similar to: BEWARE: This list is being harvested for leads

I personally didn't mind a one-time notice from the dev's team that that are now offering paid commercial support. What if I WANTED it? I felt like it was a courtesy email from them to let me know that it's available. If those emails continue unsolicited, then it may start to feel like spam to me, but this did not. In general, I've actually been looking for ways to financially

I googled around looking for this, apparantly my google-fu is failing this morning. I just switched over to using a Postfix/Dovecot virtual set-up with Dovecot as the delivery agent. One of my users mistyped his email address when he paid for something through Paypal and the reciept got forwarded to everyone. It didn't bounce or just go to Postmaster, it was delivered to every valid user on

Just a warning to dovecot listmembers. The list is being harvested. test3943395 is a unique address I created only for communication to the dovecot list. The following spam came from: Received: from dial-dynamic-62-69-52-187.surfdial.murphx.net (dial-dynamic-62-69-52-187.surfdial.murphx.net [62.69.52.187]) by sasami.anime.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j7FLxtv03775 for

Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else. I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different. Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this? -- Dave

Just a quick note to those who care, I received a UCE this morning addressed to samba-337@ccp.com.au, the only place this was used was when emailing to this list. I can only conclude that either the list itself was harvested or someone has gone through the archive and harvested that. The Email actually came from 200.171.136.80 which has an abuse email address of abuse@telesp.net.br The Email

Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been > harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is > unique and not used for anything else. > > I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is > obviously different. > > Is there anything further that could be done

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:09:02AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote: > > > Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > > > >> Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been > >> harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is > >> unique and not used for anything else. >

On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote: > Quoting dovecot-e51 at deemzed.uk: > >> Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been >> harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is >> unique and not used for anything else. >> >> I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is >>

On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the > need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list. Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this. Also, some lists set the "reply to" with the sender rather than the list. Further, some user agents have a separate "reply"

On 02/12/2018 10:16, Michael A. Peters wrote: > On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >> Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list. > > Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this. I could have sworn I said that, oh yes, I see I did > Also, some lists set the

On 12/01/2018 05:00 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net > explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea. > > Reply-to is intended for the sender to explain that replies shouldn't > be sent to the obvious sending address, but to another address. > This is essential if, say, the sender is

* Michael A. Peters: > Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take > into account the vastly different way different types of minds work. Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to make the effort to adapt to existing conventions instead of expecting conventions

On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: [...] > But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Ralph Seichter wrote: > * Ruben Safir: > > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > > >> Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. > >> like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > > > that is pretty unrealistic and I

* Ruben Safir: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > >> Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. >> like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > that is pretty unrealistic and I don't agree with it anyway. The tool metaphor is realistic. In my experience (which dates back to the

On 02/12/2018 11:00, Hendrik Boom wrote: > There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net > explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea. Lots of posts around about this, all self serving :) There may of course be an RFC floating around, but I admit to never having bothered to look, because good netizens reply to list, lists are public, they

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: > [...] > > But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the > > reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list. > > Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong? > > Apart from the

On 12/01/2018 05:49 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote: > * Michael A. Peters: > >> Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take >> into account the vastly different way different types of minds work. > > Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. > If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to

Hi Dovecot People, i have switched my system from courier-imap to dovecot and iam quite happy with it, the performance is well and i had nearly no problems. One little feature iam missing is in Courier i had a folder called "Outbox" there i could paste mails which i want to sent out. In some networks its not always available to sent mails via port 21, i know i could just set up my

Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but other than that, is there a good reason why a mailserver would not be configured to send delivery failure to *both* Reply-To and From? mark