From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Jul 7 22:50:16 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFB7196964 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h685nl8b004782; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:49:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Possible yahoogroups problem. From: Chuq Von Rospach To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, mailman-developers@python.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/1 X-Sequence-Number: 1518 well, I was promised more than once that yahoo security was going to contact me, and nobody ever did. Ohwell. here's the issue: it looks to me like someone's figured out Yahoo's confirmation protocol. First, we got (edited for brevity): > From: Yahoo! Groups > owner=lists.apple.com@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:13:36 AM US/Pacific > To: mailman-owner@lists.apple.com > Subject: Please confirm your request to join associated_secretarial > Reply-To: > confirm-s2-6n1LGtpWyFrKWHIUtg2mjc8G=Ss-mailman- > owner=lists.apple.com@yahoogroups.com > > Hello mailman-owner@lists.apple.com, > > We have received your request to join the associated_secretarial > group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service. > > 1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/i?i=6n1LGtpWyFrKWHIUtg2mjc8G-Ss&e=mailman- > owner%40lists%2Eapple%2Ecom obviously, our list server never requested to join the list, but if that were it, I'd have simply thrown this out and ignored it with all of the other spam and stuff like this. But then shortly thereafter, we got... > From: associated_secretarial Moderator > > Date: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:15:33 AM US/Pacific > To: mailman-owner@lists.apple.com > Subject: Welcome to associated_secretarial > > > Hello, > > Welcome to the From the Eagle's Nest, a newsletter designed to help > you and your business to future successes. Great tips for those just > getting started and for established businesses. "Starting Out" , > "Cold Call Strategy", "Taping Tips" and "Working from Home" are just > some of the articles to look out for. The bi-weekly series addresses > the newer communications and technologies available for those who want > to "move with the times". With a genuine desire to help small > business, this newsletter is one you'll be glad you have in your > "Better Business Arsenal". > We unsubscribed immediately, of course, but the question is, how did that subscription get confirmed? I didn't do it. My associated didn't. So I'm worried that someone's figured out how to circumvent yahoo's confirmation process. I wanted to bring this up with Yahoo, but they evidently weren't interested. (and the reason I'm posting this to mailman-developers: just a general question, since I haven't had time to look it up myself: does the mailman confirmation process use an algorithm that could potentially be reverse engineered? If it happened to Yahoo, it could happen to Mailman. Even if it didn't happen to Yahoo, it could happen to other services if their confirmations can be predicted in some way. Anyone want to hazard a reason why it might NOT be a breach of yahoo's algorithm here? I'm just a bit worried that we're seeing a new phase where spammers have figured out how to get around these protections; if so, it also opens up mailing lists to be a new form of guided missile in attacks on people, something I'd rather avoid, thank you...) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 8 06:19:12 2003 Received: from anthem.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B53196653 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by anthem.wooz.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419672866A for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Possible yahoogroups problem. From: Barry Warsaw Reply-To: barry@python.org To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Damned Crazy Followers of the Horn Message-Id: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 08 Jul 2003 09:19:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200307/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1519 [Resending] On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 01:49, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > So I'm worried that someone's figured out how to circumvent yahoo's > confirmation process. I wanted to bring this up with Yahoo, but they > evidently weren't interested. Okay, so /that/ sucks. > (and the reason I'm posting this to mailman-developers: just a general > question, since I haven't had time to look it up myself: does the > mailman confirmation process use an algorithm that could potentially be > reverse engineered? If it happened to Yahoo, it could happen to > Mailman. Even if it didn't happen to Yahoo, it could happen to other > services if their confirmations can be predicted in some way. Short of a brute-force attack, I think it would be difficult. In the tradition of openness (and because it's all in the source anyway, as opposed to Yahoo's code -- yay for us :), here's what we do: When someone's subscription is held for approval, we generate the unique cookie by combining three pieces of information, and then sha hexdigesting the string representation of that data. If an attacker could figure out the string rep, they could hash it themselves and guess the cookie. The data we use: - the str() of the output of random.random() - the str() of the server's current time - the str() of the "content" and we concatenate these three strings together before hashing them. In the case of a subscription request, the content is a UserDesc instance, which has a repr like: (apologies for any line split) I'd think that because three of the UserDesc components come directly from the subscribee, it would be very difficult to guess the UserDesc repr, /aside/ from the difficulty of guessing the random float and timestamp. Given sha's hash security, I'd be inclined to think we're safe . An attacker could brute-force it, but I suspect you'd succumb to denial of service either in Mailman or in upstream tools long before the confirmation cookie was cracked. But maybe I'm missing an obvious hole, either in the cookie generation or somewhere else in the confirmation process. > Anyone want to hazard a reason why it might NOT be a breach of yahoo's > algorithm here? I'm just a bit worried that we're seeing a new phase > where spammers have figured out how to get around these protections; if > so, it also opens up mailing lists to be a new form of guided missile > in attacks on people, something I'd rather avoid, thank you...) BTW, is there something we can do to prevent Mailman addresses from getting subscribed to Yahoo! or other listservs? I'd rather not hardcode in Yahoo! brain damage, so I'm looking for a more principled approach. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 8 09:12:31 2003 Received: from argent.heraldsnet.org (argent.heraldsnet.org [64.83.41.80]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05D71964D3 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by argent.heraldsnet.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 823BD3CB; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:12:10 -0400 From: Jim Trigg To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Possible yahoogroups problem. Message-ID: <20030708161210.GD44182@scadian.net> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com References: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Archive-Number: 200307/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1520 On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:19:07AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 01:49, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > > So I'm worried that someone's figured out how to circumvent yahoo's > > confirmation process. I wanted to bring this up with Yahoo, but they > > evidently weren't interested. > > Okay, so /that/ sucks. > > > (and the reason I'm posting this to mailman-developers: just a general > > question, since I haven't had time to look it up myself: does the > > mailman confirmation process use an algorithm that could potentially be > > reverse engineered? If it happened to Yahoo, it could happen to > > Mailman. Even if it didn't happen to Yahoo, it could happen to other > > services if their confirmations can be predicted in some way. > > But maybe I'm missing an obvious hole, either in the cookie generation > or somewhere else in the confirmation process. The only obvious hole I see is interception of the outgoing message containing the cookie... Jim Trigg -- Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN Hostmaster, Huie Kin family website X HELP CURE HTML MAIL Verger, All Saints Church - Sharon Chapel / \ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 10 12:35:10 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE8E196B20 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (paf-tom-gw.teleservice.net [193.109.175.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6AJYuqu013324; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:34:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> References: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:35:10 +0200 To: barry@python.org, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Possible yahoogroups problem. Cc: mailman-developers@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200307/4 X-Sequence-Number: 1521 At 9:19 AM -0400 7/8/03, Barry Warsaw wrote: >The data we use: > >- the str() of the output of random.random() >- the str() of the server's current time >- the str() of the "content" > >and we concatenate these three strings together before hashing them. I'm not sitting in front of the source code for Mailman right now (and I don't read Python), so this brings up a few questions. - Can random.random() run out of randomness? That is, if you bombard the machine with requests that call random.random(), will it start sending out predictable responses? - What is the granularity of the server's current time? If it is "seconds", this is becomes easily predictable to an attacker. Even if it is "hundredths of seconds", that only means that the attacker has to send one or two hundred attempts for each confirmation. Unless Mailman notes "failed attempt to confirm a subscription", this could be lost in the noise. - How many bits of the hash are used? I ask because many programs that use hashes will not use the whole hash. The answer to the above three (particularly the first) determines whether or not an attacker can sensibly forge confirmations. (Of course, watching the outgoing mail would make this attack easier too. :-) ) --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 10 12:54:52 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3041961C6 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6AJsgfR028880 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:54:45 -0700 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6AJsb0K018092; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:54:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Possible yahoogroups problem. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , barry@python.org, list-managers@greatcircle.com, mailman-developers@python.org To: Paul Hoffman / IMC From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <5A6C9E1C-B310-11D7-9C39-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1522 On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > (Of course, watching the outgoing mail would make this attack easier > too. :-) ) > of course, if they're sniffing packets or otherwise intercepting content, the only thing that'll stop it is a phone call... carrier pigeon, maybe. My worry, of course, is that the e-mail community has had a tendency to see mail-back validation as the solution to many problems (and it is, just not as globally as some might hope) --- but I don't think the community has ever stopped to make sure those techniques were really secure in a formal way, or defined what it takes to be secure. the existance has been enough... (but then, there are all sorts of attack vectors in mail lists that haven't been properly addressed. If I want to mailbomb your inbox into a cinder, does it matter whether I subscribe you 50 busy mail lists, or simply shove 1,500 "if you want to confirm your subscription..." replies in via a forged address? Most servers will happily keep resending confirmations without rate limiting, so you don't even need to find 1500 lists... Ditto help and info messages, postmaster auto-bots, etc, etc... ) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Jul 11 01:36:23 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3361D196C48 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (paf-tom-gw.teleservice.net [193.109.175.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6B8Qmqu065359; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1057869582.15764.95.camel@yyz> References: <1057670346.1546.58.camel@anthem> <1057869582.15764.95.camel@yyz> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:27:01 +0200 To: Barry Warsaw From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Possible yahoogroups problem. Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, "LIST: Mailman Developers" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200307/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1523 At 4:39 PM -0400 7/10/03, Barry Warsaw wrote: >On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 15:35, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > >> - Can random.random() run out of randomness? That is, if you bombard >> the machine with requests that call random.random(), will it start >> sending out predictable responses? > >Any pseudo random number generate can, right? Some PRNGs have failure modes which become easily predictable. These are almost always triggered when the source of random bits is exhausted. If you ask for too much randomness too quickly, you can start getting predictable data. Well-written PRNGs are smarter than this: they put out not-very-random but very-random-looking values, usually based on "hash of ( the last random value | current time | job number )". > Python 2.2's RNG has 45 >bits of randomness, Python 2.3's 53 bits. The latter uses the Mersenne >Twister algorithm which I'm told is the state of the art. Then this is sufficient. And so is 45 bits of randomness. > > - What is the granularity of the server's current time? If it is >> "seconds", this is becomes easily predictable to an attacker. Even if >> it is "hundredths of seconds", that only means that the attacker has >> to send one or two hundred attempts for each confirmation. Unless >> Mailman notes "failed attempt to confirm a subscription", this could >> be lost in the noise. > >Depends on the server OS. We probably only care about *nix systems, but >I'm sure there's variability even within that family. On Linux, I >believe there is a 1us resolution for time.time() which uses >gettimeofday(). As long as your random value has 45 bits of randomness (and none of those bits rely on the time!), then it doesn't matter how predictable your time value is. > > - How many bits of the hash are used? I ask because many programs >> that use hashes will not use the whole hash. > >We use all 160 bits of the sha hash. Good! In summary, assuming that the first answer above (about the pseudo-random number generator) is correct and it gives 45 bits of randomness at each invocation, there is no way that an attacker can attack the auto-responder without sending about 35 trillion messages. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 00:10:07 2003 Received: from smtp.pspl.co.in (www.pspl.co.in [202.54.11.65]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3C7195F77 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp.pspl.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h6F7DJjt001680 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:43:19 +0530 Received: from gardner (oblixgw.pspl.co.in [202.54.11.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.pspl.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6F7DIKr001667 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:43:18 +0530 Message-ID: <04c201c34aa0$18e88420$6503a8c0@persistent.co.in> From: "Amod Phadke" To: Subject: Command line interface not working Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:39:53 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04BF_01C34ACE.30A4F020" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=6.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE version=2.54 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.54 (1.174.2.17-2003-05-11-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200307/7 X-Sequence-Number: 1524 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04BF_01C34ACE.30A4F020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi , I recently set majordomo lists on my mail server. I can see the lists and m= ake modifications to them using the web interface (majorcool). But somehow = the command line is not working for my setup. eg. When I send command "lists" to majordomo@mymailserver.co.in it doesn't = reply with the list of mailing lists available. Similar thing happens to any other command. When I chakec on my mail server= I can see all the mails sent to majordomo in the mailbox of 'majordomo' us= er. How do I get majordomo reply to these mails automatically ? Regards, Amod ------=_NextPart_000_04BF_01C34ACE.30A4F020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi ,
 
I recently set majordomo lists on my mail server. I can= see=20 the lists and make modifications to them using the web interface (majorcool= ).=20 But somehow the command line is not working for my setup.
 
eg. When I send command "lists" to majordomo@mymailserver.co.in it=20 doesn't reply with the list of mailing lists available.
 
Similar thing happens to any other command. When I chak= ec on=20 my mail server I can see all the mails sent to majordomo in the mailbox of= =20 'majordomo' user.
 
How do I get majordomo reply to these mails automatical= ly=20 ?
 
Regards,
Amod
------=_NextPart_000_04BF_01C34ACE.30A4F020-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 06:12:03 2003 Received: from pageplanet.com (england.pageplanet.com [4.38.75.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0F5197199 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [150.193.16.192] (150.193.16.192) by pageplanet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.1.4) for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:11:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: tcora1@mail.ibmwr.org Message-Id: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:11:50 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Mailing List Providers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200307/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1525 Any suggestions from the crowd as to sources of providers of list services? I'd also be interested in your personal recommendations. majordomo preferred (simply due to familiarity with it), but not required. We're talking 1500 subscribers, 200+ msgs/day for the primary list, couple hundred subscribers 10's of msgs/day (or less) for a couple of others. We're not totally dissatisfied with our current provider, but are always looking at options... Thanks. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@skylands.ibmwr.org Skylands (NJ) BMW Riders <+> From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 15:44:23 2003 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AD1195B1E; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-66-167-131-45.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.131.45] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19cYWy-0001Qt-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:44:20 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:44:21 -0700 To: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: AOL blocking Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/9 X-Sequence-Number: 1526 Within the past couple of hours, AOL has started blocking all my mailing lists (all live on the same server) mistaking them for spam. This happened a few years ago and I ended up having to move the lists to another host as a result. Fighting AOL, trying to convince them that opt-in mailing lists are not spam, was futile. Has anyone found a way to get AOL to whitelist, or stop blocking, mailing lists? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 18:09:47 2003 Received: from s2.habeas.com (s2.habeas.com [64.142.16.37]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D89E195AFF; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:09:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Received: from annie (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by s2.habeas.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6G19lQA072652; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:09:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from amitchell@habeas.com) From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: Bob Bish Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:09:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL blocking Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: <3F144364.4757.1A8D25D@localhost> In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200307/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1527 > Has anyone found a way to get AOL to whitelist, or stop blocking, > mailing lists? We have. :-) Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO Habeas, Inc. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 19:23:02 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9C41962A5 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnjazz.com (purple.radparker.com [10.0.0.41]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C10104D6 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:28:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F14B725.70EFA470@mnjazz.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:23:33 -0500 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200307/11 X-Sequence-Number: 1528 Bob Bish wrote: > > Within the past couple of hours, AOL has started blocking all my > mailing lists (all live on the same server) mistaking them for spam. This > happened a few years ago and I ended up having to move the lists to another > host as a result. Fighting AOL, trying to convince them that opt-in > mailing lists are not spam, was futile. > Has anyone found a way to get AOL to whitelist, or stop blocking, > mailing lists? Yes. Assuming you own the server in question, call the number in AOL's whois entry in the morning and plead your case. It's actually fairly easy to show AOL that you're not a spammer. It may take a few days to resolve. Regards, Al Iverson From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 19:37:39 2003 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAC6195ADE for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-66-167-134-178.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.134.178] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ccAh-0005ab-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:37:35 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715193358.02e86c60@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:37:26 -0700 To: Al Iverson , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <3F14B725.70EFA470@mnjazz.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/12 X-Sequence-Number: 1529 At 07:23 PM 7/15/2003, Al Iverson wrote: > > Has anyone found a way to get AOL to whitelist, or stop blocking, > > mailing lists? > >Yes. Assuming you own the server in question, call the number in AOL's >whois entry in the morning and plead your case. It's actually fairly >easy to show AOL that you're not a spammer. It may take a few days to >resolve. It was even easier than that. They have a web page for testing for open relays (it's given in the bounce message). I tested the IP address of the list host. It came back negative, causing their software to automatically remove it from the block list. It must have been detected as an open relay as the result of some kind of snafu. At least, that's my best guess. The good news is that AOL's blocking of my lists has ceased. It only lasted for about 8-9 hours total. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Jul 15 21:34:43 2003 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A93319609C; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-66-167-134-178.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.134.178] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ce00-0004er-00; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:34:40 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715213335.00bce6f0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:34:41 -0700 To: "Daniel Thorstensen-Assis" From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocking Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <003101c34b53$088664e0$6c7f1e18@klipyhq> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030715193852.00bb3860@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1530 At 09:22 PM 7/15/2003, Daniel Thorstensen-Assis wrote: >Bob, > >Could you share with us the specific steps -- ie, the page, etc? http://postmaster.info.aol.com/ You'll see the choices on the left. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 16 06:51:44 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8264119638B for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 314612178A; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:51:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:51:37 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200307/14 X-Sequence-Number: 1531 >>>>> "BB" == Bob Bish writes: BB> Has anyone found a way to get AOL to whitelist, or stop blocking, BB> mailing lists? They are not all that unreasonable to deal with. Go to www.postmaster.aol.com and poke around for their phone number and give them a call. State our case and they should call you back relatively soon. They make you jump through some hoops, but for us it wasn't that painful. Unfortunately, they have many subscribers that use the "report spam" button to unsubscribe from lists, and they use that as a basis for deciding what to block. Even more unfortunate is that they have no opposite mechanism -- that people can report to them improperly blocked mail. At least Yahoo! does that part well... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 16 07:09:12 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CD31963FE for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 57B992178B; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16149.23615.246090.512295@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:07:59 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715193358.02e86c60@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030715193358.02e86c60@pop.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200307/15 X-Sequence-Number: 1532 >>>>> "BB" == Bob Bish writes: BB> The good news is that AOL's blocking of my lists has ceased. It only BB> lasted for about 8-9 hours total. Well, they could have blocked it for including the letter "P" for all you know... Remember a while back they accidentally blocked all mail from hosts who's IP started with 6? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 05:48:19 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D5B195A73 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 5FD142178A; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:48:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:48:12 -0400 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200307/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1533 >>>>> "GAE" == Geraint A Edwards writes: GAE> and were quite helpful - albeit unconvincing as to why we've been GAE> blocked. They even offered to send me the complaints. We get copies of complaints from AOL customers. It is shocking what they claim is spam via the "report spam" button -- these are fully confirmed subscriptions. Heck, they even report the confirmation request as spam. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 06:35:47 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE121966CF for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6HDX3xV027236; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:33:04 -0700 Subject: Re: AOL blocking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Vivek Khera From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Message-Id: <31BF10E5-B85B-11D7-A3E4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/17 X-Sequence-Number: 1534 On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:48 AM, Vivek Khera wrote: > We get copies of complaints from AOL customers. It is shocking what > they claim is spam via the "report spam" button Worse, AOL's attitude is "if they reported it, it must be spam". there's no analysis done at all. Or interest in doing so. I've got various aspects of this disaster documented in my blog, as sort of an on-going documentation of a train wreck in progress. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 06:46:36 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296141966F1 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6HDjuxV027505; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:45:56 -0700 Subject: Re: AOL blocking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, Vivek Khera To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <31BF10E5-B85B-11D7-A3E4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/18 X-Sequence-Number: 1535 On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 06:33 AM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> We get copies of complaints from AOL customers. It is shocking what >> they claim is spam via the "report spam" button > > Worse, AOL's attitude is "if they reported it, it must be spam". > there's no analysis done at all. Or interest in doing so. > got another one this morning. Hockey tournament in las vegas. On a list about hockey. On a list about playing in tournaments. My policy is to treat these as unsubscribe requests. When they complain (80% of the time) about being removed, it allows me to open a dialog about using their spam reporting tools responsibly. Almost always, i get apologies. Once, I got into a fight with a long-time member who felt it was all my fault, and she ended up being invited off my lists (sigh) because she kept reporting list mail as spam, and saying it was my system's fault for not making it obvious that it wasn't spam. It's a disaster, unfortunately. And we as list owners get to spend our time trying to teach AOL users FOR AOL how to use their tools right, because AOL doesn't, and does no validity checking. ohwell. Fortunately, AOL is shedding members like a moulting bird. Unfortunately, they have a lot of feathers left. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 06:51:50 2003 Received: from folkserv.net (64.90.176.26.nyinternet.net [64.90.176.26]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD00196604 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by folkserv.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h6HDnNhs020448 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by folkserv.net (8.12.9/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HDnMJI020408 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:49:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tneff@grassyhill.net) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:49:22 -0400 From: Tom Neff Reply-To: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking Message-ID: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> In-Reply-To: <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b4 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) X-Archive-Number: 200307/19 X-Sequence-Number: 1536 --On Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:48 AM -0400 Vivek Khera wrote: >>>>>> "GAE" == Geraint A Edwards writes: > We get copies of complaints from AOL customers. It is shocking what > they claim is spam via the "report spam" button -- these are fully > confirmed subscriptions. Heck, they even report the confirmation > request as spam. This is one of my big gripes with that system. We've all known for years that people have a tendency to join lists without really, somehow, quite knowing that this means they're going to start getting emails :) ... or some office temp uses the departmental account to join EMINEM-L while the regular employee is away ... or people join lists that go moribund and then revive a year later... resulting in outraged emails (publicly posted if you're unlucky) saying "What the hell is this, get me off immediately!" So far so "good" - just part of the joy of the listadmin's job. But when a major ISP gives you a *one-click alternative* to writing that angry email... people are going to use it! Why bother to write back and say "what is this, get me off immediately" when you can just press the handy SPAM button? So now, instead of a human-level misunderstanding you can clear up in the usual way, you are "booked into the system" as a spammer, and you have layers of bureaucracy to untangle before normalcy can be restored. This makes me think - Barry, are you listening? - that it might be a nice idea to have a "diplomacy header" that could be configured into lists. New members would automatically have it pre-pended to each message or Digest that's sent to them, for X number of weeks. It might say something like [ Hi! This is a posting from the EMINEM-L listserv, which you joined on March 5th using the (reply confirmed) email address Accting35@bizindustry.com. If you're not sure why you're receiving these postings, please visit the list information page at http://rockstalkers.org/lists/eminem-l or send email to eminem-l-owner@rockstalkers.org - we'll be happy to help. ] This would require individualized mailings to newbies, but the results might well be worth it. As a refinement, you could automatically "relight" the flag for everybody when a long-dormant list suddenly gets a posting. In fact, it might be worth changing Mailman so that emergency moderation is AUTOMATICALLY enabled when a long-dormant list gets its first posting in X number of months, since it's often a spam or something else bizarre that'll just trigger the "What the hell" flood. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 07:20:26 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ED11966D6 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6HEJQxV028050; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:19:27 -0700 Subject: Re: AOL blocking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Tom Neff From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/20 X-Sequence-Number: 1537 Wouldn't help. 90% or more of the spam complaints I see come when users see a mailbox full of spam, select everything in the mailbox in frustration, and report everything as spam in bulk. They aren't even opening the messages. It's a frustration reaction caused by AOL's absolute inability to really dent the amount of spam that gets into their mailboxes. The argument I had with the woman I ended up inviting to leave was over my refusal to add subject line flags on the mailing list messages (list members probably know my attitude towards that...). I admit that after that fight I reconsidered my position, but since I've yet to have another issue like that, I ended up doing nothing. But it seems the only way to have a chance to avoid this kind of problem. It's an unfortuate situation. Huge infrastructure, many of the key techs who built it have left, the spam problem continues to escalate, they're trying to deal with it with fireaxes and shotguns (lots of collateral damage), and still have huge amounts of spam get through, and they've built stupid tools that their (generally tech naive) users use wrong, and nobody at AOL seems capable of figuring out what to do about it. And because (ultimately) they've failed at stopping spam, and as people shift to broadband, people are leaving AOL in droves, so revenues are dropping, making hiring and capital improvements difficult. of course, they dug themselves this hole, so I'm only somewhat sympathetic. But my dealings with AOL the last year have generally left me frustrated, not satisfied. My mom was never happier the day she got moved from AOL to Earthlink. For all their "internet with training wheels" motif, she found them unreliable and the software horribly non-intuitive on top of everything else. Now she's using OS X, ID (soon to be Safari) and mail.app, and having a ball... On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 06:49 AM, Tom Neff wrote: > This makes me think - Barry, are you listening? - that it might be a > nice > idea to have a "diplomacy header" that could be configured into lists. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 07:23:51 2003 Received: from folkserv.net (64.90.176.26.nyinternet.net [64.90.176.26]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDF8195A73 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by folkserv.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h6HENoFh021621 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by folkserv.net (8.12.9/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HENnJI021582 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:23:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tneff@grassyhill.net) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:23:49 -0400 From: Tom Neff Reply-To: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking Message-ID: <936040296.1058437429@[192.168.0.16]> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b4 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) X-Archive-Number: 200307/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1538 --On Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:19 AM -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Wouldn't help. > > 90% or more of the spam complaints I see come when users see a mailbox full > of spam, select everything in the mailbox in frustration, and report > everything as spam in bulk. They aren't even opening the messages. Point certainly taken. Maybe there's a way to convince AOL to treat such "bulk spam reports" differently from individual reports. They must be aware of the lower quality of the information! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 07:49:59 2003 Received: from jbod.calchiro.com (jbod.calchiro.com [66.93.182.128]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA1A19731D for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bj ([4.20.98.115]) by jbod.calchiro.com (8.12.8/linuxconf) with SMTP id h6HDjV3F003811 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:45:31 -0700 From: "Brian Zaleski" To: Subject: Re: AOL blocking Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:53:22 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4925.2800 Importance: Normal X-Archive-Number: 200307/22 X-Sequence-Number: 1539 Tom, You gotta love it. > So far so "good" - just part of the joy of the listadmin's job. > But when a > major ISP gives you a *one-click alternative* to writing that > angry email... > people are going to use it! Why bother to write back and say > "what is this, > get me off immediately" when you can just press the handy SPAM button? A couple of months ago this happened to me. I wasn't on the open relay list, but I just kept getting blocked. Finally I got in touch with one of their postmasters (John 703.265.3543). Nice guy, very helpful. Anyway, he wanted an addresses where they could send the TOS reports. I gave him one. The problem is that the TOS reports are anonymous. So I called the guy back and asked him what I should do. I explained that these were opt-in lists that had been around for eight years, and that if someone wanted off, I'd LOVE to remove them. His response "Just ignore them." Brian From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 08:04:45 2003 Received: from mail.dallas.net (ultra1.dallas.net [204.215.60.15]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3146E196620 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JANET.dm.net (aux-209-217-59-63.oklahoma.net [209.217.59.63]) by mail.dallas.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2107820DC; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:04:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030717100214.02066c90@mail.dm.net> X-Sender: janet@mail.dm.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:03:43 -0500 To: Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Janet Detter Margul Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> References: <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/23 X-Sequence-Number: 1540 Tom, that "remember, you signed up for this list and it's functioning as it should" reminder to newbies and suddenly active lists is a good one. And not all that hard to implement. A bit of a pain in the ass, but so is dealing with the clueless responses to an email list sending email to them. Gonna have to sit and ponder how to make it easily work. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 08:37:32 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1D7196620 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6HFb5xV029150; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:37:06 -0700 Subject: Re: AOL blocking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Tom Neff From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <936040296.1058437429@[192.168.0.16]> Message-Id: <856B2E3D-B86C-11D7-A3E4-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/24 X-Sequence-Number: 1541 On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 07:23 AM, Tom Neff wrote: > Maybe there's a way to convince AOL to treat such "bulk spam reports" > differently from individual reports. good luck. > They must be aware of the lower quality > of the information! > not from my discussions with them, no. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 08:40:26 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B29195A1C for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6HFe6xV029218; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:40:07 -0700 Subject: Re: AOL blocking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , To: "Brian Zaleski" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/25 X-Sequence-Number: 1542 On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 07:53 AM, Brian Zaleski wrote: > The > problem is that the TOS reports are anonymous. so you turn on personalization in mailman, and include the e-mail address in the footer. Then, only digests are anonymous, but to date, I've only had one digest TOSed. AOL, of course, sends messages anonymously, but doesn't even trivially filter those messages for identifying information. go figure -- but that tells you what you're up against here, if you think about it. > had been around for eight years, and that if someone wanted off, I'd > LOVE to > remove them. His response "Just ignore them." > yeah. Similar to my dealings. We've had dealings with them Over In My Other Suit also, and it hasn't encouraged me that this is going to get better. Me, I now suggest people get a real ISP. AOL is, simply, broken. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 12:53:19 2003 Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7070A196C87 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-66-167-135-142.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.135.142] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19dEoT-0000T9-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:53:13 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030717125109.00b7f098@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:53:11 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> References: <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net> <16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com> <20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/26 X-Sequence-Number: 1543 >This makes me think - Barry, are you listening? - that it might be a nice >idea to have a "diplomacy header" that could be configured into lists. New >members would automatically have it pre-pended to each message or Digest >that's sent to them, for X number of weeks. It might say something like That would depend on people actually reading it. Lots of luck there! It constantly amazes me how people fill out and submit forms on the Internet without reading anything that goes with them. There are unscrupulous web sites out there which take advantage of this stupidity to harvest e-mail addresses for spam lists and other less-than-honorable reasons. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 13:50:30 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A811967E0 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FANTASY-BERNIE (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253]) by mail.rev.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6HKoPLk028384 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:50:26 -0400 Message-Id: <200307172050.h6HKoPLk028384@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:50:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030717125109.00b7f098@pop.earthlink.net> References: <933972750.1058435362@[192.168.0.16]> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Archived: msg.1058475026.b6rI64@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200307/27 X-Sequence-Number: 1544 On 17 Jul 2003 at 12:53, Bob Bish wrote: > >This makes me think - Barry, are you listening? - that it might be a nice > >idea to have a "diplomacy header" that could be configured into lists. New > >members would automatically have it pre-pended to each message or Digest > >that's sent to them, for X number of weeks. It might say something like > > That would depend on people actually reading it. Lots of luck > there! ... Indeed, on one of the lists I'm on, the "how to unsubscribe" info is in the footer at the bottom of EVERY message... and, yup, you guessed it: yesterday, some chucklehead posted a "how do I unsubscribe' to the list... There's just no hope.... /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 13:56:23 2003 Received: from befriend2.dnsservers.us (befriend2.dnsservers.us [64.246.20.65]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7855E196271 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:56:22 -0700 (PDT) X-ClientAddr: 166.90.110.233 Received: from befoffice1 (dialup-166.90.110.233.Dial1.Richmond1.Level3.net [166.90.110.233]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by befriend2.dnsservers.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HKuoe12979 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:56:50 -0400 Message-ID: <034c01c34ca5$db822480$c771fea9@befoffice1> From: "Steve Werby" To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030715154118.02cb5058@pop.earthlink.net><16149.22633.88946.6205@yertle.int.kciLink.com><20030716213242.GC6499@cymru.serf.org> <16150.39692.271094.485911@yertle.int.kciLink.com> Subject: Re: AOL blocking Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:56:10 -0400 Organization: Befriend Internet Services LLC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-7.7, required 5, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, RCVD_IN_NJABL, REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, X_NJABL_DIALUP) X-Archive-Number: 200307/28 X-Sequence-Number: 1545 "Vivek Khera" wrote: > >>>>> "GAE" == Geraint A Edwards writes: > > GAE> and were quite helpful - albeit unconvincing as to why we've been > GAE> blocked. They even offered to send me the complaints. > > We get copies of complaints from AOL customers. I too get these on behalf of a client I do server administration for. I believe AOL calls it a feedback loop. > It is shocking what > they claim is spam via the "report spam" button -- these are fully > confirmed subscriptions. Heck, they even report the confirmation > request as spam. The bulk of my client's virtual hosting customers have AOL accounts so their email is forwarded to their AOL accounts. Unfortunately some of the customers have been reporting spam that was sent to their virtual hosting account and forwarded to their AOL account. It is spam, but my client's server is only responsible for relaying the email to the customer, it's not the sender and it's not an open relay. However AOL blocked the server a month ago and may do so again. Even with user education some customers are still reporting these messages as spam. And the kicker is that all of the messages they've reported the last week (35 messages, 3 AOL customers) were properly tagged by SpamAssassin with a {Spam?} subject prefix. I don't put all of the blame on AOL as the customers should share the blame and I'm aware of solutions that my client can (but won't) implement that will help cut down on it, but it's a pain none the less. -- Steve Werby President, Befriend Internet Services LLC http://www.befriend.com/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 14:50:08 2003 Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.14.116]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C89196C26 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h6HLo4xE019634 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6HLo1rH019593 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15052 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Jul 2003 21:50:01 -0000 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL blocking In-Reply-To: (Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:19:27 -0700") References: From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:50:01 -0700 Message-ID: <87znjcg6wm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200307/29 X-Sequence-Number: 1546 Chuq Von Rospach writes: > Wouldn't help. > 90% or more of the spam complaints I see come when users see a mailbox > full of spam, select everything in the mailbox in frustration, and > report everything as spam in bulk. They aren't even opening the > messages. It's a frustration reaction caused by AOL's absolute inability > to really dent the amount of spam that gets into their mailboxes. I think it might help this problem somewhat, although not alieviate it entirely of course, for AOL's spam report button to look at the message and if it has a List-Unsubscribe header, to try mailing that first. They'd have to keep a blacklist of spammers who abused that header, or automatically generate such a list from those spams that someone reported and then received again with the same List-Unsubscribe header, but it might be pretty effective. If the users are going to use the spam button as an unsubscribe button, why not make it exactly that? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 17 15:09:46 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCDD196DE3 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnjazz.com (localhost.mnjazz.com [127.0.0.1]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57E110495 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:15:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3F171EA2.2C891B2D@mnjazz.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:09:38 -0500 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list managers Subject: Re: AOL blocking References: <87znjcg6wm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200307/30 X-Sequence-Number: 1547 Russ Allbery wrote: > > Chuq Von Rospach writes: > > > Wouldn't help. > > > 90% or more of the spam complaints I see come when users see a mailbox > > full of spam, select everything in the mailbox in frustration, and > > report everything as spam in bulk. They aren't even opening the > > messages. It's a frustration reaction caused by AOL's absolute inability > > to really dent the amount of spam that gets into their mailboxes. > > I think it might help this problem somewhat, although not alieviate it > entirely of course, for AOL's spam report button to look at the message > and if it has a List-Unsubscribe header, to try mailing that first. > They'd have to keep a blacklist of spammers who abused that header, or > automatically generate such a list from those spams that someone reported > and then received again with the same List-Unsubscribe header, but it > might be pretty effective. > > If the users are going to use the spam button as an unsubscribe button, > why not make it exactly that? Some of us brought up ideas like that at the spam summit back in late April/early May, but were met mostly with blank stares in response. I didn't specificially broach the idea to AOL, so I am not referring to them. Frankly, I think it'd be a great idea. The problem is...why would an AOL-like entity need to do this? Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 30 21:41:06 2003 Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D6E196300; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-146.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.146] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19i5FO-0001t5-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:41:02 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730213916.020678b8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:40:49 -0700 To: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: E-mail scams Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/31 X-Sequence-Number: 1548 Is it proper to report e-mail scams here? There have been a rash of them lately and I, for one, like to inform my list members so they don't get ripped off or have their credit card information stolen. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 30 22:16:26 2003 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D281196255; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-146.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.146] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19i5nT-0004eS-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:16:15 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730221446.02047bc8@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:16:13 -0700 To: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: E-mail scams Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/32 X-Sequence-Number: 1549 Some are misunderstanding my question. I'm talking about sCams, scams. NOT spam. Like those which mimic Ebay or PayPal to get people to enter their credit card information in order to steal it. New ones are popping up all the time these days. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 30 22:57:23 2003 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6AD195A74; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (sfo.postmodern.com [216.240.39.8]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.8/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h6V5w7fZ025329; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:58:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:57:15 -0700 Subject: Re: E-mail scams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Bob Bish From: "Michael C. Berch" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730213916.020678b8@pop.earthlink.net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Archive-Number: 200307/33 X-Sequence-Number: 1550 On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 09:40 PM, Bob Bish wrote: > Is it proper to report e-mail scams here? No, not really. There are a lot of other forums for that sort of thing. If you are troubled with them on your lists, that's one thing, and might be a good thing to review the anti-spam capabilities of Majordomo (or whatever list software you use) and your MTA. As far as warning your users, that's entirely dependent on the relationship you have with your users, but I, for one, have pretty much barred posting or discussion of all sorts of "warnings" on my lists, whether spam, scams, viruses, hoaxes, political alerts, etc. And neither list-managers nor majordomo-users is the right place for reports or warnings themselves. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 30 23:00:06 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [157.22.35.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602B1196BDB; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h6V5xSbq032130; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:28 -0700 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.9/8.12.4/Submit) id h6V5xSaA032129; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:28 -0700 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200307310559.h6V5xSaA032129@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: E-mail scams To: bobbish@earthlink.net (Bob Bish) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730221446.02047bc8@pop.earthlink.net> from "Bob Bish" at Jul 30, 2003 10:16:13 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200307/34 X-Sequence-Number: 1551 hi ya spams and scams are investigated and procecuted by the same people http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Mail/Laws none of the scams are new .... the same ones are here because it works and is time tested ... c ya alvin > Bob Bish wrote: > > Some are misunderstanding my question. I'm talking about sCams, > scams. NOT spam. Like those which mimic Ebay or PayPal to get people to > enter their credit card information in order to steal it. New ones are > popping up all the time these days. > > ...Bob > From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jul 30 23:02:00 2003 Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E44B1971EA; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-69-3-76-146.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.146] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19i6Vc-0006I6-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:01:52 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730230121.020735a0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:01:49 -0700 To: "Michael C. Berch" From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: E-mail scams Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730213916.020678b8@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200307/35 X-Sequence-Number: 1552 >> Is it proper to report e-mail scams here? > >No, not really. Message received and understood. Thanks. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Jul 31 06:05:58 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB3F196B04 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30329 invoked by uid 511); 31 Jul 2003 13:05:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20030731130555.30328.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730213916.020678b8@pop.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030730213916.020678b8@pop.earthlink.net> From: "Angel Rivera" To: Bob Bish Cc: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: E-mail scams Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:05:55 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200307/36 X-Sequence-Number: 1553 Bob Bish writes: > Is it proper to report e-mail scams here? There have been a rash of > them lately and I, for one, like to inform my list members so they don't > get ripped off or have their credit card information stolen. > > ...Bob > you should look at using News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Email and Sightings.