|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Jay ChandlerJay Chandler
Date: Feb 19, 2007 23:05
>>> It
>>> would be unreasonable to expect people to not check URLs in email against
>>> Spamhaus' ZEN. Thus, any mail merel mentioning URLs pointing PBL-listed
>>> Nortel web servers will be false positives.
>>
>>Correct. Which is why the documentation says not to do that.
>
>It is unreasonable to expect people to read documentation that
>carefully. You can rant and rage about critical reading or think
>skills, but you can't chagne human nature.
If you use a block list without scrutinizing it backwards, forwards,
and upside down to ensure it's suited to the purpose you're going to
put it to, you deserve anything and everything that happens as a
result.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Jay ChandlerJay Chandler
Date: Feb 19, 2007 23:04
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:20:23 +0100, Matthias Leisi
leisi.net> wrote:
>
>Chris and Jay, thank you for sharing your experiences :)
>
>-- Matthias
Why does this suddenly feel like alcoholics anonymous? :-D
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Jay ChandlerJay Chandler
Date: Feb 19, 2007 23:03
>Insofar as I am currently aware of, there is precisely two
>exemptions to port 25 blocking over and above our "normal"
>mail transport infrastructure. One of those exemptions being
>one of my machines ;-)
I exempted a range (what we used to call a Class C back before CIDR)
for our servers, and have been known to stick a desktop or two in that
range from time to time, purely for testing purposes, you
understand...
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Steven J. SobolSteven J. Sobol
Date: Feb 19, 2007 22:26
> If the terms are spelled out clearly at the point of address collection,
> and not hidden on another page, then at least I'm willing to cut the list
> operator some slack; if I don't like the terms, I'll take my business
> elsewhere.
>
> If the terms are hidden, then they don't apply.
Well, aside from the fact that I don't consider a visible link to the
policy to be "hidden", I think we mostly agree. My point is: look, and
if you don't like what you see, don't give the address, and it sounds
like we're on the same page, and just disagree about some of the
details.
> The address owner's
> inalienable right to not be added to lists against his will stands.
I was never arguing otheerwise.
> You do understand that the whole "privacy policy" deal, at least in the
> USA, is the exact opposite of privacy, right?
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Greg SamsonGreg Samson
Date: Feb 19, 2007 22:22
Greg Samson wrote:
> In fact, in this case, I think I'll make that *and*.
And by that, I meant "Ralph," btw. Got to get more sleep before posting.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Greg SamsonGreg Samson
Date: Feb 19, 2007 21:48
Organic Gloomrider wrote:
>> [Ralph's too]
>
> Moris' delusions are well documented in NANAE. It would be best to ignore
> him as most others do. If the evolution of anti-spam countermeasures feeds
> Ciprut's fragile self image, so be it.
>
> Killfile the troll.
...Or, quite likely, be killfiled yourself.
In fact, in this case, I think I'll make that *and*.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: DLUDLU
Date: Feb 19, 2007 21:32
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>>The Kat wrote:
>>
>>>DLU wrote:
>>>
>>>>The received from line appears to come directly from
>>>> an IANA address.
>>>
>>>Which means, obviously, that THAT line is forged...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Chris PickettChris Pickett
Date: Feb 19, 2007 21:13
In article entropy.org>, Tester
test.org> wrote:
>
> Zip codes in the 101xx and 102xx range usually refer to one building
> or building complex in Manhattan.
>
Wow. I knew the population was rather dense(as in lots of people. However,
could be the other one too), but a building needing its own zip code.
That's the first I've heard of that. Then again, New York isn't a region I
have an interest in visiting or relocating to.
--
The Deadbeats' Hall of Lame: http://www.studio42.org/
Where spammers are exposed for the deadbeats they truly are.
California Resident says: We've upped our standards, so now UP YOURS!
Don't respond to this address. It's invalid and I own the domain.
Chris Pickett, Studio42: http://www.studio42.com/ Sacramento, CA
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: DGDevinDGDevin
Date: Feb 19, 2007 20:02
"Richard Johnson" whirlpool.river.com> wrote in message
news:qpspa4-qq8.ln1@news.river.com...
> How is money on a park bench the slightest bit like an email address
> provided (but not confirmed) to a specific list operator you suspect of
> running an opt-out spam list?
Because in both cases someone is creating the circumstances in which they
might be victimized for the sole purpose of being victimized. Unless I
misread his posts the fellow who signed up spam traps for a poorly
configured mailing list had not heard from them before, he was taking
defensive measures against someone who apparently had no interest in sending
him mail. Ditto with leaving money on a park bench in hopes a thief comes
along so you know not to trust him in future, surely it would have made more
sense to keep your money in your pocket.
> I'm not getting your analogy. I suspect that's because it's a bad one.
Or because you're determined not to, I suspect the latter.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Vernon SchryverVernon Schryver
Date: Feb 19, 2007 19:21
In article newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
>>> As a matter of fact, I think that Javascript was named
>>> after Java mainly because Java was "hot".
>>
>> That sounds exceding unlikely to anyone who knows Brendan Eich.
>
>Didn't he originally call it something like Mocha Live Script,
> and Netscape renamed it to JavaScript?
Maybe I'm partly wrong.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2001/04/06/js_history.html
claims:
The language he created was christened "LiveScript," to reflect its
dynamic nature, but was quickly (before the end of the Navigator
2.0 beta cycle) renamed JavaScript, a mistake driven by marketing
that would plague web designers for years to come, as they confused
the two incessantly on mailing lists and on Usenet.
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
