you.
> And to end it: I don't want to have _any_ worldcontrol ;-)
Worldcontrol is from the book 'Colossus: The Forbin Project'.
> Regards, Stephan
> PS: If you want to go ahead in this talk, please keep it off LKML, it
> doesn't look like common interest to me.
That has always been a tough issue for me. Your email, which was cc'ed
to l-k, will go into the various archives and forever be "findable" via
google groups and other archives. If I reply offline from histories
perspective I will never have replied.
I have a particularly offensive and inflamatory piece addressed to Alan
Cox in my postpone box, but its somewhat off-topic and since I was out
sick for two weeks (in the hospital) I was really torn about restarting
the off-topic discussion.
On the other hand, when looking at the archives it looks like I didn't
respond to some criticisms, which in many people minds means they
are valid.
--
Brian Litzinger <[email protected]>
Copyright (c) 2001 By Brian Litzinger, All Rights Reserved
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 17:58:17 -0800
[email protected] wrote:
> Trying to find interesting email among 'Hot Young Teen Girls', which
> is at least honest, and among the less forthright emails trying to
> masquarade as something else in order to get me to read them certainly
> makes me angry regardless of how they are addressed.
Hm, this is of course getting very philosophical, but: you must have a very bad
feeling in everyday life, if I take your words serious. How can you cope with
the fact that basically _every_ ad ever published is a _lie_ to a certain
extent. Does this make you angry, too? How can you life with that? Ads do
nothing else but disguise the fact that something should be sold and make
someone real rich. And most of the things sold are really ridiculous stuff
nobody ever needs. Some is even harmful to people, and still they buy it (e.g.
drugs). Emails are only a mirror of The Real Life (tm).
> > What I basically want to say: just live with it.
>
> Interesting philosophy. You are saying that anyone may speak at you
> and you have to at least read the subject line.
Yes, plain and simple: yes.
> I wonder what your
> corrollary for real life would be?
Hm, I am not quite sure if I get what you like to know, but how about:
_learning_ ??
> We are at absolutely opposite extremes.
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think we are both on a road heading in a direction
we both do not know, maybe we meet each other sometime, I can't tell. I guess
your picture of the world is a bit too static currently. "Can you colorize my
life I'm so sick of black and white?" (Jim Steinman, 1993)
> > PS: If you want to go ahead in this talk, please keep it off LKML, it
> > doesn't look like common interest to me.
>
> That has always been a tough issue for me. Your email, which was cc'ed
> to l-k, will go into the various archives and forever be "findable" via
> google groups and other archives. If I reply offline from histories
> perspective I will never have replied.
This is an either interesting point of view. It looks like you live in a world
where the real and absolute truth is still existing, neglecting the fact that
so much knowledge has vanished from this planet and has partly been
rediscovered by later generations. It is very easy to understand that all
archives are by definition limited, and therefore the information inside can
only be limited and never _complete_. So if you read some thread in google (or
whereever) it is very likely you do not get the full picture, because some
information (maybe even important) is simply hidden for various reasons. An
answer not found in google does not mean it never existed. You have to keep
that in mind, if you read the corresponding question there.
> [...]
> On the other hand, when looking at the archives it looks like I didn't
> respond to some criticisms, which in many people minds means they
> are valid.
Well, this cannot be your fault, you are not Jesus. And most likely even he did
not answer every question to full extent, although I tend to think he tried
hard to _listen_ to it.
:-)
Regards,
Stephan
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> SPAM is of nature broadcasted information, but anyway you would probably not
> mind getting the complete same info as a mail _only_ addressed to you. Still
Don't know about you, but I really don't need or want *any*
information relating to Viagra, Teenage Incest and Horses or How To
Secure My Windows Machine showing up in my mail box.
--
Share and Enjoy.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 06:59:22AM -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> > Hello Andre,
> >
> > I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> > agents.
> >
> > If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages
> > from people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just
> > impoliteness.
>
>
> Andre isn't the only one that does this. It seems many people enjoy
> blocking people with access to only one smtp server. Esspecialy when
> that server is on a very small, isolated ISP, or an ISP that people
> just ASSUME is up to bad things.
>
> David Weinehall sent me a private email recently, to which I responded,
> but didn't go through because, oh wonder of wonders, the pocketinet
> smtp server is listed on A spam list, and an apparent alias,
> white.pocketinet.com, is on two.
>
> Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
> providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them? I know
> for a fact that if someone had actually contacted pocketinet about the
> problem customer that sent spam, they would have taken care of it
> promptly. It's a very small ISP in a remote area of Washington State,
> and it's run by friendly and competent people.
Hmmm. I guess you could e-mail me through [email protected] instead.
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
On Tuesday 08 January 2002 11:12 am, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 06:59:22AM -0800, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 December 2001 03:33 am, G?rard Roudier wrote:
> > > Hello Andre,
> > >
> > > I already said you that my replies get not accepted by your email
> > > agents.
> > >
> > > If you want to post to an open list then you want to accept messages
> > > from people subscribed to that list. Doing different is just
> > > impoliteness.
> >
> > Andre isn't the only one that does this. It seems many people enjoy
> > blocking people with access to only one smtp server. Esspecialy when
> > that server is on a very small, isolated ISP, or an ISP that people
> > just ASSUME is up to bad things.
> >
> > David Weinehall sent me a private email recently, to which I responded,
> > but didn't go through because, oh wonder of wonders, the pocketinet
> > smtp server is listed on A spam list, and an apparent alias,
> > white.pocketinet.com, is on two.
> >
> > Now, aren't all these spam lists supposed to try and CONTACT the
> > providers to get the issue resolved before blacklisting them? I know
> > for a fact that if someone had actually contacted pocketinet about the
> > problem customer that sent spam, they would have taken care of it
> > promptly. It's a very small ISP in a remote area of Washington State,
> > and it's run by friendly and competent people.
Unfortunately, no, that's not how they (the black-list maintainers) operate.
Speaking from experience, you get an email informing you that you're already
on the blacklist. Note, also, that being on the blacklist doesn't imply that
you're actually sending span or are being used to send spam, either. You can
get black listed for allowing "open relaying", meaning that your sendmail
will relay from outside to outside, basically. The impotus is on you, the
administrator, to resolve the problem *and* prove to them that it's been
solved. Mind you, this was several years ago, but I doubt that it's changed
significantly.
It sure would be nice if they'd send you an email informing you that your
site has an open relay, and if it's not corrected within, say, 1 week, you'll
be put on the black list. These sites also obviously have tests for checking
for open relays, also. The administrator of said site should be allowed
access to these same tests to aid in diagnosing and solving the problem.
Sorry about the rant. I appreciate what the black-listers are trying to do,
but I think that their method sucks.
-Nick
[email protected] said:
> It sure would be nice if they'd send you an email informing you that
> your site has an open relay, and if it's not corrected within, say, 1
> week, you'll be put on the black list. These sites also obviously
> have tests for checking for open relays, also. The administrator of
> said site should be allowed access to these same tests to aid in
> diagnosing and solving the problem.
I don't understand your complaint - is there any particular stupidity you
think your own mail server might be guilty of, for which you are not capable
testing for yourself _before_ you get blacklisted? Or indeed for which any
responsible admin wouldn't test automatically as part of the process of
commissioning a new system?
Some blacklists do have a policy of warning the owners of offending sites
before actually adding the site to the list, and postponing the addition for
as long as the admin says that they're working on fixing the brokenness.
This gets abused.
The list of offences for which you'll get blacklisted isn't very large. If
you can't manage to set up a well-behaved system without external
assistance, you shouldn't be running it in the first place.
--
dwmw2
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [email protected] said:
> > It sure would be nice if they'd send you an email informing you that
[SNIPPED]
>
> The list of offences for which you'll get blacklisted isn't very large. If
> you can't manage to set up a well-behaved system without external
> assistance, you shouldn't be running it in the first place.
>
Do you mean that there are still helpful sites that forward email
for free?? Humm, that's why the spammers pay all that money to
the ".jp" and ".cz" sites? The rest of the world would be black-
listed -no?
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be
attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del
was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any.