If you install a challenge-response spam block and do not exempt the ALUG lists, I will unsubscribe you. You need to exempt the list and the address that sends subscription pings. So, if you send an email telling the list admins they must reply for you to get a service that you chose to subscribe to, I will verify your address and then reply by removing you. The list admins have enough to do already, without that. Challenge-response spam blocks are broken and a pain in the back side. Look up "C-R considered harmful" for some of the reasons. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:07, MJ Ray wrote:
If you install a challenge-response spam block and do not exempt the ALUG lists, I will unsubscribe you. You need to exempt the list and the address that sends subscription pings.
So, if you send an email telling the list admins they must reply for you to get a service that you chose to subscribe to, I will verify your address and then reply by removing you. The list admins have enough to do already, without that.
Challenge-response spam blocks are broken and a pain in the back side. Look up "C-R considered harmful" for some of the reasons.
Report them to the black lists. I send all C-R messages to SpamCop. They are spam pure and simple, regardless of the motives of the person running the mail server, especially when most spam "From" addresses are spoofed. I don't tolerate that kind of thing on my mailserver. You are being very lenient by only unsubscribing them. Matt -- http://www.mpcontracting.co.uk Experts in Java development and website design
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:44:06AM +0100, Matt Parker wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 11:07, MJ Ray wrote:
If you install a challenge-response spam block and do not exempt the ALUG lists, I will unsubscribe you. You need to exempt the list and the address that sends subscription pings.
So, if you send an email telling the list admins they must reply for you to get a service that you chose to subscribe to, I will verify your address and then reply by removing you. The list admins have enough to do already, without that.
Challenge-response spam blocks are broken and a pain in the back side. Look up "C-R considered harmful" for some of the reasons.
Report them to the black lists. I send all C-R messages to SpamCop. They are spam pure and simple, regardless of the motives of the person running the mail server, especially when most spam "From" addresses are spoofed. I don't tolerate that kind of thing on my mailserver. You are being very lenient by only unsubscribing them.
Coo - now *theres* something I never expected to see... Mark being labelled as lenient. /me marks it down in the diary ;) -- Brett Parker
On 2004-05-04 11:44:06 +0100 Matt Parker <matt@mpcontracting.co.uk> wrote:
Report them to the black lists. [...]
I regard most blacklists as broken too. They variously allow vindictive forgers to DoS people, or harm innocent customers of a slow-to-respond ISP without giving enough details for the innocent customers to "encourage" their ISP. They're useful input to scoring systems, but postmasters ought not to use them to refuse email, IMO.
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:28, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-04 11:44:06 +0100 Matt Parker <matt@mpcontracting.co.uk> wrote:
Report them to the black lists. [...]
I regard most blacklists as broken too. They variously allow vindictive forgers to DoS people, or harm innocent customers of a slow-to-respond ISP without giving enough details for the innocent customers to "encourage" their ISP. They're useful input to scoring systems, but postmasters ought not to use them to refuse email, IMO.
I disagree, but I guess you thought I would ;-) I find them to be the best method of spam prevention. As for the forging report issue, you do have to be careful which blacklist(s) you point your server at, since some have a reputation for listing on sight and then being slow to respond (I don't use SPEWS for that reason). In particular you have to "trust" them to get it right. That comes with reading online reports and watching your logs carefully with the "warn" setting before you go for the full on reject. I find that SORBS is good for filtering out mail from dynamic DSL (which is always spam - if you want to run a mailserver you should have a static IP), and SpamCop is good since they seem to be more responsive to the "DoS" problem than the other lists. Matt -- http://www.mpcontracting.co.uk Experts in Java development and website design
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:38, Matt Parker wrote:
I find that SORBS is good for filtering out mail from dynamic DSL (which is always spam - if you want to run a mailserver you should have a static IP), and SpamCop is good since they seem to be more responsive to the "DoS" problem than the other lists.
So how do you determine if the user is allocated the IP statically vs dynamic. Since an ISP might have block 82.6.0.0/16 allocated to them for "dynamic internet access", and assign 82.6.7.8/32 to a user. How exactly do you know it's static... the listing on RIPE isn't going to be much use. Mail from dynamic DSL is not alway spam, as long as you aren't like AOL which just doesn't follow the SMTP protocol when an IP it doesn't like tries to send mail to it's users. -- Regards, Adam Allen. adam@dynamicinteraction.co.uk pgp http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x553349DB
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 20:01, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:38, Matt Parker wrote:
I find that SORBS is good for filtering out mail from dynamic DSL (which is always spam - if you want to run a mailserver you should have a static IP), and SpamCop is good since they seem to be more responsive to the "DoS" problem than the other lists.
So how do you determine if the user is allocated the IP statically vs dynamic. Since an ISP might have block 82.6.0.0/16 allocated to them for "dynamic internet access", and assign 82.6.7.8/32 to a user. How exactly do you know it's static... the listing on RIPE isn't going to be much use.
Mail from dynamic DSL is not alway spam, as long as you aren't like AOL which just doesn't follow the SMTP protocol when an IP it doesn't like tries to send mail to it's users.
According to this - http://www.dnsbl.nl.sorbs.net/DUL-FAQ.html - the ISPs themselves submit to them what are their dynamic IP blocks and which are static. SORBS suggest that if you are on a dynamic IP that you route your mail through the ISPs own mailservers. Sensible really. Matt -- http://www.mpcontracting.co.uk Experts in Java development and website design
participants (4)
-
Brett Parker -
Matt Parker -
MJ Ray -
Mr. Adam ALLEN