openssh unix dev - Sep 2003 - Blocking spamblocked.earthlink.net

For those who don't know, Greg Houlette sent in a request from an 
address that doesn't conveniently accept replies.

If people can't be bothered to read our replies, we shouldn't be 
bothered by their requests.

Just a note.  Maybe a request for a killfile.

--Dan

Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> For those who don't know, Greg Houlette sent in a request from an 
> address that doesn't conveniently accept replies.
> If people can't be bothered to read our replies, we shouldn't be 
> bothered by their requests.
> Just a note.  Maybe a request for a killfile.
Hmm.  I've got Earthlink at home, so I have some experience with
their spam-blocking system.  If one turns it on in the "normal" mode
then it's *very* easy to accidentally add an address to the blocklist
and I've done it three+ times myself to senders who I didn't intend
to block.  If one cranks it up a notch to the "block anyone not in
one's address book" mode, then it's even more of an overkill
(unless
someone really is religious in adding all possible correspondents to
Earthlink's online address book as opposed to the address book that
one maintains in one's MUA).  In other words, the fact that you can't
send e-mail directly to Greg H. could be operator error on the other
end rather than malevolence--even smart people make dumb mistakes
occasionally (or so the smart people tell me...)

Be that as it may, isn't the list archived?  And although it's been
a point of netiquette disagreement since at least 1988, what's the
big deal with just posting replies back to the list?

Methinks, Dan, that there are more important things about which to
get fired up [0].

  --Rip

[0]  Try as I might, I couldn't end that sentence without a dangling
     participle.  Grammar fascists please form a line to the left...

What Dan neglects to tell you is that at the end of my initial post
(and this one too) are instructions for avoiding this whole annoyance.
No Dan, I'm really not trying to make ANYONE jump through hoops for me.

I've had to resort to triple-spam-filtering my e-mail to get the
Hormel out (first at pobox.com, second at earthlink.net and finally
with Spamnix on my workstation).  And spam still gets thru!
(I've just got to try that new Bayesian filtering after the beta)

I've had three pobox 'lifetime' aliases for about 8 years and have
learned: spammers *_WILL_* go to just about any length to harvest
your address; posting without obscuring to just about *_ANY_* list
leaves you susceptible; even the very best, well managed lists can
be harvested by a smart-bot.

I apologize to everyone on this list for even having to respond to
this.  I read the archive.  After I'm done with my insignificant and
useless questions regarding Transparent Proxying and SSH, you will
probably not see me here again...   until I have another question...

Back to your normal programming...  Nothing to see here... you know
the rest...

Dan Kaminsky <dan () doxpara ! com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Methinks, Dan, that there are more important things about which to
>>get fired up [0].
>>
>I hit Reply All, and answer Greg's question.
>
>Immediate bounce:  The mailing address is invalid; I need to strip the 
>spamblocked.  OK.
>
>I send mail to the correct address.  Now it's a whitelister.  I need to 
>click a link.  OK.
>
>I'm directed to a page:  Apparently, Greg _may_ be willing to receive my
>message, if I provide 1) A Reason and 2) A string of characters.  WTF?
>
>He came to us.  The anti-spam gateway should be smart enough to note at 
>least the matching _subject_ lines.  It's not.  I'm aware that
mailing
>lists and spam look quite similar -- but if he wants to come here for a 
>service, it would behoove him not to make me go through three hoops to 
>be kind.
>
>My point is, at some point what he's providing diverges so far from what
>an email address is that it might as well be president at whitehouse.gov. 
> At least that address is preferable, as it does not bounce.
>
>As for posting replies to the list, given the amount of discussion 
>recently on the topic of Dynamic Forwarding (really, I must sound like a 
>broken record, or at best a one trick pony to the rest of you!  I'm so 
>sorry!) it was pretty clear he wasn't a subscriber.
>
>--Dan
Dan, I can say RTFM too [read the friggin' message]
Don't like it...   Just killfile me O.K?

All direct responses should use the following e-mail address rather
than the one in the from: header (which will get you NOWHERE).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Houlette <tamaster at pobox dot com>    *  Give me the graphical UI
Do you know who owns your network today?     *  that will "condense fact
GPG 1.2.2 Public Keys available upon request *  from the vapor of nuance"