I've been using spamassasin for a few months now, and had my isp put me 
on the no bounce list for spammer ip addresses because it was bouncing
a lot of messages from real people. Thus far I've been putting the 
messages tagged into a folder....

:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
IN.spamassasin

And it has worked pretty good so far. I whitelist anyone I email but
occationally will have a real person get caught a false possitive from
spamassasin. I'm getting close to 100 spams a day and am thinking about
bouncing messages, but I'd like to have a way for real people to get
a message to me so that I can put them in my whitelist.

Is there a way to customize the bounce message?

I'd like to just put in a quick message to send an email to a sneakemail
address if you are not a spammer blah blah blah.

I'd also like to dump any bounces to my bounce backs, as well as not
quote the message body to save on bandwidth, to say nothing of joe jobs.

Is there an easy way to do this?

-- 
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/fourthirtythree.shtml

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:32:55 -0500, TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> I've been using spamassasin for a few months now, and had my isp put me 
> on the no bounce list for spammer ip addresses because it was bouncing
> a lot of messages from real people. Thus far I've been putting the 
> messages tagged into a folder....
> 
>:0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> IN.spamassasin
> 
> And it has worked pretty good so far. I whitelist anyone I email but
> occationally will have a real person get caught a false possitive from
> spamassasin. I'm getting close to 100 spams a day and am thinking about
> bouncing messages, but I'd like to have a way for real people to get
> a message to me so that I can put them in my whitelist.
> 
> Is there a way to customize the bounce message?
> 
> I'd like to just put in a quick message to send an email to a sneakemail
> address if you are not a spammer blah blah blah.
> 
> I'd also like to dump any bounces to my bounce backs, as well as not
> quote the message body to save on bandwidth, to say nothing of joe jobs.
> 
> Is there an easy way to do this?

Sounds like you are talking about a Challenge-Response stage in your
spam filter, and with passlists (whitelists) and blocklists (SA in your
case) they work great.

(trying to use your MTA is problematic)

You should tune SA broadly, to only catch mails that are spam for sure,
and follow it with the C-R stage.

The simplest form, using procmail, would be something like:

# send them a note (C-R) with Re: <whatever subject was there> that doesn't
# include the body of the original mail.

:0c
|(formail -r; cat ~/.CR) | $SENDMAIL -t

# send a copy to your quarantine mbox

:0
quarantine


The file ~/.CR would read something like this:

------------------

Got a big spam problem here, so please excuse this minor delay.

If you'll paste the following password on the Subject line and
send it back, I'll add you to my passlist and from then on it
will be just like regular mail.

             rt832-i3557_YY

Thanks for your patience.

------------------

Then you'll need a recipe like this up in the passlist section, to
catch returned C-Rs:

:0
* ^Subject.*rt832-i3557_YY
cr

For more information on the subject, see the URLs in my sig.

HTH


AC


-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, TPFH wrote:

T> And it has worked pretty good so far. I whitelist anyone I email but
T> occationally will have a real person get caught a false possitive from
T> spamassasin. I'm getting close to 100 spams a day and am thinking about
T> bouncing messages, but I'd like to have a way for real people to get
T> a message to me so that I can put them in my whitelist.
T>

I resorted to an autoresponder some time ago.  It is not a very "net"
friendly solution but this is the real world.  The message asks for the
the password to be sent and this will whitelist.

See http://www.mundungus.org/software.html#marp


T> I'd also like to dump any bounces to my bounce backs, as well as not
T> quote the message body to save on bandwidth, to say nothing of joe jobs.
T>

Filter on ^FROM_MAILER of ^FROM_DAEMON and you will catch most of the
false bounces.  Of course, it does fill up your DAEMON mail box which is a
pain.  So, as a consequence, I disabled the wild card on my domain. I can
tell from my log that, 4 weeks ago, I had 18000 attempts to non-existant
addresses at my domain.  I have also put an SPF record in my domain.  It
may be coincidence, but the attempts to email invalid names at my domain
have dropped considerably.


-- 
Alan

( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
  There is also a password autoresponder but, unless this a very
  old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. )

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:49:54 GMT in comp.mail.misc Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:

+ Sounds like you are talking about a Challenge-Response stage in your
+ spam filter, and with passlists (whitelists) and blocklists (SA in your
+ case) they work great.

Not exactly, but I can easily use your small script for what I need.
I read my email on this account by sshing into my ISP and reading it 
with pine. The problem with a C/R is I have a limited disk quota that
I don't want to waste. I'd rather just delete the message entirely,
and have the person re-send after I put them on my whitelist.

This will also work well for when I'm on vacation or whatever to warn
people that I might not be able to respond to them for a while.

I know there are probably more traditional ways to do this but I'm feeling
lazy right now.

One of these days I'll read the book on procmail and sendmail etc.

I still haven't thoroughly learned emacs because I'm addicted to vi.
Not that I need to learn emacs. vi is best! :)

Thanks for your help.

-- 
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/fourthirtythree.shtml

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:00:17 -0500, TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:49:54 GMT in comp.mail.misc Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
> 
> + Sounds like you are talking about a Challenge-Response stage in your
> + spam filter, and with passlists (whitelists) and blocklists (SA in your
> + case) they work great.
> 
> Not exactly, but I can easily use your small script for what I need.
> I read my email on this account by sshing into my ISP and reading it 
> with pine. The problem with a C/R is I have a limited disk quota that
> I don't want to waste.

> I'd rather just delete the message entirely,
> and have the person re-send after I put them on my whitelist.
> 

That's another standard C/R strategy. Nice and simple.


> This will also work well for when I'm on vacation or whatever to warn
> people that I might not be able to respond to them for a while.
> 

I'd use a different message for vacations, etc., without the password.


> I know there are probably more traditional ways to do this but I'm feeling
> lazy right now.
> 
> One of these days I'll read the book on procmail and sendmail etc.

The man pages *are* the book for procmail, really. They're good.

> 
> I still haven't thoroughly learned emacs because I'm addicted to vi.
> Not that I need to learn emacs. vi is best! :)
> 

Exactly! Why learn Emacs?



> Thanks for your help.
> 

No problem, TPFH.


this post ends with 
:wq

:-)


AC

TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid> writes:

> And it has worked pretty good so far. I whitelist anyone I email but
> occationally will have a real person get caught a false possitive from
> spamassasin. I'm getting close to 100 spams a day and am thinking about
> bouncing messages, but I'd like to have a way for real people to get
> a message to me so that I can put them in my whitelist.
| 
> Is there a way to customize the bounce message?

Never, ever bounce messages. You do nothing but harm, because th
eaddresses have been hijacked. I receive 100 buonces from all over the
world claiming that I sent the messages.

I did not, the spammers use addresses and pretend to be me.

so please, never, ever bounce. You kill innocent people's mailboxes.

Jari

> :0c
> |(formail -r; cat ~/.CR) | $SENDMAIL -t

The "-r" used to work in old days. Bit nowadays the address that is
extracted from the message headers does not tell the spammer's address
any more. Too many valid addresses have been hijacked.

Jari

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:40:38 +0300, jari.aalto@poboxes.com <jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid> writes:
> 
>> And it has worked pretty good so far. I whitelist anyone I email but
>> occationally will have a real person get caught a false possitive from
>> spamassasin. I'm getting close to 100 spams a day and am thinking about
>> bouncing messages, but I'd like to have a way for real people to get
>> a message to me so that I can put them in my whitelist.
>| 
>> Is there a way to customize the bounce message?
> 
> Never, ever bounce messages. You do nothing but harm, because th
> eaddresses have been hijacked.

That's ridiculous. Only some spammer's 'hijack' addresess.


> I receive 100 buonces from all over the
> world claiming that I sent the messages.
> 

Bet you don't. Bet you can't produce any documentation.

> I did not, the spammers use addresses and pretend to be me.
> 
> so please, never, ever bounce. You kill innocent people's mailboxes.
> 
> Jari

Depends on how you do it. If you employ a spam filter that kills all
the obvious spam, then you have also killed almost all the mail with
bogus return addresses.

Then, you can send a Challenge-Response to the remaining addresses and
you will probably never send an un-soliticed response to a third party.

I don't know of anyone who has, despite all the unsubstantiated bullshit
posted on these groups.

AC


-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:42:36 +0300, jari.aalto@poboxes.com <jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> :0c
>> |(formail -r; cat ~/.CR) | $SENDMAIL -t
> 
> The "-r" used to work in old days. Bit nowadays the address that is
> extracted from the message headers does not tell the spammer's address
> any more. Too many valid addresses have been hijacked.
> 
> Jari

That's why one preceedes the Challenge-Response stage with a spam filter
that kills 99.9% of the spam, that which is *obviously* spam.

That which is left over after being filtered by the passlist and the
spam filter (block list) is usually legitimate mail for which the above
recipe works just fine.

The spam that you send replies to inadvertantly rarely use someone else's
address. They just make up an address.

You are very ignorant.

AC

-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-11331-1094166983-0011
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The fake Alan Connor writes:

>> Never, ever bounce messages. You do nothing but harm, because th
>> eaddresses have been hijacked.
> 
> That's ridiculous. Only some spammer's 'hijack' addresess.

Next time your address is 'hijacked' by a spammer, Beavis, you'll figure out 
how REALLY ridiculous that is.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-11331-1094166983-0011
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBN6nHx9p3GYHlUOIRAl9QAJ9NxAG6HE99h/OnVA06OMKbQ+KP5gCfXnxZ
bwIB30gJGtbkm8OF4uROYAk=
=ICD1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-11331-1094166983-0011--

* Thu 2004-09-02 Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> comp.mail.misc

| > Never, ever bounce messages. You do nothing but harm, because th eaddresses have been hijacked.
| 
> That's ridiculous. Only some spammer's 'hijack' addresses.

That's exactly what they do. pretend to be someone else. Like the boy
next door.

Sending bounces in today's spam world 

        - increases the traffic
        - Do not reach the destination
        - Fill people's mailboxes
        - The one who email address has been abused may 
          "decide to bouce back" and the the mail goes round, round, round...


| > I receive 100 bounces from all over the world claiming that I sent the messages.
| > 
| 
> Bet you don't. Bet you can't produce any documentation.

Pardon? I don't understand. If you can't take a word for this, listen
to other people that have the same problem. One day your email address
is hijacked and put to a CD.

| > so please, never, ever bounce. You kill innocent people's mailboxes.
| 
> Depends on how you do it. If you employ a spam filter that kills all
> the obvious spam, then you have also killed almost all the mail with
> bogus return addresses.

No, you cannot be certain about the return address when you "bounce"
a spam. That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
cause trouble to innocent people.

The spammer who's running MTA, can totally put anything in there. 
And those spammers are many.

Jari

* Thu 2004-09-02 Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> comp.mail.misc
>
> The spam that you send replies to inadvertantly rarely use someone else's
> address. They just make up an address.

   "...rarely use someone else's". 

Please consider what happens, when that "rare" is multiplied with 10 000
other people that think the same way. They all send bounce in that "rare"
cases. Those "rare bounces" roll like iceballs gathering momemtum.

Bounces are the worst kind of spam. Ever received "Your mail contained
a virus" message from a Sysadm that had installed a scanner that thinks
it is good to tell everybody all over the Internet about it?

Well, that's another kind of spam as well.

Jari

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:37:27 +0300, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> * Thu 2004-09-02 Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> comp.mail.misc
> 
>| > Never, ever bounce messages. You do nothing but harm, because th eaddresses have been hijacked.
>| 
>> That's ridiculous. Only some spammer's 'hijack' addresses.
> 
> That's exactly what they do. pretend to be someone else. Like the boy
> next door.
> 

A small percentage of them do that, and only the lowest of the low.

Their spams can be detected by the crudest of filters and dumped.

> Sending bounces in today's spam world 
> 
>         - increases the traffic
>         - Do not reach the destination
>         - Fill people's mailboxes
>         - The one who email address has been abused may 
>           "decide to bouce back" and the the mail goes round, round, round...
> 
> 
>| > I receive 100 bounces from all over the world claiming that I sent the messages.
>| > 
>| 
>> Bet you don't. Bet you can't produce any documentation.
> 
> Pardon? I don't understand. If you can't take a word for this, listen
> to other people that have the same problem. One day your email address
> is hijacked and put to a CD.
> 

Sometimes that happens, but it is fairly rare and those mails are easily
detected by a crude spam filter and dumped.

Haven't you ever heard of a spam filter?

>| > so please, never, ever bounce. You kill innocent people's mailboxes.
>| 
>> Depends on how you do it. If you employ a spam filter that kills all
>> the obvious spam, then you have also killed almost all the mail with
>> bogus return addresses.
> 
> No, you cannot be certain about the return address when you "bounce"
> a spam.

One more time: You don't "bounce" spams, you send them to /dev/null.

> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
> cause trouble to innocent people.
> 

That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.


> The spammer who's running MTA, can totally put anything in there. 
> And those spammers are many.
> 
> Jari

Since you obviously didn't check out the URLS in my sig, and choose
to remain the ignorant boob that you are, here's a brief synopsis:


A modern mail filter employing Challenge-Responses uses a *spam filter*
before the C-R stage, which kills 99.9% of the spam. No C-Rs are sent
in response to those mails.

Only the tiny percentage left over, mails that might be, but are probably
not, spam, receive a C-R.

These C-Rs contain the address of the person whose mail programs sent
them so there is no problem with anyone who recieves one of them 
contacting the originator.

They have a password that *guarantees* that their response will be
read.

Neither myself nor anyone else I know of who uses a filter like this
has ever received a complaint from anyone.

*YOU* have never recieved a mis-directed C-R from a filter like the
one I have described in this thread.

That's a fact.

And you cannot produce a single one.

Please do your homework before you present yourself as an expert in
a subject that you are obviously completely ignorant of.

I gave you the URLS that would provide you with the background you
need in order to post intelligently on the subject in my last post.

They are, once again, in my sig below.

I am ignoring your other post and probably won't bother reading another
one of your posts again.

Go waste someone else's time, fool.

AC



-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-17893-1094254638-0011
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Beavis writes:

> Their spams can be detected by the crudest of filters and dumped.

But not the way you do it:

:0
/dev/null


> Sometimes that happens, but it is fairly rare and those mails are easily
> detected by a crude spam filter and dumped.
> 
> Haven't you ever heard of a spam filter?

Yes, Beavis, but he doesn't want to dump all of his mail, just the spam.

> One more time: You don't "bounce" spams, you send them to /dev/null.

=E2=80=A6 along with the rest of your mail.

> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.

"How to win friends and influence people, by Alan Connor".  Coming to a 
bookstore near you.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-17893-1094254638-0011
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBOQAux9p3GYHlUOIRAmvMAJ9PSZOiLOp8qmZZ3H8UZkzsuc3tOgCff/aT
NNyfktZ/zQ2DAY118aYT9g4=
=Fx8Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-17893-1094254638-0011--

JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
JA> cause trouble to innocent people.

AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.

<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming#Non-commercial_spam>

AC> A modern mail filter employing Challenge-Responses [...]

<URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Tallies>

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:42:18 GMT, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard@Tesco.NET> wrote:

Learn to read English, "Jonathan". We aren't talking about UBM in general,
but _spam_ which is defined as 'unsolicited bulk commercial email'.

That's why we used the word "spam".

Duh.


> 
> 
> JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
> JA> cause trouble to innocent people.
> 
> AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.
> 
><URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming#Non-commercial_spam>
> 
> AC> A modern mail filter employing Challenge-Responses [...]
> 
><URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Tallies>

Got a clue for you, "Jonathan": If you want to retain what's left of your
credibility, don't refer people to websites put up by a viscious troll
designed solely to assassinate the character of someone that they hate because
he won't read and respond to their endless harassing posts on the Usenet and
because they can't get their nasty, harassing mails into his mailbox because
he has an excellent filter that blocks spammers and trolls.



AC


-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

(top-posting fixed)

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
news:Poo_c.311$ip2.241@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
>> > JA> cause trouble to innocent people.
>> >
>>> > AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you
MORON.
>> >
>> ><URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming#Non-commercial_spam>
>> >
>> > AC> A modern mail filter employing Challenge-Responses [...]
>> >
>> ><URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Tallies>
>>
>> Got a clue for you, "Jonathan": If you want to retain what's left of
your
>> credibility, don't refer people to websites put up by a viscious
troll
>> designed solely to assassinate the character of someone that they
hate because
>> he won't read and respond to their endless harassing posts on the
Usenet and
>> because they can't get their nasty, harassing mails into his mailbox
because
>> he has an excellent filter that blocks spammers and trolls.
>>
> Learn to read English, "Jonathan". We aren't talking about UBM in
general,
> but _spam_ which is defined as 'unsolicited bulk commercial email'.
>
> That's why we used the word "spam".

Spam is UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail) as well as UBE (unsolicited
bulk email).
It does not have to be commercial to be spam. If it is bulk (essentially
the same message, sent to multiple recipients), it is still spam, even
if it is non-commercial.

http://www.spamfaq.net/spam-evils.shtml#what_is_spam
http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/emailfaq.html#3e

/KHM

----
  A: Top posters.
  Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:33:43 -0500, Karl-Henry Martinsson <khm@suespammers.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> (top-posting fixed)
> 

It wasn't "top-posting". I was responding to his Subject line.

Want to know what it is really going on here?

Try to track down whoever it was that created this website:

http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html

You won't be able to do it. 

Now why would someone create a website and then run and hide and
refuse to take the responsibility for it?

Gee...I wonder....

<snip>


AC


-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
news:dup_c.350$ip2.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:33:43 -0500, Karl-Henry Martinsson
<khm@suespammers.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > (top-posting fixed)
> >
>
> It wasn't "top-posting". I was responding to his Subject line.
>
> Want to know what it is really going on here?
>
> Try to track down whoever it was that created this website:
>
> http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html
>
> You won't be able to do it.

Not Found
The requested URL /nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html was not found on this
server.

> Now why would someone create a website and then run and hide and
> refuse to take the responsibility for it?

I don't see any site at that address (not even after removing the period
after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo). However, by playing with
the URL, I found http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml.
There you are bunched together with some really nice kooks. So you are
saying that you the exception to that list? Most of the other ones I
know are true kooks and trolls (from observing them in various groups).

> Gee...I wonder....

Ever heard of "frea speach"? ;-)

Why don't you just ask Julian who is running that subdomain? Did you try
that?

angel.1jh.com = [ 216.127.43.94 ]
 domain:       1jh.com
  status:       production
  owner:        Julian Haight
  email:        jkdom_c@mail.julianhaight.com

  address:      BOX 25732
  city:         Seattle
  state:        WA
  postal-code:  98125-1232
  country:      US
  admin-c:      jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0

  tech-c:       jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0

  billing-c:    jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0

  nserver:      sam.julianhaight.com 216.127.43.94
  registrar:    JORE-1
  created:      2000-03-09 16: 58: 57 UTC core
  modified:     2004-01-30 23: 42: 41 UTC JORE-1
  expires:      2006-03-09 16: 58: 57 UTC
  source:       joker.com
  db-updated:   2004-09-04 20: 55: 19 UTC



/KHM

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:03:43 -0500, Karl-Henry Martinsson <khm@suespammers.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
> news:dup_c.350$ip2.65@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:33:43 -0500, Karl-Henry Martinsson
><khm@suespammers.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > (top-posting fixed)
>> >
>>
>> It wasn't "top-posting". I was responding to his Subject line.
>>
>> Want to know what it is really going on here?
>>
>> Try to track down whoever it was that created this website:
>>
>> http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html
>>
>> You won't be able to do it.
> 
> Not Found
> The requested URL /nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html was not found on this
> server.
> 
>> Now why would someone create a website and then run and hide and
>> refuse to take the responsibility for it?
> 
> I don't see any site at that address (not even after removing the period
> after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo). However, by playing with
> the URL, I found http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml.
> There you are bunched together with some really nice kooks. So you are
> saying that you the exception to that list? Most of the other ones I
> know are true kooks and trolls (from observing them in various groups).

"True kooks" according to *whom*?

The only people I know of who are concerned with what they call "kooks",
are kooks.  The only thing I do with kooks is ignore them.

> 
>> Gee...I wonder....
> 
> Ever heard of "frea speach"? ;-)
> 
> Why don't you just ask Julian who is running that subdomain? Did you try
> that?
> 
> angel.1jh.com = [ 216.127.43.94 ]
>  domain:       1jh.com
>   status:       production
>   owner:        Julian Haight
>   email:        jkdom_c@mail.julianhaight.com
> 
>   address:      BOX 25732
>   city:         Seattle
>   state:        WA
>   postal-code:  98125-1232
>   country:      US
>   admin-c:      jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0
> 
>   tech-c:       jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0
> 
>   billing-c:    jkdom_b@mail.julianhaight.com0
> 
>   nserver:      sam.julianhaight.com 216.127.43.94
>   registrar:    JORE-1
>   created:      2000-03-09 16: 58: 57 UTC core
>   modified:     2004-01-30 23: 42: 41 UTC JORE-1
>   expires:      2006-03-09 16: 58: 57 UTC
>   source:       joker.com
>   db-updated:   2004-09-04 20: 55: 19 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> /KHM
> 
> 

Do you think he even knows or would tell if he did? I doubt it very much.

Why don't you try?

The fact is that I've never even checked out that website and couldn't 
care less.

I know who created it (a really nasty troll) and I don't read his posts
nor anything else he publishes.

I don't even have to visit the website to know that he doesn't give 
contact information that can be validated, that would lead someone to
a real person in the real world.

AC

-- 
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.  Design Parameters:
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp ||   http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

Alan Connor wrote:

Stop cross-posting to comp.os.linux.misc, you congenital losers. Some
newsgroups actually have readable content.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

"Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
news:Bxq_c.381$ip2.8@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I don't see any site at that address (not even after removing the
period
> > after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo). However, by playing
with
> > the URL, I found http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml.
> > There you are bunched together with some really nice kooks. So you
are
> > saying that you the exception to that list? Most of the other ones I
> > know are true kooks and trolls (from observing them in various
groups).
>
> "True kooks" according to *whom*?

Me, for example. I have been observing Moronis, Lamie and others listed
there "in action". They are certified kooks and loonies.

> The only people I know of who are concerned with what they call
"kooks",
> are kooks.  The only thing I do with kooks is ignore them.
>
Hmm, is this not what the website-in-question claim? That you call
everybody else kooks and spammers and trolls? I think you just proved
the site to be right.

> > Why don't you just ask Julian who is running that subdomain? Did you
try
> > that?
> >
> > angel.1jh.com = [ 216.127.43.94 ]
> >  domain:       1jh.com
> >   status:       production
> >   owner:        Julian Haight
> >   email:        jkdom_c@mail.julianhaight.com
<snip>
> Do you think he even knows or would tell if he did? I doubt it very
much.
>
You don't think he know who has subdomains on his server? I am pretty
sure it is just a small server, the DNS is on the same IP as the website
itself. So I doubt there are many subdomains or people running sites on
it.

> Why don't you try?
>
I am not the one complaining about the site. I am not listed on the
site.

> The fact is that I've never even checked out that website and couldn't
> care less.
>
> I know who created it (a really nasty troll) and I don't read his
posts
> nor anything else he publishes.

You just said you didn't know who the publisher was/is.

> I don't even have to visit the website to know that he doesn't give
> contact information that can be validated, that would lead someone to
> a real person in the real world.
>
Thou shalt not assume.

/KHM

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:33:15 -0500, Karl-Henry Martinsson <khm@suespammers.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
> news:Bxq_c.381$ip2.8@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > I don't see any site at that address (not even after removing the
> period
>> > after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo). However, by playing
> with
>> > the URL, I found http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml.
>> > There you are bunched together with some really nice kooks. So you
> are
>> > saying that you the exception to that list? Most of the other ones I
>> > know are true kooks and trolls (from observing them in various
> groups).
>>
>> "True kooks" according to *whom*?
> 
> Me, for example. I have been observing Moronis, Lamie and others listed
> there "in action". They are certified kooks and loonies.
> 
>> The only people I know of who are concerned with what they call
> "kooks",
>> are kooks.  The only thing I do with kooks is ignore them.
>>
> Hmm, is this not what the website-in-question claim? That you call
> everybody else kooks and spammers and trolls? I think you just proved
> the site to be right.
> 
>> > Why don't you just ask Julian who is running that subdomain? Did you
> try
>> > that?
>> >
>> > angel.1jh.com = [ 216.127.43.94 ]
>> >  domain:       1jh.com
>> >   status:       production
>> >   owner:        Julian Haight
>> >   email:        jkdom_c@mail.julianhaight.com
><snip>
>> Do you think he even knows or would tell if he did? I doubt it very
> much.
>>
> You don't think he know who has subdomains on his server? I am pretty
> sure it is just a small server, the DNS is on the same IP as the website
> itself. So I doubt there are many subdomains or people running sites on
> it.
> 
>> Why don't you try?
>>
> I am not the one complaining about the site. I am not listed on the
> site.
> 
>> The fact is that I've never even checked out that website and couldn't
>> care less.
>>
>> I know who created it (a really nasty troll) and I don't read his
> posts
>> nor anything else he publishes.
> 
> You just said you didn't know who the publisher was/is.
> 
>> I don't even have to visit the website to know that he doesn't give
>> contact information that can be validated, that would lead someone to
>> a real person in the real world.
>>
> Thou shalt not assume.
> 
> /KHM
> 
> 


If you want to think I am a "kook", then knock yourself out.

You haven't posted anything that makes me inclined to give your opinion
on *any* subject any credence.

You seem to be, in fact, just another loser wandering around the Usenet
looking for a life and making trouble.

I think it is time for you to find someone else's time to waste.

That's not an option, it's a done deal.

You and the thread are both killfiled.



AC

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25006-1094339385-0004
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The fake Alan Connor writes:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:42:18 GMT, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard@Tesco.NET> wrote:
> 
> Learn to read English, "Jonathan". We aren't talking about UBM in general,
> but _spam_ which is defined as 'unsolicited bulk commercial email'.
> 
> That's why we used the word "spam".
> 
> Duh.

Beavis: that's not the definition of spam used by people who have been 
posting to Usenet when you were still wearing diapers.

>><URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Tallies>
> 
> Got a clue for you, "Jonathan": If you want to retain what's left of your
> credibility, don't refer people to websites put up by a viscious troll
> designed solely to assassinate the character of someone that they hate because

<sniff> <sniff> Boo-hoo-hoo.

> he won't read and respond to their endless harassing posts on the Usenet and

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#KillfiledFor

> because they can't get their nasty, harassing mails into his mailbox because
> he has an excellent filter that blocks spammers and trolls.

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#ItDoesNotWork


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25006-1094339385-0004
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBOks5x9p3GYHlUOIRAkasAJ9ejunrf867FIFQhkSuGoH/SZtZowCcD8Vl
Z0SKz2gtgBxyLEp2kieFwT4=
=Tep+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25006-1094339385-0004--

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-2747-1094345429-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Beavis writes:

> You haven't posted anything that makes me inclined to give your opinion
> on *any* subject any credence.

And you believe that your opinion carries weight with anyone because=E2=80=A6=
?

> You and the thread are both killfiled.

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#KillfiledFor



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-2747-1094345429-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBOmLVx9p3GYHlUOIRAupwAJ9CQKNqL4lqUp5g6K2b1APP6IWVtwCfQnEK
CU+nHzwxQrstT9luZ/gQaKw=
=5lJ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-2747-1094345429-0001--

"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard@Tesco.NET>" wrote in 
news.admin.net-abuse.email:

> JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
> JA> cause trouble to innocent people.
> 
> AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.
[sNip]

    	I've received many spam that aren't selling anything at all.  In many 
cases the eMail is HTML with reference to an image that wasn't attached as 
a file.

    	In addition to that, many people also mistakenly think that one of the 
qualifications for calling an eMail "spam" is that it has been sent to 
multiple people, but this simply isn't true either -- a spammer could have 
only one recipient on their eMail list for all sorts of reasons (I would 
put my bet on stupidity, but hey, anything's possible), and if I never 
asked for it in the first place then it's still spam (just picture a few 
thousand spammers, each with hundreds of single-recipient lists; if it were 
law that it could only be considered "spam" if it were sent to multiple 
parties, then they'd have found a nice loophole to avoid penalty).

> AC> A modern mail filter employing Challenge-Responses [...]
[sNip]

    	So far all the Challenge-Response systems I've seen are just another 
form of abuse, and thus should all be blacklisted until they stop sending 
to people who never asked for a "C/R verification message" in the first 
place.

-- 
Sir Randolf Richardson, noble spam fighter - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding to my
postings in the newsgroups.

Sending eMail to other SMTP servers is a privilege.

KHM> after removing the period after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo

You assumed a falsehood.

<URL:http://marc.theaimsgroup.com./?l=djbdns&m=107496340005353>

AC> I know who created it (a really nasty troll) and I don't read
AC> his posts nor anything else he publishes.

KHM> You just said you didn't know who the publisher was/is.

<URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Sam>

AC> We aren't talking about UBM in general, but _spam_
AC> which is defined as 'unsolicited bulk commercial email'.

False.  It isn't.  You were told this five months ago.

<URL:http://crynwr.com./spam/definition.html>
<URL:http://www.monkeys.com./spam-defined/definition.shtml>
<URL:http://www.spamhaus.org./definition.html>
<URL:http://groups.google.com./groups?selm=4085039E.74AA64ED%40Tesco.NET>

AC> [...] a viscious troll [...] he won't read [...]

<URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#UnmistakableMarks>

Karl-Henry Martinsson wrote:

> I don't see any site at that address (not even after removing the period
> after ".com", I am assuming that is a typo).

Wrong. The real typo is to write "angel.1jh.com" instead of "angel.1jh.com.",
because the latter clearly specifies that "com" is a toplevel domain.


Alexander Skwar
-- 
BOFH Excuse #76:

Unoptimized hard drive
������������������������������������������������������������������������

In article <2puu74Fpimu5U1@uni-berlin.de>, Karl-Henry Martinsson wrote:
> "Alan Connor" <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote in message
> news:Bxq_c.381$ip2.8@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "True kooks" according to *whom*?
> 
> Me, for example. I have been observing Moronis, Lamie and others listed
> there "in action". They are certified kooks and loonies.

I think Alan is a true kook.
 
>> The only people I know of who are concerned with what they call "kooks",
>> are kooks.  The only thing I do with kooks is ignore them.
>>
> Hmm, is this not what the website-in-question claim? That you call
> everybody else kooks and spammers and trolls? I think you just proved
> the site to be right.

And that's exactly why I put that page up there. Alan is a certified,
registered kook.

[About Julian]
>> Do you think he even knows or would tell if he did? I doubt it very much.
>>
> You don't think he know who has subdomains on his server? I am pretty
> sure it is just a small server, the DNS is on the same IP as the website
> itself. So I doubt there are many subdomains or people running sites on
> it.

I'm pretty certain Julian won't give him the time of day without a subpoena.

But let me end this silliness. The subdomain angel.1jh.com was created for
me and I run it. It is a mirror of www.pearlgates.net.

I did not, however, create the Alan Connor FAQ. I merely host it because
I strongly agree with it.

>> I don't even have to visit the website to know that he doesn't give
>> contact information that can be validated, that would lead someone to
>> a real person in the real world.
>>
> Thou shalt not assume.

All mandatory role accounts on both angel.1jh.com and www.pearlgates.net
are forwarded to me. That includes the webmaster account.


-- 
"Nothing is scarier than cluelessness in action."
- Couvier's Law

In article <Poo_c.311$ip2.241@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, zzzzzz@xxx.yyy 
says...
>
>On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:42:18 GMT, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 
<J.deBoynePollard@Tesco.NET> wrote:
>
>Learn to read English, "Jonathan". We aren't talking about UBM in general,
>but _spam_ which is defined as 'unsolicited bulk commercial email'.
>
>That's why we used the word "spam".
>
>Duh.

Ah. Alan Connor, well known Internet kook, redfines black as white, and the 
world sighs in gratitude.

-- 
Ron.
http://edgeinfotech.com
http://mainsleazespam.com
http://iuhoosiers.com

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:08:31 GMT, Alan Connor
 <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> probably wrote (unless it was a Kook):
[snip]

% Hmmm... http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml %

% Nope, RedWolf's got no time for that.  He's got places to go, artwork to
do, the next Monster Garage challange is just! Around! The Bend! %

*plonk*

-- 
eval join"",map{chomp;s/^.+>\s*//;$_}grep{/>/}<DATA>; __DATA__
      .'  .'     Kelly "STrRedWolf" Price -- WolfSkunk Designs
    xX  xX  .'   http://stalag99.net      tygris @ same domain
   "X  "X  X  .' 
 _____.   X" X   > 0;
XXXXXXXx.   X".' > 0;
'"XXXXXX|    X   > 0;
    "XXX|   X"   > 0;
     'XX'        > 0;

In article <c1.01.2sfYh0$5AJ@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>,
 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard@Tesco.NET> wrote:

> JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
> JA> cause trouble to innocent people.
> 
> AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.
[thwack]

Is there some reason you felt the need to pull this kook's thread into 
NANAE? Clearly he did not intend to crosspost it here and we really and 
truly have enough of our own kooks to keep us frothing along quite 
vigorously.

-- 
Clues for the blacklisted: <http://www.scconsult.com/bill/dnsblhelp.html>
Current Peeve: "This page was written to render correctly in any standards
                compliant browser" on pages with hundreds of HTML errors. 

OK, I've started actually working on this.
(I have a problem with procrastination)
And the custom message isn't being sent.
What am I doing wrong?

:0:
* ^From.* test999314159@*
 {
    |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t
    :0:
    IN.testing
 }

And here is the relavent log information (verbose on)

procmail: Match on "^From.* test999314159@*"
procmail: Extraneous locallockfile ignored
procmail: Locking ".lock"
procmail: Unlocking ".lock"
procmail: Skipped "|(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t"
procmail: Locking "IN.testing.lock"
procmail: Assigning "LASTFOLDER=IN.testing"
procmail: Opening "IN.testing"
procmail: Acquiring kernel-lock
procmail: Unlocking "IN.testing.lock"
procmail: Notified comsat: "tpfh@2107:/home/t/tpfh/mail/IN.testing"


So, why is it skipping the SENDMAIL line?
Should I contact my ISP?

-- 
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/fourthirtythree.shtml

"TPFH" <tpfh@io.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q5SdnT-HpIhC4aLcRVn-gA@io.com 

> OK, I've started actually working on this.
> (I have a problem with procrastination)

Me too, I just never get around to fixing it.

-- 
use hotmail for email replies

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:32:35 -0700, ynotssor <ynotssor@example.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> "TPFH" <tpfh@io.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Q5SdnT-HpIhC4aLcRVn-gA@io.com 
> 
>> OK, I've started actually working on this.
>> (I have a problem with procrastination)
> 
> Me too, I just never get around to fixing it.
> 

:-))

AC

JA> That's the whole point. The spammerss whole strategy is to
JA> cause trouble to innocent people.

AC> That's just STUPID. Spammers are trying to sell stuff, you MORON.

JdeBP> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming#Non-commercial_spam>

BC> Is there some reason you felt the need to pull this kook's thread 
into NANAE?

It was a discussion of the abuse of electronic mail and its 
perpetrators, and belonged there.

BC> Clearly he did not intend to crosspost it here

He's not the sole arbiter of what newsgroups threads belong in.

BC> we really and truly have enough of our own kooks to keep us
BC> frothing along quite vigorously.

<URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/>
<URL:http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml>

He *is* one of your own kooks.  Pay attention.

TPFH wrote:

> OK, I've started actually working on this.
> (I have a problem with procrastination)
> And the custom message isn't being sent.
> What am I doing wrong?
> 
> :0:
> * ^From.* test999314159@*
>  {
>     |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t
>     :0:
>     IN.testing
>  }
> 
> And here is the relavent log information (verbose on)
> 
> procmail: Match on "^From.* test999314159@*"
> procmail: Extraneous locallockfile ignored
> procmail: Locking ".lock"
> procmail: Unlocking ".lock"
> procmail: Skipped "|(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t"
> procmail: Locking "IN.testing.lock"
> procmail: Assigning "LASTFOLDER=IN.testing"
> procmail: Opening "IN.testing"
> procmail: Acquiring kernel-lock
> procmail: Unlocking "IN.testing.lock"
> procmail: Notified comsat: "tpfh@2107:/home/t/tpfh/mail/IN.testing"
> 
> 
> So, why is it skipping the SENDMAIL line?
> Should I contact my ISP?
> 

The line below is not a valid procmail recipe.
|(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t

You need
:0c
|(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t


Please note that this will never be seen as a VALID bounce message.  It 
will be seen as what it is a FAKE bounce.

AK

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:55 -0500, TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid>
wrote:



> OK, I've started actually working on this.  (I have a problem
> with procrastination) And the custom message isn't being sent.
> What am I doing wrong?
>
>:0: * ^From.* test999314159@* {
>
>     |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t
>
>     :0:  IN.testing }
>
> And here is the relavent log information (verbose on)
>
> procmail: Match on "^From.* test999314159@*" Extraneous
> procmail: locallockfile ignored Locking ".lock"
> procmail: Unlocking ".lock" Skipped "|(formail -r; cat
> procmail: ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t" Locking
> procmail: "IN.testing.lock" Assigning "LASTFOLDER=IN.testing"
> procmail: Opening "IN.testing" Acquiring kernel-lock
> procmail: Unlocking "IN.testing.lock" Notified comsat:
> procmail: "tpfh@2107:/home/t/tpfh/mail/IN.testing"
>
>
> So, why is it skipping the SENDMAIL line?  Should I contact my
> ISP?
>


:0:
* ^From.* test999314159@*
 {
    :0c
    |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t

    :0
    IN.testing
 }



AC


-- 
Pass-list --> Block-list --> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailboxes
http://tinyurl.com/3c3agp http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:

| On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:55 -0500, TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid>
| 
| :0:
| * ^From.* test999314159@*
|  {
|     :0c
|     |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t
| 
|     :0
|     IN.testing
|  }

It is very bad practice to send bounces. The formail -r or -rt in that
respect do not return spammer's mail address, because:
        
        a) the spammer uses fake address
        b) or spammer has put someone else's address there
        c) If he really is the spammer, he just puts all responses to 
           /dev/null

There is nothing to be gained from recipes like this. In fact they
just contribute to the increases mail problem by adding yet another
unneeded mail to deliver and consume all MTAs resources.

Further reading:

        o  "1.1 Bouncing messages do no good"
           http://pm-lib.sf.net/README.html

        o   *Rejecting* *or* *Bouncing* *Back* *a* *Message* by
            Nancy McCough. From there you can find more articles and
            strong arguments why bouncing strategies should be avoided.
            http://ii.best.vwh.net/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#reject

        o   *Bounce* *Messages.* "... The concept of sending fake bounces
            can be very seductive to those who don't understand the
            consequences."
            http://spamlinks.openrbl.org/filter-bounce.htm

        
Jari

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:41:28 +0300, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
> 
>| On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:55 -0500, TPFH <tpfh@io.com.invalid>
>| 
>| :0:
>| * ^From.* test999314159@*
>|  {
>|     :0c
>|     |(formail -r; cat ~/.SAbouncemessage) | $SENDMAIL -t
>| 
>|     :0
>|     IN.testing
>|  }
> 

> It is very bad practice to send bounces. 

That's not a "bounce" it is an auto-response. You are clearly
not qualified to be advising people on this subject if you
don't know the difference between the two.

> The formail -r or -rt
> in that respect do not return spammer's mail address, because:
>
>         a) the spammer uses fake address b) or spammer has put
>         someone else's address there c) If he really is the
>         spammer, he just puts all responses to /dev/null
>

Oh. There's a *stunning* revelation. <snicker>

Yes. One should not send auto-reponses to mail that is obviously
spam. 

Duh.

Do you have any idea how many times this issue has been discussed
on this group?

Did it cross your mind to take a look at the webpages in my sig?

Of course it did, and you did, which is why you posted these
lies.

> There is nothing to be gained from recipes like this.


Wrong. If that stage of the mail filter is preceded by a pass
list and a broadly-tuned conventional spam filter and the auto-
responses are sent only to the tiny percentage of mails that
*might* be spam, then one has an enormously effective spam
fighting tool: The best in the world.

> In fact
> they just contribute to the increases mail problem by adding
> yet another unneeded mail to deliver and consume all MTAs
> resources.
>
> Further reading:
>
>        o  "1.1 Bouncing messages do no good"
>           http://pm-lib.sf.net/README.html
>
>        o  *Rejecting* *or* *Bouncing* *Back* *a* *Message* by
>        Nancy McCough. From there you can find more articles
>        and strong arguments why bouncing strategies should be
>        avoided.
>            
>        http://ii.best.vwh.net/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#reject
>
>        o *Bounce* *Messages.* "... The concept of
>        sending fake bounces can be very seductive to
>        those who don't understand the consequences."
>        http://spamlinks.openrbl.org/filter-bounce.htm
>
>


Yes. Spammers, and professional spam fighters who are experts in
the use of outmoded filters hate this sort of mail filter because
it puts them both out of business.

As do the people that hire spammers.

What you have posted are links to *highly* prejudiced material.

Nancy McCough is one of these alleged 'spamfighters' using out-
moded strategies for fighting spam (if not a spammer) who has
backed down repeatedly when challenged to a public test of the
lies and distortions she publishes:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4Vvdc.3087$A_4.385@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_OCdc.3420$A_4.3191@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qFOdc.3512$k05.920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net

I repeat: Do you have any idea how many times the same sort
of _garbage_ that you have posted here has been said on these
groups?

I'd suggest that *you* are the one with some homework to do, but 
you know perfectly well that you are maliciously mis-informing
the public because you are pro-spam and only pretending to be a
spam fighter.

I get no spam at all. I don't even know when the spammers *try*
to get in my mailboxes. I don't have to mess with my filter,
ever, and no one I want to hear from has any problem reaching me.

I have never had a *single* complaint from anyone but a spammer
in the real world about this sort of filter. Nor has anyone that
I know of. Millions of people use them, including several ISPs.

Myself, and others who use the type of filter described vaguely
above and in considerable detail in the webpages in my sig, have
defeated the spammer's *completely*.

For us, spam is a thing of the past and no longer a concern.

When *liars* like you and Nancy post your *garbage* on these
groups, we just laugh.

Post whatever drivel you want. I don't care. Just stay out of my
personal mailboxes.

That's not a request, it is a *done deal*.

AC

-- 
Pass-list --> Block-list --> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailboxes
http://tinyurl.com/3c3agp http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
| > It is very bad practice to send bounces. 
| 
| Did it cross your mind to take a look at the webpages in my sig?
| 
| Of course it did, and you did, which is why you posted these
| lies.

If you have more information which of the above is not possible, 
please elaborate.

| > There is nothing to be gained from recipes like this.
| 
| 
| Wrong. If that stage of the mail filter is preceded by a pass
| list and a broadly-tuned conventional spam filter and the auto-
| responses are sent only to the tiny percentage of mails that
| *might* be spam, then one has an enormously effective spam
| fighting tool: The best in the world.

Your words seem to contradict one another:

     ... only tiny percentage of mails
     ... ENORMOUSLY effective spam fighting tool

| Yes. Spammers, and professional spam fighters who are experts in
| the use of outmoded filters hate this sort of mail filter because
| it puts them both out of business.

Spam fighters? Professional one? Hm, to hom do you refer in
particular? I only know one:

            *A* *Plan* *for* *Spam* by paul Graham who was behind the
            the idea of statistical Bayesian filters.
            http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html

I'd be happy to read a professional that stands behind you opinion as
opposed to Paul Graham's.

| Nancy McCough is one of these alleged 'spamfighters' using out-
| moded strategies for fighting spam (if not a spammer) who has
| backed down repeatedly when challenged to a public test of the
| lies and distortions she publishes:

Do you run your own domain? Do you publish your own email address?
What have you published? What have you contributed?

To me - Nancy is all of these. I guess there is a language barrier here
to understand "who's lying" here.

| I repeat: Do you have any idea how many times the same sort
| of _garbage_ that you have posted here has been said on these
| groups?

What garbage specially you're referring to? That spammer's do not
use other people's addresses? 
 
| I'd suggest that *you* are the one with some homework to do, but 
| you know perfectly well that you are maliciously mis-informing
| the public because you are pro-spam and only pretending to be a
| spam fighter.

"..you are pro-spam" - Thank you. I feel much better now when you said
it. Perhaps you have more compliments in your basket in the future.

| I get no spam at all. I don't even know when the spammers *try*
| to get in my mailboxes. I don't have to mess with my filter,
| ever, and no one I want to hear from has any problem reaching me.

| I have never had a *single* complaint from anyone but a spammer
| in the real world about this sort of filter. Nor has anyone that
| I know of. Millions of people use them, including several ISPs.
| 
| Myself, and others who use the type of filter described vaguely
| above and in considerable detail in the webpages in my sig, have
| defeated the spammer's *completely*.

I assume you're referring the Challenge-Response filter. How can you
defeat a spammer who isn't writing a message in his name? Please take 
a look this picture:

http://pm-lib.sf.net/pic/cr-system-joe-job.jpg

The mail message includes no information where the spammer is. Please
prove otherwise and we're all ears. 

Jari

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:46:13 +0300, Jari Aalto
<jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:

> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
>
>| > It is very bad practice to send bounces.
>|
>| Did it cross your mind to take a look at the webpages in my
>| sig?
>|
>| Of course it did, and you did, which is why you posted these
>| lies.
>
> If you have more information which of the above is not
> possible, please elaborate.
>
>| > There is nothing to be gained from recipes like this.
>|
>|
>| Wrong. If that stage of the mail filter is preceded by a pass
>| list and a broadly-tuned conventional spam filter and the
>| auto- responses are sent only to the tiny percentage of mails
>| that *might* be spam, then one has an enormously effective
>| spam fighting tool: The best in the world.
>
> Your words seem to contradict one another:
>
>      ... only tiny percentage of mails ... ENORMOUSLY effective
>      spam fighting tool
>
>| Yes. Spammers, and professional spam fighters who are experts
>| in the use of outmoded filters hate this sort of mail filter
>| because it puts them both out of business.
>
> Spam fighters? Professional one? Hm, to hom do you refer in
> particular? I only know one:
>
>             *A* *Plan* *for* *Spam* by paul Graham who was
>             behind the the idea of statistical Bayesian
>             filters. http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
>
> I'd be happy to read a professional that stands behind you
> opinion as opposed to Paul Graham's.
>
>| Nancy McCough is one of these alleged 'spamfighters' using
>| out- moded strategies for fighting spam (if not a spammer) who
>| has backed down repeatedly when challenged to a public test of
>| the lies and distortions she publishes:
>
> Do you run your own domain? Do you publish your own email
> address?  What have you published? What have you contributed?
>
> To me - Nancy is all of these. I guess there is a language
> barrier here to understand "who's lying" here.
>
>| I repeat: Do you have any idea how many times the same sort
>| of _garbage_ that you have posted here has been said on these
>| groups?
>
> What garbage specially you're referring to? That spammer's do
> not use other people's addresses?
>
>| I'd suggest that *you* are the one with some homework to
>| do, but you know perfectly well that you are maliciously
>| mis-informing the public because you are pro-spam and only
>| pretending to be a spam fighter.
>
> "..you are pro-spam" - Thank you. I feel much better now when
> you said it. Perhaps you have more compliments in your basket
> in the future.
>
>| I get no spam at all. I don't even know when the spammers
>| *try* to get in my mailboxes. I don't have to mess with my
>| filter, ever, and no one I want to hear from has any problem
>| reaching me.
>
>| I have never had a *single* complaint from anyone but a
>| spammer in the real world about this sort of filter. Nor has
>| anyone that I know of. Millions of people use them, including
>| several ISPs.
>|
>| Myself, and others who use the type of filter described
>| vaguely above and in considerable detail in the webpages in my
>| sig, have defeated the spammer's *completely*.
>
> I assume you're referring the Challenge-Response filter. How
> can you defeat a spammer who isn't writing a message in his
> name? Please take a look this picture:
>
> http://pm-lib.sf.net/pic/cr-system-joe-job.jpg
>
> The mail message includes no information where the spammer
> is. Please prove otherwise and we're all ears.
>
> Jari

You sure know how to shovel the bullshit. 

Results are what count, not bullshit.

I get no spam (I don't even know these criminals tried to get in
my mailbox unless I check my logs.).

I don't have to mess with my filter.

Noone I want to hear from has any trouble reaching me.

No one in the *real* world has complained about my filter except
a spamming domain.


AC


-- 
Pass-list --> Block-list --> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailboxes
http://tinyurl.com/3c3agp http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670630-0005
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

The fake Alan Connor writes:

>> It is very bad practice to send bounces. 
> 
> That's not a "bounce" it is an auto-response.

An auto-response is a bounce, Beavis.  In either case, the message is 
returned as undeliverable.  The only reason that in this particular 
instance, the autoresponse comes from an idiot.

> Yes. One should not send auto-reponses to mail that is obviously
> spam. 
> 
> Duh.

And if your shriveled cranium ever comes up with a way to determine, with 
100% certainty, whether a given message is "obviously spam", you're going to=
 
win the Nobel prize.

> Do you have any idea how many times this issue has been discussed
> on this group?

=E2=80=A6 and universally - with a sole exception of Beavis - agreed that it=
's not 
practical.

> Yes. Spammers, and professional spam fighters who are experts in
> the use of outmoded filters hate this sort of mail filter because
> it puts them both out of business.
> 
> As do the people that hire spammers.

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml#Insults



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670630-0005
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBXd2mx9p3GYHlUOIRAuwuAJ0TIXfepfotoeaykpUck7bAG4l9VACfY4Hx
/xi6l1hIgr8fd6r4w9YVxaY=
=LI91
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670630-0005--

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670788-0006
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Beavis writes:

> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:46:13 +0300, Jari Aalto
> <jari.aalto@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 

[ Beavis quotes Jari's entire post, but can't think of any intelligent 
response, before attaching the following blather at the end ]

> 
> You sure know how to shovel the bullshit. 
> 
> Results are what count, not bullshit.

Beavis -- I'm impressed by how you logically responded to the previous 
posts, and offered evidence to the contrary.

Sherlock Holmes would be impressed of your debating skills.

> I get no spam (I don't even know these criminals tried to get in
> my mailbox unless I check my logs.).

You don't get any mail either.


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670788-0006
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBXd5Ex9p3GYHlUOIRAszSAJwK6ctfs2AFRPlMffNHNXGp5fNPcwCZAXwu
1zfYmYOxVghm5K6Ax5uWr+Y=
=Op4e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25358-1096670788-0006--