RE: [OT] RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

RE: [OT] RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

[Stuart MacDonald]

From: Chase Venters [mailto:chase.venters@clientec.com] 
> So what is the SpamCop RBL data used for then?

SpamCop uses it on their own mail service to flag messages as
potential spam and filter those out to a junk folder.

They also publish the list publicly.

So, SpamCop is blocking 0 emails.

As for third parties looking at their RBL, SpamCop specifically
recommends that the list *not* be used for blocking:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/291.html

> (1) The mail _would_ be solicited because you asked for it on 
> my behalf;

So you'll be sending me your snail mail address then? Thanks.

> permission. Phony permission, perhaps, but permission nonetheless...

False permission is no permission at all. That's a widely recognised
concept; in law, life and the internet.

> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
> > Things change.
> 
> Yes, and eventually Internet mail will grow up and forgery 

SMTP is growing up *right now*. The reconfig of servers to not send
unsolicted bounces/etc is part of the growing-up-ness.

The following fall into two categories:

> 1. No more bounce messages
> 4. No more deferral messages

Servers can be configed to not send these. To those whose systems are
set up in such a manner to require accepting the message before
delivery, to paraphrase Chase, "(2) Spammers would be responsible for
your misery, not the parties rejecting your bounces".

> 2. No more "Your message has been queued for moderator 
> approval" messages
> 3. No more "Thanks for contacting CrapCo, your support ticket 
> # is 238417" 
> messages
> 5. No more vacation mail
> 6. No more challenge/response systems
> 7. No more mailing lists that you can sign up to by sending mail to 
> subscribe@list.org or majordomo@list.org; all subscription and 
> unsubscription must be done through web interfaces

All of these should be sent by a human.

> can turn all auto-response systems off completely.

Yep. That's the growing up you were looking for earlier.

It looks like we disagree on the method of change required. That's
life.

..Stu

[OT] RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

[Chase Venters]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Stuart MacDonald wrote:

>> can turn all auto-response systems off completely.
>
> Yep. That's the growing up you were looking for earlier.
>
> It looks like we disagree on the method of change required. That's
> life.

Indeed. Let me make one final point then. If you think this issue is 
important, you might start by asking the administrators of linux-kernel 
and associated lists to toss majordomo away, because sending e-mail to 
majordomo@vger.kernel.org (which is a published address, which will 
respond via e-mail to every message it receives) is the only way to 
subscribe to linux-kernel. (ie: There is no web form)

You'll want to find all majordomo users and tell them to stop using the 
program. Also users of ezmlm will be affected as well. And that's just the 
start.

In reality, there are probably hundreds of mailing list packages that 
rightfully assume that there is nothing wrong with responding to inquiries 
they receive via e-mail. And a significant number of these probably offer 
no native web GUI, making them useless and evil in your new world.

I'd be willing to venture a guess that the majority of Internet mailing 
lists have some form of an autoresponder associated with them. The SpamCop 
folks don't seem to address this issue, nor does anyone else I've heard 
this "no auto-responders" argument from, and nor have you.

You don't have to defend SpamCop's short-sighted attitude. It would 
probably be better to drop such a silly idea as the termination of all 
auto-responders, because it will never, ever happen. There are too many 
legitimate uses of this technology to eliminate it. But as you say, 
we disagree, that is life...

>
> ..Stu
>
>

Thanks,
Chase

RE: [OT] RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

[Stuart MacDonald]

From: Chase Venters [mailto:chase.venters@clientec.com] 
> Indeed. Let me make one final point then. If you think this issue is 
> important, you might start by asking the administrators of 

I think it's important enough that LKML shouldn't be introducing new
autorespond behaviour if it can be avoided.

Quite often I play Devil's Advocate in a debate. I brought up the
point that autoresponders are often considered spam, you seemed to
take a hardline position that autoresponds are necessary and cannot
ever be removed, so I took the opposing hardline position. Makes the
debate interesting.

Personally I consider all Virus, bounce and deferral messages, that
are generated by email I did not send aka had my address forged, to be
spam. There are valid alternate methods that avoid the requirement of
sending those types of messages.

I ignore mailing list join-up confirmation messages. Those are
necessary as there's no other way to confirm an address wants to join.

I ignore the first vacation message, but if I get multiples within a
week, then I report that.

The vast majority of my spam besides actual spam are bounces. Virus
autoresponders used to be common but have stopped. I notice a
correlation between the end of virus responses and SpamCop accepting
them as spam. Mailing lists and vacation notices are very rare in
practice.

..Stu

PS. Still waiting for your snail mail address. :-)

RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

[Stuart MacDonald]

From: On Behalf Of Chase Venters
> You can check the From: or envelope sender against the subscriber 
> database. Forgery isn't a concern because we're not trying to stop 
> forgery with this method. Subscribers subscribing one address 

Forgery is always a concern...

> The perl script behaves as an optional autoresponder. 
> Autoresponders would 
> respond to spam as well (well, unless you put a spam filter 
> in front of 
> them, but I assume that many don't).

..because autoresponders are always replying to forged addresses:
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html

> Also note that a number of people (myself included, at work 
> anyway) have 
> perl scripts that respond to all incoming mail and require a 
> reply cookie from original 
> envelope senders. We do it because it almost entirely 
> prevents spam from 
> arriving in our inboxes (I say almost because there is the occasional 

Autoresponder by another name, see above URL.

..Stu

[OT] RE: bogofilter ate 3/5

[Chase Venters]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Stuart MacDonald wrote:

> From: On Behalf Of Chase Venters
>> You can check the From: or envelope sender against the subscriber
>> database. Forgery isn't a concern because we're not trying to stop
>> forgery with this method. Subscribers subscribing one address
>
> Forgery is always a concern...
>
>> The perl script behaves as an optional autoresponder.
>> Autoresponders would
>> respond to spam as well (well, unless you put a spam filter
>> in front of
>> them, but I assume that many don't).
>
> ..because autoresponders are always replying to forged addresses:
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html
>
>> Also note that a number of people (myself included, at work
>> anyway) have
>> perl scripts that respond to all incoming mail and require a
>> reply cookie from original
>> envelope senders. We do it because it almost entirely
>> prevents spam from
>> arriving in our inboxes (I say almost because there is the occasional
>
> Autoresponder by another name, see above URL.

Fortunately, the bulk of bulk mail I receive these days is forged but not 
forged from legitimate users. To give you an example from my daily log 
(which is e-mailed to me so I can keep an eye on the insanity):

2006-09-06T06:25:11 -- Challenged 'Beliefnet Daily Inspiration 
<BeliefnetDailyInspiration@partner.beliefnet.com>'
2006-09-06T06:40:23 -- Challenged '"newsletters@frommers.com" 
<newsletters@frommers.com>'
2006-09-06T09:56:13 -- Challenged '"LexingtonLawBringsYou" 
<LexingtonLawBringsYou@deadchristmastree.net>'
2006-09-06T12:25:34 -- Challenged '"OFFER  CONFIRMATION." 
<slt@protective-vehicle.com>'
2006-09-06T12:30:39 -- Challenged '"Rate Alert!" 
<LocalRate@requiredinstallation.com>'
2006-09-06T12:57:54 -- Challenged '"Rate Alert!" 
<LocalRate@wonderful-scholar.com>'
2006-09-06T12:57:56 -- Challenged '"OFFER  CONFIRMATION." 
<slt@related-polymer.com>'
2006-09-06T13:08:02 -- Challenged '"PlatinumRewardsClubEmailOffers" 
<PlatinumRewardsClubEmailOffers@solitarygroup.com>'
2006-09-06T13:34:18 -- Challenged '"CellPhoneGiveawaysNetDeals" 
<CellPhoneGiveawaysNetDeals@hillbillymaryann.com>'
2006-09-06T13:39:23 -- Challenged '"Barber" <lpb@coveredrevenue.com>'
2006-09-06T13:59:36 -- Challenged '"Barber" <lpb@coveredrevenue.com>'
2006-09-06T14:08:44 -- Challenged '"LifeScript Healthy Advantage" 
<LifeScriptHealthyAdvantage@lifescript.com>'
2006-09-06T14:27:00 -- Challenged 'FS Report <freeinkplus@reply.mb00.net>'
2006-09-06T14:46:12 -- Challenged '"OFFER_C0NFIRMATI0N!" 
<ndc@differentirradiation.com>'
2006-09-06T15:07:26 -- Challenged '"Maureen&Team" <maureen@sdejwire.com>'
2006-09-06T15:07:27 -- Delivered message from 'Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen 
<jaervosz@gentoo.org>' (whitelist)
2006-09-06T15:09:30 -- Challenged '"BHG.com 
Kitchen"<Recipe@email.bhg.com>'
2006-09-06T15:11:40 -- Challenged '"1 2 3  I n k Jets" 
<ikj@subsequent-grievance.com>'

If these challenges bounce (_many_ of them do), the box and host end up on 
the blacklist.

> ..Stu
>
>

Thanks,
Chase