From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 10 17:13:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA01811; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA01734 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe [200.37.231.132]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA12572 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha500 ([200.37.231.137]) by alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22484 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:02:28 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-ID: <00aa01bf2aed$ce5f96d0$89e725c8@alpha500.qnet.com.pe> From: "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" To: Subject: problems with majordomo Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:05:42 -0500 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 4.72.2106.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Sirs : I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : " The original message was received at Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:56 -0500 (GMT-0500) from majordom@localhost ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- milista-list :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista (expanded from: milista-list) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista... Cannot open /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory 554 milista-list... aliasing/forwarding loop broken " I would want to know why ? and how to solve this problem ? Thank you for your replies. Best Regards. From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 10 17:29:26 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA01636; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA01624 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:59:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe [200.37.231.132]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA27311 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha500 ([200.37.231.137]) by alfaqnet.qnet.com.pe (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA32614 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:33:39 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-ID: <001301bf2a31$5f0dd790$89e725c8@alpha500.qnet.com.pe> From: "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" To: Subject: problems with majordomo Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:36:52 -0500 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 4.72.2106.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Managers : I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : " The original message was received at Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:56 -0500 (GMT-0500) from majordom@localhost ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- milista-list :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista (expanded from: milista-list) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 :include:/usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista... Cannot open /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory 554 milista-list... aliasing/forwarding loop broken " I would want to know why ? and how to solve this problem ? I am working on Digital Unix 4.0D on DEC Alpha. Thank you for your replies. Best Regards. Ernesto Freyre Soporte Tecnico Qnet From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 11 05:57:23 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA11239; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA11232 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 05:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from SOUTINE2K (adsl-151-202-20-126.bellatlantic.net [151.202.20.126]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id IAA09425; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: problems with majordomo Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:48:38 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <199911110900.BAA06015@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Soporte Tecnico de Qnet" wrote: > I was working with majordomo above weeks, but since I up-grade the sendmail > to 8.9.3, when a user send message to the list (for this example "milista") > the list's owner/maintainer receive the message : ... > /usr/internet/majordomo/lists/milista: Group writable directory This line is the key. Recent Sendmail releases implement strict security checking by default, inncluding various checks for unsafe file and directory permissions. From the Sendmail Release Notes: "8.9.0/8.9.0 98/05/19 SECURITY: To prevent users from reading files not normally readable, sendmail will no longer open forward, :include:, class, ErrorHeader, or HelpFile files located in unsafe (i.e. group or world writable) directory paths. Sites which need the ability to override security can use the DontBlameSendmail option. See the README file for more information." So either fix the directory permissions, or add the DontBlameSendmail option to sendmail.cf. If you are not the mail admin for youe system, pass this on to whoever is. From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 14 19:58:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA01955; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA01948 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:50:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d16.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.234.80]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23705 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:47:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:26:59 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear Listmates, I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or receiving only sporadic email. (66%) It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to aol.com. Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. Suggestions?? Sincerely, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Legal Nurse Consultants Listowner, LNCNURSE From list-managers-owner Sun Nov 14 22:29:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA03253; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from boofura.swcp.com (boofura.swcp.com [198.59.115.28]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA03246 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by boofura.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id XAA16076 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:27:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:27:40 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991114232739.A16061@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com>; from Nicole Marie Spring on Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 11:26:59PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 11:26:59PM -0500, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: > I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com > subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or > receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > > It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to > aol.com. > > Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. Non aol.com subscribers aren't subscribed to a service that sometimes intentionally drops mailing-list mail because it thinks it's spam... > Suggestions?? I understand that the best way to get this little problem to "work itself out" is for the subscribers to complain to AOL. -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 08:45:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA11334; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA11327 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id KAA14471 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:35:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:36:17 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring wrote... >I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > >It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >aol.com. > >Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. > >Suggestions?? Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other header errors. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 10:08:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA11933; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA11926 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18629; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:49:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115114024.035de350@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:40:24 -0500 To: Nicole Marie Spring From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199911150347.WAA23705@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:26 PM 11/14/99 -0500, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: >Dear Listmates, > >I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > >It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >aol.com. > >Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. > >Suggestions?? This is an AOL problem. Tell your list users to *ALL* contact AOL support directly, and offer to work with AOL support when they contact you. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 13:15:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14598; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14591 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:09:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23670; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:12:03 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:26:19 -0500 To: Adam Bailey From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: In-Reply-To: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring > wrote... > >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) >> >>It has been confirmed that the email IS being delivered to >>aol.com. >> >>Non aol.com subscribers are NOT having this problem. >> >>Suggestions?? > >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other >header errors. In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some get through and some not get through? Why would some su bscribers get some of the mail and others get none of it? Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because they are big. I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a moron studying to be an idiot. The only way they will fix it is if their subscribers complain. -- "I've got guns. I can't hit crap with them." - Howard Stern Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 15:27:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA15648; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA15641 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:57:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19058 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:00:46 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:26:19 -0500. <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:00:46 -0800 Message-ID: <19056.942706846@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1>, you wrote: >Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >they are big. No, they can get away with it because there ain't no ``RFC police''. From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 16:00:45 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA16113; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:38:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA16106 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29890; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:40:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:40:49 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: Adam Bailey , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: > >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring > > wrote... > > > >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com > >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or > >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) > > > >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other > >header errors. > > In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some > get through and some not get through? One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, depending on the list software). Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to their DNS server. > Why would some su bscribers get some > of the mail and others get none of it? AOL subscribers have been known to turn on mail filters and then forget or misunderstand what's being filtered. That might be responsible here. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 16:56:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16825; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [207.126.126.64]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16818 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by tcp.com (8.9.0/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA14374; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:40:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: James Lick To: Nick Simicich cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > they are big. Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of mail in a very short time. ---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com ---- http://drivel.com/ ---- From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 17:21:48 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16835; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:38:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16828 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id SAA00212 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:41:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911160041.SAA00212@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:41:46 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/15/99 1:26 PM, Nick Simicich wrote... >I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a >moron studying to be an idiot. I chat occasionally with that very person. He's no moron. A moron would be hard-pressed to design a mail system that handles more email than any other in existence. The kinds of problems you're talking about are due to management, not design. Please be more careful before you levy accusations and insults at the people that you don't know. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 19:10:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA18348; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA18341 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA31805 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:46:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:48:10 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:40 PM 11/15/99 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: >On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: >> At 10:36 AM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >> >On 11/14/99 10:26 PM, Nicole Marie Spring >> > wrote... >> > >> >>I am receiving an increasing number of complaints from my aol.com >> >>subscribers that they are either not receiving email (33%) from my list or >> >>receiving only sporadic email. (66%) >> > >> >Check your headers. AOL will drop messages that have faulty DNS or other >> >header errors. >> >> In light of what was said, this reply makes little sense. Why would some >> get through and some not get through? > >One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the >mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing >list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, >depending on the list software). If the mail is all being sent from the same system, these headers are generally similar. >Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient >problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to >their DNS server. Then AOL is badly broken, and their members should complain. >> Why would some su bscribers get some >> of the mail and others get none of it? > >AOL subscribers have been known to turn on mail filters and then >forget or misunderstand what's being filtered. That might >be responsible here. When people have filtered my list mail, AOL does send bounces. The most famous is "X is not accepting mail with attachments" when the mail has no attachment in it. I've also gotten "This sender is not accepting mail from this origin." I suspect that AOL's mail servers are randomly dropping mail on the floor when overloaded because of some unforseen interaction with their anti-spam procedures and that it has nothing to do with the mail itself. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 19:39:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA18769; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.67]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA18762 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id VAA06389 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:15:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: AOL Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:16:09 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/15/99 6:40 PM, James Lick wrote... >On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: >> Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >> mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >> they are big. > >Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you >suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces >end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in >question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich >environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of >mail in a very short time. You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP adamkb@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 20:24:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA19267; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA19254 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA01074; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:08:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991115225928.03bdb100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:59:28 -0500 To: Adam Bailey From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Cc: In-Reply-To: <199911160041.SAA00212@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hmmm....let's me clear about this. Is this the guy who came from IBM, who worked on the VM SMTP system? I detest him so much that I've put his name out of my mind. Sat on this for an hour and it came to me - Matt Korn? I've also seen him quoted as a "speaker" for AOL. At 06:41 PM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/15/99 1:26 PM, Nick Simicich wrote... > >>I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a >>moron studying to be an idiot. > >I chat occasionally with that very person. He's no moron. A moron would >be hard-pressed to design a mail system that handles more email than any >other in existence. While mishandling a significant percentage of it. Dropping it on the floor is one way of "handling" it. It is not a good way. Misidentifying mail as containing attachments when it does not is another fine example of mishandling. >The kinds of problems you're talking about are due to management, not >design. Please be more careful before you levy accusations and insults at >the people that you don't know. Management made the decision to design a spam catcher that throws mail away? I guess.....Management made the decision to parse mail incorrectly? I doubt it. -- Do you have 10 years experience? Or one month's experience repeated 120 times? Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 21:09:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA19582; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA19573 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19862; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:58:02 -0800 (PST) To: Adam Bailey cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:16:09 -0600. <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:58:02 -0800 Message-ID: <19860.942728282@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com>, you wrote: >You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue >AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? Yes. Something like that. (Actually, in that case, CyberPromo may have had a point. There was some suggestion at the time that AOL *saved up* all of the bounces from all of CyberPromo's spam run(s) and then unleashed it all on CyberPromo's ISPs all at once, thus taking their servers down rather effectively. Moral of the story: Don't even try to fight a bandwidth war with AOL... You'll lose.) From list-managers-owner Mon Nov 15 21:54:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA19949; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA19942 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:38:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA36779; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:41:09 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Message-ID: <19991116004109.V11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> <19991115184049.R11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991115204810.03e1e3b0@127.0.0.1> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 08:48:10PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 06:40 PM 11/15/99 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: > >One possibility is if the recipient's mail server is rejecting the > >mail based on some headers that were not generated by the mailing > >list (which might include Message-ID, From, Date, or others, > >depending on the list software). > > If the mail is all being sent from the same system, these headers are > generally similar. Er, the "From" headers are definitely not similar to each other, at least if the posts all come from different people. As for the others, it depends on your list software. For example, I know that SmartList preserves Message-ID, and it looks as if Majordomo does as well. > >Another possibility is if mail is being dropped due to some transient > >problem with the sender's domain, e.g. poor network connectivity to > >their DNS server. > > Then AOL is badly broken, and their members should complain. It might also be the sender's domain that is badly broken. From our perspective it is hard to tell. At any rate, I think we are generally in agreement that if the listmaster can prove that the mail was delivered to AOL, that it is out of her hands and the AOL user should complain to their tech support contacts. But for the record, as an external mail admin I have not found AOL's mail systems to cause nearly as much trouble as, say, Prodigy or iName or CompuServe (with their forwarding and aliasing nightmares), or penny-ante BBS systems that aren't really ready to play with the big boys. Considering that AOL represents about 15-20% of our recipients, that is really an extraordinary achievement. I would really be very happy if the rest of the world ran as smoothly as AOL. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 04:59:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA27023; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.rev.net (mercury.rev.net [206.67.68.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27016 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 04:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bernie.rev.net (admin2.rev.net [12.26.100.205]) by mercury.rev.net (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id dAGCvtg24471 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:57:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199911161257.dAGCvtg24471@mercury.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:59:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> References: <199911151635.KAA14471@mail.xnet.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 15 Nov 99, at 14:26, Nick Simicich wrote: > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > they are big. Actually, "roll your own" is done by a *LOT* of hosts/servers these days. I've chatted with several [often with me being outraged over some offense or another, exactly of this type] and they just say that the RFCs never anticipated the kind of volumes that are reality today, and they certainly never anticipated the hostile envionrment that is reality today. In order to *survive* and deal with it at all, they've had to improvise a bit, hopefully in the spirit of the protocols and in anticipation of 'official' sanctioning in future versions of the protocol [when/if anything ever gets revised]... but now is now and they have to cope. in a case like this (bouncing), I'd be that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because of the volumes they have to deal with, *nothing* that they do is going to be 'right' and make everyone happy. > I suspect, for private reasons, that AOL's e-mail system was designed by a > moron studying to be an idiot. Really? I've designed systems like this and I am *constantly* in awe of the folks at AOL who designed [and run] their email system. I cannot *conceive* of how I'd handle the authentication/delivery/retrieval/forwarding/filtering machinery for a mail server that has to handle 14 million [or more with aliases and such] email addresses and mailboxes, and god knows how much actual email each day. No slight intended, but I can't help but think that anyone who thinks that AOL's mail-handling problems are even tractable [much less "simple"] just doesn't really understand the problem... /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 07:45:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA28694; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA28684 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11941 invoked by uid 500); 16 Nov 1999 15:33:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19991116103313.O566@blank.org> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:33:13 -0500 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: James Lick , Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <3.0.5.32.19991115142619.03490400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from James Lick on Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 04:40:43PM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of James Lick (jlick@drivel.com): > > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in > question. Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure. -n ------------------------------------------------------------ "You don't qualify as the typical male snakebite victim: you weren't drinking, you don't have any tattoos, and you have all your teeth." ------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 09:30:17 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA29971; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk (euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk [138.250.48.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA29964 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk ([138.250.24.137] ident=cc047) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nmIU-0003NA-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:21:39 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:21:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: abuse@mpx.com.au cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, postmaster@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the addresses of legitimate subscribers. Below is one instance (not a list managed at Cranfield, but one that I am a member of). I have heard unconfirmed reports that other lists have been similarly hit, but have not yet confirmed that those were also out of mpx.com.au Nonetheless, I am blocking all mail to Cranfield.ac.uk from mpx.com.au (except to abuse or postmaster) as a preventative measure, until I hear from mpx or learn that the problem is resolved. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Assistant Postmaster Cranfield Computer Centre J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Return-path: Envelope-to: J.Goldberg@cranfield.ac.uk Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:58:48 +0000 Received: from bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.37] ident=exim) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nl0J-00018B-00 for J.Goldberg@cranfield.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:58:47 +0000 Received: from majordom by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nku9-0003CC-00 for ukcrypto-outgoing@bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:52:25 +0000 Received: from local2.mpx.com.au ([203.29.192.98] helo=mailarray.mpx.com.au) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nku2-0003Bz-00 for ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:52:24 +0000 Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd with smtp id for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:50:43 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built 1-mar-01) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:50:43 +1100 To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: rjb@pierconsulting.com Subject: hey wassup uKCrypto ;) Sender: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk here is the site you wanted... http://SEX.Interactwithme.com it's the one that gives you free membership access (all hacked) to abotu 300 membership based sex sites. k bye... ps: why r u using maillist.ox.ac.uk now? it doens't make sence, anyway *bye*... From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 10:08:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA00446; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk (euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk [138.250.48.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA00435 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk ([138.250.24.137] ident=cc047) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11nmop-0006eD-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:55:03 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:55:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: jah@alien.bt.co.uk cc: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? > > All the ones I have here are. Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? > I must admit I blindly deleted a whole pile of them before I started > to find them interesting. I understand. As, I've said, Cranfield.ac.uk now blocks mail from mpx.com.au (at some local cost, as we get legit mail from their users). This is a preventative measure. Cranfield lists have not been hit yet AFAIK. > I've have asked others for more samples. > I am starting to think it is remarkably restrained for a bot though! > > Headers at the bottom. Thanks. PS: the cypherpunks list owner should check the majordomo FAQ to learn how to conceal the outgoing alias. > >From bill.stewart@pobox.com Tue Nov 16 17:23:36 1999 > Return-Path: > Received: from dent.axion.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.16.161]) by > mail.alien.bt.co.uk > via sendmail with esmtp > id > for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:44:43 +0000 (GMT) > (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) > Received: from sirius.infonex.com by dent with Internet with SMTP; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:19 +0000 > Received: (from majordom@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) > id HAA06760 [...] > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:49 -0800 (PST) > Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) > id HAA06708 for cypherpunks@infonex.com; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:14 -0800 (PST) > Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [209.75.197.3]) > by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA06689 > for ; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:51:54 -0800 (PST) > Received: from mailarray.mpx.com.au (local2.mpx.com.au [203.29.192.98]) > by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21330 > for ; > Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:55:23 -0800 (PST) > From: bill.stewart@pobox.com > Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd > with smtp id > for ; > Wed, > 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built > 1-mar-01) > Message-Id: > Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 > To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > Subject: hey wassup CypHErpunKs ;) > Sender: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > Precedence: first-class > Reply-To: bill.stewart@pobox.com > X-List: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net > X-Loop: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 10:29:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA00756; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.n.ml.org (reedd.stu.rpi.edu [128.113.199.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA00744 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15835 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Nov 1999 18:16:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 1999 18:16:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:16:03 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: "Nathan J. Mehl" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <19991116103313.O566@blank.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: ) In the immortal words of James Lick (jlick@drivel.com): ) > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you ) > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces ) > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in ) > question. ) Having been on the receiving end of that very attack, allow me to ) personally confirm that that was in fact the case, and be the first to ) commend AOL for adopting a lower-profile bounce-handling procedure. Well, receiving end of one of those incidents mayhaps. This happened as well to Monolith (ml.org) about a year ago, where overnight the mailbox filled up with several dozen thousand bounced bounces from AOL targetted for and and other bogus addresses. It was decidedly not fun, though we never even contacted AOL about the "problem" since it wasn't at their end. I would much rather the actual network abusers be caught, arrested, and beat with a fresh trout or two (or three) than have to go around "fixing" these types of "problems" with destructive measures, such as silently dropping bounced mail, and even going back to having to close all of the public relays on the net--I really miss mail.uu.net. -- Daniel Reed Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 11:58:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01787; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from quasar.dimensional.com (quasar.dimensional.com [206.124.0.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01779 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from uxledkvk (p31.3c07.pm.dimcom.net [206.124.5.95]) by quasar.dimensional.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24763 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:54:39 -0700 (MST) From: "Theodore M. Smith" To: Subject: What the happy hell is "Propagation Networks"? Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:51:46 -0700 Message-ID: <000301bf306c$03aaf540$58057cce@uxledkvk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Pardon me for posting a question that is not related to mailing lists as such, but I felt a number of you must have expertise on this subject. In addition to a mailing list I also run a website which is fairly heavily trafficked. It contains a message board. In the last twenty-four hours I have started getting emails from something called "Propagation Networks" (one URL for it is http://propagation.net/). The email simply notifies that _I_ have posted a message on my own message board, or that someone else has posted a message replying to one of mine. I never asked for this service. It does appear to be free of advertising, at least. I don't know if only I as "owner" of the site get these announcements, or if other users do, at least if they have posted email addresses on my site. I'm posting a message right now to ask if anyone else is getting the announcements. What can anyone tell me about this thing? Should I like it, because if others get the same message it may boost traffic? Or should I hate it, because it's going to annoy users? Are there any considerations I'm overlooking? Thanks in advance for any information. Ted Smith Denver From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 12:13:33 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01991; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:02:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.n.ml.org (reedd.stu.rpi.edu [128.113.199.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA01984 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21503 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Nov 1999 20:05:51 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Nov 1999 20:05:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:05:50 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: ) On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: ) > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: ) > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? ) > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? ) > All the ones I have here are. ) Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? No. An email to the long-dead, ezmlm-managed mailing list was forged from my address. Since no longer exists, the message bounced back to me. I also, personally, got the same message sent directly to my address with a From: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org (the Message-ID of a message I presumably sent to the systalk mailing list a year ago, according to the timestamp in the ID). Note that this is the second time it's happened, the first message read: [...] ] From: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Sender: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Received: from ggg (mel-0401-022.ports.iprimus.com.au [203.134.52.22]) ] by spdmraaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.0) with SMTP id ] BAA21601 ] for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:03:16 -0500 (EST) ] Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:03:16 -0500 (EST) ] Message-Id: <199911040603.BAA21601@spdmraaa.compuserve.com> ] To: djr@narnia.n.ml.org ] Reply-To: Pine.LNX.3.96.980323165716.13653C-100000@narnia.n.ml.org ] Subject: hey wassup DJr ;) ] ] Hey yaw, you not gonna beleive this yo. I found this place that gives ya access to like soooooo many hacked membership based sex/xxx sites for free man, no shit!! ] ] Anyway, the secret address is http://SEX.Interactwithme.com ok? You jsut go there, and you get secret membership access, for free, too about (i think) 350 different sites. ] ] when i see ya at school tomorrow, make sure you bring the damn bio sheets ok? btw, wtf r u doing using narnia.n.ml.org anyway?? wtf is up with that yaw, waj ya chage your addy again? newayz, later... im off to that http://SEX.interactwithme.com site again ;), catcha in class tommorow. -- Daniel Reed Linux - the choice of a GNU generation From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 12:58:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA02613; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:45:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA02606 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:45:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA02354; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:47:58 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:47:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: abuse@mpx.com.au, list-managers@greatcircle.com, postmaster@Cranfield.ac.uk Subject: Re: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the > addresses of legitimate subscribers. I've seen this particular attack as well, on both my domains. It's not spamming just lists, it's apparently spamming any address it was able to harvest from the 'net, as I've had the messages arrive to my personal mailbox. It's a (rather pathetic) attempt to make the message appear to be coming from a user who mis-mailed someone, I think. It appears to just always take addresses its seen in similar situations (e.g. both addresses appeared on the same webpage) and use them; thus how it ends up forging to a mailing list. :/ -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:13:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03681; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id OAA03674 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:04:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 99 17:10:13 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Blocking bad attack out of mpx.com.au Message-ID: <9911161710.aa22086@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Someone (or their 'bot) is spamming majordomo based lists forging the >addresses of legitimate subscribers. > >I have heard unconfirmed reports that other lists have been similarly hit, >but have not yet confirmed that those were also out of mpx.com.au > >Nonetheless, I am blocking all mail to Cranfield.ac.uk from mpx.com.au >(except to abuse or postmaster) as a preventative measure, until I hear >from mpx or learn that the problem is resolved. Yep. The BMW motorcycle list (which I admin, but not from here) got tagged last week (or maybe the week before, I forget). Came thru compuserve.com in that case. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://labview.pica.army.mil/ From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:28:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03612; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA03570 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA03480 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:03:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:08:48 -0500 To: From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL In-Reply-To: <199911160315.VAA06389@mail.xnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:16 PM 11/15/99 -0600, Adam Bailey wrote: >On 11/15/99 6:40 PM, James Lick wrote... >>On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: >>> Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the >>> mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because >>> they are big. >> >>Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you >>suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces >>end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in >>question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich >>environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of >>mail in a very short time. > >You're right, I had forgotten about that. Didn't CyberPromo try to sue >AOL claiming the massive bounces were a Denial of Service attack? Somone told me last night that the person who designed the mail system for AOL was not an idiot studying to be a moron, but a real smart fellow. I would think that a smart fellow would have added something to bounce handling looking for bounce rates and only inhibiting bounces to sites or addresses when the bounce rate exceeded some reasonable threshold, such that there were obvious problems rather than dumping one-off bounces on the floor. The CyberPromo case was AOL holding all of the bounces sent from forged RFC8221 addresses and correctly (IMHO) vectoring them back to CyberPromo (the actual origin), not bouncing to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. This was an intentional act under AOL's control and not them simply following standard procedures, and I believe that a reasonable person would not find that one related to the other. The reality is that AOL is the only big mail sink following these procedures (or at least the only one I know of and the only one that anyone complains about on this list). Everyone has occasional glitches. AOL has a mail system designed to use secret criteria to throw mail on the floor, maybe, or maybe their mail system is just badly broken. No one knows for sure, and frankly, I don't put much credibility in any public announcement that AOL makes either formally or informally. Because this stuff is all secret, the list owners are the ones who take the heat. Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. They have some serious problems that affect their customer's service, and they show no interest in fixing them. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 14:58:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA03960; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:42:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA03953 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA44004; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Daniel Reed Cc: Jeffrey Goldberg , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] Message-ID: <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 03:05:50PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > ) On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 jah@alien.bt.co.uk wrote: > ) > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > ) > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > ) > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? > ) > All the ones I have here are. > ) Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? > No. An email to the long-dead, ezmlm-managed mailing list > was forged from my address. Not just our (SmartList) lists, but many of our individual users were hit directly with this as well. It seems like they used an ordinary robot to scrape addresses off the Web, and then used the Nth address on the list to send the N+1th spam to each user, so that the sender and receiver would look vaguely familiar to each other. Ingeniously diabolical. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 15:13:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA04053; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.143.206.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA04046 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04721; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:00:31 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991116180024.0520d700@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:00:24 -0500 To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't care how many millions of pieces of mail that they handle in a half assed fashion. It is much easier to design a "lossy" sytem than a reliable one. >No slight intended, but I can't help but think that anyone who thinks >that AOL's mail-handling problems are even tractable [much less "simple"] >just doesn't really understand the problem... If AOL has "intractable" mail handling problems, then they are defrauding their customers by claiming to handle their mail, right? Either they are outright frauds (once again, they have oversold their capacity) or they have not oversold their capacity and have simply designed poorly. I personally believe that they have the capacity, and that they just have an ill-thought out system. Yep, there are a lot of people doing things that just plain violate the RFCs and the world has changed. But, given all that: is there anyone else who is selling ISP access who is, by policy, randomly throwing mailing list mail on the ground without returning it? I've been following this list for a fair while. AOL is the *only* company that repeatedly comes up with some poor listowner saying "they are randomly trashing my mailing list mail and not bothering to return it". Over and over again. I have no respect for a company, when that company provides an unreliable service, especially when they provide it by design. I hold to my original position. The number of pieces of mail that they handle poorly simply does not impress me. My opinion of anyone who sells a service they know to be broken is expressed above. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 16:28:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA04788; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA04781 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-161.apple.com [17.216.27.161]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA54816 ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:07:31 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.5.32.19991116120848.0337b100@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:05:43 -0800 To: Nick Simicich , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: AOL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:08 PM -0500 11/16/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. But I think it is for cause. You're half right. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) What was that? French horns... From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 16:53:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05023; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA05003 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:38:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00581; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:41:32 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:57 -0500. <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:41:32 -0800 Message-ID: <579.942799292@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19991116174457.X11373@ma-1.rootsweb.com>, Tim Pierce wrote: >Not just our (SmartList) lists, but many of our individual users >were hit directly with this as well. The `wassup' spammer has been hitting my spam traps for at least several weeks now. From list-managers-owner Tue Nov 16 20:01:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA06726; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA06719 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d257.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.235.65]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22398 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:44:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911170344.WAA22398@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:49:55 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: Fwd: Re: AOL Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk < I would think that a smart fellow would have added something to bounce >handling looking for bounce rates and only inhibiting bounces to sites or >addresses when the bounce rate exceeded some reasonable threshold, such >that there were obvious problems rather than dumping one-off bounces on the >floor. I may be out of my league here :-) Like maybe not up to techno speed. :-( I have received verification that email is being delivered to the ISP. Subscribers continue to email me that they are not receiving their email. However, I have never received any bounce messages other than the occasional 'full mailbox'. These 'full mailbox' subscribers are NOT the ones complaining and emailing me in regards to the present non-receipt of email problems. > AOL has a mail system designed to use secret criteria to throw mail on the floor, >maybe, or maybe their mail system is just badly broken. No one knows for >sure, and frankly, I don't put much credibility in any public announcement >that AOL makes either formally or informally. Because this stuff is all >secret, the list owners are the ones who take the heat. Thanks...that assists me in understanding why this has been such a difficult problem to solve. It also helps me deal with the 'heat in the kitchen' so to speak. >Yes, I think this is AOL bashing. Actually I beg to differ. It is not AOL bashing. It is speaking about an issue that is occurring. That is, subscribers from a specific ISP are either receiving no email or sporadic email. It just happens that the ISP involved is AOL. That's the reality. Not bashing anyone. IMHO, imperative to recognize, identify, own and fix one's problems. Especially when one is providing a service for a fee. PS. Listmates, I have appreciated your input and dialog on this issue. It has assisted me in problem solving. I am grateful for the time that you have spent responding to this issue. PPS. AOL has contacted me. I would hope that the problem can be brought to a quick resolution. In the meantime, I value the dialog on this topic from each of you. I will post a final chapter summary at a later date. With much gratitude, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Listowner, LNCNURSE From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:05:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21158; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21144 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxmail.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04468 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ermine.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.13]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 11ns11-0006oh-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:59 +0000 Received: from whgu0007 (helo=localhost) by ermine.ox.ac.uk with local-smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11ns10-0005aE-00; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:58 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:27:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Ian Goodyer To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: jah@alien.bt.co.uk, owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, list-managers@greatcircle.com, abuse@mpx.com.au Subject: Re: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > > [...] Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > > > > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? This appears to be true here too. > > All the ones I have here are. > > Now the next question: Are all the hit lists majordomo lists? No. Yaman Akdeniz said he has received no less than three of these message to his personal email address. From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:15:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21112; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21102 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from liv-26.outlawnet.com (as1-100.dial-IP.EmpireNet.net [208.44.71.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA01023 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by liv-26.outlawnet.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00375; Tue, 16 Nov 99 10:41:31 -0800 Message-Id: <9911161841.AA00375@liv-26.outlawnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: garyb@fxt.com Date: Tue, 16 Nov 99 10:41:30 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL References: <199911160900.BAA21798@honor.greatcircle.com> Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Nick Simicich wrote: > > Also, AOL is basically in complete violation of RFCs by not bouncing the > > mail to the RFC821 MAIL FROM address. They can get away with it, because > > they are big. > Ironically, in the past AOL was screamed at for doing just what you > suggest. When they got a mass spam from a forged address, all the bounces > end up mailbombing some poor sap who happens to own the domain in > question. Because AOL is very big and is considered a target rich > environment by spammers, this means that AOL ends up bouncing a lot of > mail in a very short time. I just read they estimate they receive an average 18 million SPAMs per day. This is an example of how RFCs and other standards aren't always the best answer, because they often were written in a different environment than now exists (and other reasons, I'm sure). From list-managers-owner Wed Nov 17 16:30:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA21099; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA21088 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.alien.bt.co.uk (orb.alien.bt.co.uk [132.146.196.84]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA00236 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nowhere.alien.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.196.238]) by mail.alien.bt.co.uk via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:35:09 +0000 (GMT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:35:09 +0000 (GMT) From: To: Jeffrey Goldberg cc: owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Wassup spam [was Re: hey wassup uKCrypto ;)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Copied to list-managers at Jeffery Goldberg's request] On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Jake Hill wrote: > > > That ``idiot'' is probably a bot and it's currently doing the rounds on > > at least two lists that I'm on. The sender is different each time, > > picked from the list of subscribers. > > That was my suspicion. Do you have full headers of the bot's mailings? > > Are they all from the same network, mpx.net.au? All the ones I have here are. I must admit I blindly deleted a whole pile of them before I started to find them interesting. I've have asked others for more samples. I am starting to think it is remarkably restrained for a bot though! Headers at the bottom. Cheers, /.J >From bill.stewart@pobox.com Tue Nov 16 17:23:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: from dent.axion.bt.co.uk(really [132.146.16.161]) by mail.alien.bt.co.uk via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:44:43 +0000 (GMT) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1999-Oct-11) Received: from sirius.infonex.com by dent with Internet with SMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:28:19 +0000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06760 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06708 for cypherpunks@infonex.com; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [209.75.197.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA06689 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailarray.mpx.com.au (local2.mpx.com.au [203.29.192.98]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA21330 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:55:23 -0800 (PST) From: bill.stewart@pobox.com Received: from ---(really [198.142.239.33]) by mailarray.mpx.com.au via smtpd with smtp id for ; Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.13.Y2K #30.35 built 1-mar-01) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:51:49 +1100 To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: hey wassup CypHErpunKs ;) Sender: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Precedence: first-class Reply-To: bill.stewart@pobox.com X-List: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net X-Loop: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 05:30:25 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA01854; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grover.en.com (grover.en.com [204.89.181.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA01847 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from en.en.com (d182.as0.clev.oh.voyager.net [207.180.234.246]) by grover.en.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA24792 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> X-Sender: lncnurse@mailback.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:17:48 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nicole Marie Spring Subject: AOL Situation Resolved Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Listmates, The problem with aol.com subscribers either not receiving any or sporadic LNCNURSE email has been resolved. One of aol's postmasters has assisted us in identifying and resolving the problem. This aol.com postmaster has requested that his/her email address not be given out. I will respect that. However, I am willing to forward messages to that email address on anyone's behalf. For those of you who are interested here is a summary. I have made a concerted conscientious effort to keep the context intact. We have learned that AOL has a policy of SILENTLY discarding selected mail messages as part of their ongoing efforts to fight spam. Unfortunately they will not tell us what rules are used to determine if a particular message will be discarded. They have only told us that the rules change daily and that the total amount of mail coming from a particular server tends to trigger their filters. Thus messages from listservers (which by definition deliver lots of mail) are more likely to be dropped than normal messages. We have been unable to find any official statement of this policy from AOL, but we've seen numerous confirmations from other listowners and from our helpful AOL postmaster. This AOL postmaster has created an open door policy to be approached for any other problems or questions. Respectfully submitted, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Listowner, LNCNURSE Sincerely, Nicole Marie Spring, RN Legal Nurse Consultants Russell, OH Listowner, LNCNURSE http://www.legalnurseconsultants.com From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 08:14:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA03285; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk (euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk [138.250.48.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA03236 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk ([138.250.24.137] ident=cc047) by euler.central.cranfield.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 11oU1m-00015j-00; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:18 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@neumann.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: Nicole Marie Spring cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-Reply-To: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Nicole Marie Spring wrote: > However, I am willing to forward messages to that email > address on anyone's behalf. Please forward this on: Any site that engages in throttling is likely to have some false positives with legitimate email (discussion/announcements) lists. As such, it would be useful if AOL and others (1) provide a contact address for use by list managers, so that we can get in touch with you when there is trouble. (2) Set up a vetting proceedure for either individual lists or hosts or subnets for lists with certain characteristics. The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager, some of which you decide on occasion to actually verify. The vetting proceedure may request the aol.com addresses on the list in question (it's not violating any privacy information since you have that information from logs anyway). It may also include requiring a real address of an individual or individuals responsible for the mailing list system. Subscription policy (does subscription to lists require confirmation, etc) Once a list/host/subnet is "vetted" then allow bulk mail from those lists/hosts/subnets as long as it meets other criteria. Occasional updating/checking of relevant information. Unless this sort of thing is solved, I, and other list managers, will simply have to advise aol.com members of our lists that some of their mail is not getting though and why. I don't think that that will make AoL customers happy. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 11:28:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA05210; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA05195 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom14.netcom.com [199.183.9.114]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA09994; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:18:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:43:35 -0800 To: Jeffrey Goldberg From: SRE Subject: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:03 PM 11/18/99 +0000, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >Unless this sort of thing is solved, I, and other list managers, will >simply have to advise aol.com members of our lists that some of their >mail is not getting though and why. I don't think that that will make >AoL customers happy. I had a similar situation last month with Juno.com, who suddenly stopped delivering mail to juno addresses if the Reply-To header was NOT the same as the From header. Duh. That's how email lists direct replies to the list instead of to the poster. The bounce message went to the list owner clearly stating the problem, but it was a legal header! Anyway, Juno had one of my subscribers on hold via a PAID 900 support number for about an hour. Many of them complained to Juno about the change in policy (with no advance notice). Juno never responded, but things started working this week. Along the way, some magic phone numbers came up to reach Juno without paying for the call: >>>They probably wouldn't appreciate the publicity, but here are some >>>telephone numbers if somebody else wants to give it a try: >>>888-839-5866 >>>888-860-5866 >>>800 JUNO 888 - I'm not sure about this one because I can't read my 2 am >>>in the morning note... It's more worthwhile to have subscribers contact their own provider than to approach the provider as a list manager, IMHO. SRE mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/ Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." -- Mark Twain From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 12:13:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA06068; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06061 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:09:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12158 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:13:06 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:13:06 -0800 Message-ID: <12156.942955986@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As one who has a longstanding interest in the topic of junk mail filtering, I have a question or two about the suggestions from Jeffrey Goldberg... In message , Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: >As such, it would be useful if AOL and others >... > (2) Set up a vetting proceedure for either individual lists or > hosts or subnets for lists with certain characteristics. I'm curious how this would work, what would be involved, and how effective it would be in the end anyway. I have no good basis for making an estimate of the total number of E-mail mailing list currently in existance, worldwide, but if pressed, I would offer a guess that there must be in excess of a million e-mail mailing list. Assuming that guess is corrrect (or in the right ballpark anyway) you are talking about AOL (and others) keeping a database of perhaps as many as a million different ``vetted'' mailing lists, right? Even assuming that such a list could be constructed (and maintained, on an ongoing basis) at a reasonable cost, how would it be used? Are you suggesting that the data base should contain the envelope sender addresses of all of the vetted mailing lists, and that each mail message that arrives at AOL (or elsewhere) should have its envelope sender address looked-up in that data base? Or where you suggesting that the domain name and/or IP address of the host sites for the vetted mailing lists should be what's stored in the data base, and that the sending IP or domain name of each incoming mail messages should be looked up in the data base? In either case, even if it was feasible to construct and maintain such a data base, and even if the processing involved in constantly doing lookups against it were modest, I have to wonder (aloud) how effective it would be in the long run anyway. If a spammer found out that a given envelope sender address was on AOL's whitelist, don't you think that he would just forge that envelope sender address onto his outgoing spams? Alternatively, if the whitelist data base is a list of sender IP addresses, don't you think that spammers would just poke around and try to find one of those whitelisted IP addresses that happens to sport an open/unsecured mail relay, and then just push all of their spam through that (in order to circumvent any other filtering that might be in place)? > The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information > from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager... _This_ is the statement that actually motivated me to write this response... because I *really* wonder about the feasibility of this part of your pro- posed solution. Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare, and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? Will you graciously comply with my simple request? Will you fill out the form and send it back to me? Or will you instead send me back a terse message in which you tell me (a) to take a flying leap, and (b) that I need you (and your list) more than you need me? These are NOT retorical questions. I honestly don't know how mailing list administrators would react to any sort of procedure or mechanism which, in effect, asks them to prove that they are NOT spammers, and which will deny them the ability to send mail to one's local user base if they fail to comply with the procedure. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. > The vetting proceedure ... > ... may also include requiring a real address of an individual or > individuals responsible for the mailing list system... Couldn't the envelope sender address on the mailing list messages themselves serve this purpose? In general, shouldn't mail sent to _that_ address end up being read by the list owner? When, if ever, should this not be the case? P.S. I don't know how many of you realize it, but the need to cater to (and to allow for) legitimate opt-in mailing lists is *the* central issue/problem as regards to spam fighting/filtering. If it weren't for the need to allow for legitimate opt-in mailing lists, we, collectively, (meaning the net as a whole) could have solved the e-mail spam problem a long time ago. It's downright trivial to distinguish be- tween personal one-on-one mail and ``bulk'' mail, but as the problems some of you have had sending your legitimate opt-in mailing list traffic to AOL have emphasized, not all ``bulk'' mail is bad. And separating the `good'' bulk from the ``bad'' bulk is in fact the only really difficult technical problem for anyone trying to do spam filtering. As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. (In anyone wants to take issue with that last assertion, please feel free. I'd like nothing better than to be convinced that list owners would, in fact, cooperate with such an effort.) From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 12:59:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA06680; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06672 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA36584 ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:57:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> References: <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:58:14 -0800 To: SRE , Jeffrey Goldberg From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:43 AM -0800 11/18/99, SRE wrote: > I had a similar situation last month with Juno.com, juno is beyond clueless. I simply tell any juno users to get a real e-mail address. If they want to try to use juno, they're on their own. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Dogs see you as family Cats see you as staff From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 13:58:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA07234; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA07220 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom14.netcom.com [199.183.9.114]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11454; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:35:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991118133510.00a01730@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:35:10 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: SRE Subject: Re: Juno bounces (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> <199911181315.IAA24792@grover.en.com> <3.0.5.32.19991118104335.00a03100@pop.climber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:58 PM 11/18/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >juno is beyond clueless. I simply tell any juno users to get a real >e-mail address. If they want to try to use juno, they're on their own. Yeah, but it's free and some people feel that's important. These days I send people to netzero.com, who have free email but ALSO have free web/telnet/ftp access (and more obnoxious advertisement boxes). Both have dial-up access, in contrast to the yahoo/hotmail variety. Everything comes with a price. Juno replaces email attachments with an ad for their not-so-free service. Netzero has a stay-on-top box that blares images at you while you're connected. From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 14:43:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA07902; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.usit.net (SMTP2.USIT.NET [199.1.48.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA07895 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 14:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gva.net (MAIL.GVA.NET [216.80.135.3]) by smtp2.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id RAA15899 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Received: from default [216.80.135.17] by gva.net [216.80.135.3] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:35:09 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved References: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:03:17 +0000. In-reply-to: <12156.942955986@monkeys.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Return-Path: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 18 Nov 99, at 12:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message , Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: > > > > The vetting proceedure should require a fair amount of information > > from the list manager (or the mailing list system manager... > > _This_ is the statement that actually motivated me to write this response... > because I *really* wonder about the feasibility of this part of your pro- > posed solution. > > Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing > list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare, > and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able > to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the > reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? AND... what will be your reaction when this is the 2,587th request, as yet *another* ISP checks in. > .. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be > understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request > seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many > more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how > trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger > number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because > they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. And, as I say, even if you're gracious about the first ISP or the tenth, I doubt you'll _still_ be a cooperative camper with the hundredth or thousandth... The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother the list-admin. It is always exciting trying to create order out of anarchy, but if it could be done, it could might even be feasible: the next version of majordomo, say, could include as a feature auto-registering any new mailing list on behalf of the list owner, or something like that ... And so all you need is almost every MLM, almost every list admin and almost every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Of course, you'd also have to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] > > The vetting proceedure ... > > ... may also include requiring a real address of an individual or > > individuals responsible for the mailing list system... > > Couldn't the envelope sender address on the mailing list messages themselves > serve this purpose? Can't the envelope sender address be easily forged? And so you could spam all you want [and get someone else the blame] just by arranging to have MAIL FROM: goodguy@mailinglists.r.us ? [gee: I wonder if the guys who administer the '.us' domain realize that they have a commercial goldmine there.. :o)] So, on top of everything else, don't you still have the problem that email is largely unauthenticated? Or is that a separate/simpler/different problem? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 15:45:10 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA08389; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA08382 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA09439; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:40 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:39 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-Reply-To: <12156.942955986@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- > taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact > have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. > > I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would > take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the > registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a > registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, > but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create > such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would > not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. The 'meta-list' group that got mentioned on here some while back has created such a registry; take a look at www.meta-list.com. Admittedly, it's geared more towards end-users finding a list, but my point is that there are other methods of discovering mailing list information... I don't happen to -agree- with the mass harvesting they did, but all they did was probe at specific addresses (majordomo@, listserv@, listar@), sending the appropriate command for the listserver type they were probing to get a list of lists on that site, which was then parsed. As for a registry of mailing lists of the type you describe, I think that some very serious thought would need to be made on HOW it would be implemented. I keep thinking that the -best- method would never be accepted, because it would require cooperation between listserver authors such as myself, the registry authors/maintainers, and the MTA authors... but this method would be that each list would be assigned a unique identifier, almost like a PGP fingerprint. The posts from the list would be required to contain this fingerprint on something like X-MLReg-Auth: in the RFC822 headers, as well as the X-List-Id: header described in the proposed changes to RFC2369. Then an MTA such as AOL could query the listserver registry (using the X-List-Id) and see if the auth code matched. Now, I know that the problem is that spammers would become creative and do a query to get the auth code, so it would have to be one-way encryption of some kind; perhaps the 'Auth' string is a PGP-encoded passphrase and the mailing list registry has the public key and the decoded phrase? At any rate, once the MTA had verified it, it would be required to remove the authentication header from the RFC822 headers (to obscure it from the end-user, and thus prevent spammers from just grabbing the information). Then, of course, the receiving MTA would want to cache all its query results to avoid having to do massive numbers of lookups... Also, some of this - like the auth code - might be better implemented somewhere other than the RFC822 headers. But as a listserver author, I tend to think in terms of not having control over anything at a higher level than those, since even if a server I send to has a capability (like DSN), a server it relays to might not. The only way to ensure information remains intact from start to finish is in the headers... But, as I said, the concept of trying to get listserver authors and MTA authors BOTH to implement this strikes me as something that isn't going to happen. Few enough MUA and listserver authors have bothered to implement RFC2369, which is trivial. I suspect something of this complexity would be completely ignored. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 16:44:55 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09014; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09002 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:32:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA46146 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:48 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Listserver registry? (was Re: AOL Situation Resolved) In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:32:39 -0800. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:35:48 -0800 Message-ID: <46144.942971748@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Jeremy Blackman wrote: >On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> As one possible solution to this problem, the idea of building and main- >> taining a registry of ``legitimate opt-in'' mailing lists does in fact >> have some merit, but as noted above, it also has some problems. >> >> I think that the scaling problems could in fact be solved, but that would >> take some serious work. As regards to the building and maintaining of the >> registry, I myself would be happy to build and maintain exactly such a >> registry, and to make it available (as a service) to all Internet sites, >> but the main reason why neither I nor anyone else has ever tried to create >> such a registry is because of the likelihood that list owners simply would >> not cooperate in sufficient numbers to make the whole thing work. > >The 'meta-list' group that got mentioned on here some while back has >created such a registry; take a look at www.meta-list.com. Admittedly, >it's geared more towards end-users finding a list... Exactly. There are a number of different sites on the net now that have, by hook or by crook, amassed big huge lists of mailing lists, including the one you mentioned, another German one that was mentioned here recently, eGroups, and others. The problems involved in getting _any_ of these sites to help out or participate in the creation of a net-wide central registry of mailing lists is twofold: (1) Every one of these sites has .com on the end of its domain name, clearly implying that they are NOT going to be in the least bit sanguine about giving away the data they they have worked so hard to amass (for commercial purposes), and (2) it isn't at all clear, to me at least, what if any quality control has been applied to the data they have amassed anyway. Are all of the lists these places know about really ``legitimate'' opt-in (non-spam) mailing lists? I suspect not, and I suspect that these places never really cared... as they were creating there lists of lists... how exactly the lists they were cataloging are operated in practice. >... but my point is that >there are other methods of discovering mailing list information... Other than by obtaining cooperation from the list owners you mean? Yes, you can automatically probe around (an activity that I happen to have some familiarity with :-) but experience indicates that doing that is likely to earn you a lot of ill will, and even loss of connectivity (at least to certain networks) that you would otherwise like to obtain information from/about. >I don't happen to -agree- with the mass harvesting they did... There. See what I mean? > but all they did was >probe at specific addresses (majordomo@, listserv@, >listar@), sending the appropriate command for the listserver type >they were probing to get a list of lists on that site, which was then >parsed. As I say, approaching the problem is this manner will generate a lot of ill will, but more importantly, it will yield results which are rather spectacularly less than comprehensive. The reason is simple... an awful lot of mailing lists out there are _not_ implemented via majordomo, listserv, listproc, etc. Many, in fact, are just humongously long /etc/aliases entries. So just probing for majordomo lists, listproc lists, listserv lists, etc., is going to yield a far from comprehensive list. Bottom line is that in order to construct a _comprehensive_ registry of mailing lists, you really do need cooperation from list owners... and that isn't easy to come by. >As for a registry of mailing lists of the type you describe, I think that >some very serious thought would need to be made on HOW it would be >implemented. I keep thinking that the -best- method would never be >accepted, because it would require cooperation between listserver authors >such as myself, the registry authors/maintainers, and the MTA authors... There's that word again... cooperation. I would argue that you DON'T actually need any cooperation from the MTA authors/vendors, but that is only a minor quibble. The bottom line is that you still _do_ need cooperation from a lot of people who aren't terribly motivated to cooperate. >but this method would be that each list would be assigned a unique >identifier, almost like a PGP fingerprint. > >The posts from the list would be required to contain this fingerprint on >something like X-MLReg-Auth: in the RFC822 headers, as well as the >X-List-Id: header described in the proposed changes to RFC2369. That is easy enough to implemnent. All you need is to pay the appropriate license fees to RSA Data (or else use some unencumbered and exportable public key crypto stuff) and then arrange for the mailing list software to sign each outgoing message using its private key. (On the receiving end, post-MTA filters could check the signatures.) >Then an MTA such as AOL could query the listserver registry (using the >X-List-Id) and see if the auth code matched. Right. >Now, I know that the problem >is that spammers would become creative and do a query to get the auth code... No. Nothing that complicated. They would merely endeavor to get their own (abusive opt-out) mailing lists listed in the registry as if there were non-abusive opt-in lists. Why try to pick the lock on the rear window when you can just wear a mask and then just walk in through the front door? This is the REAL problem with the whole idea of a central registry... or _any_ registry... of ``legitimate out-in mailing lists''. How can you know, unambiguously, who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys? How can _anybody_ know? Say I'm running a big free-to-everyone-on-the-net mailing list registry that is intended to ONLY list non-spam mailing lists. Now someone I've never heard of before sends me an E-mail and says he's just started a new list to discuss Tasmanian Devils and will I please include him in the registry. OK. So I add his list name and the associated public key to the registry and wham! Ten minutes later he's spamming the hell out of the entire planet. And no filters will stop him because he's not even pretending to be anybody else. He's just being who he is, but *I* have seriously misjudged his character. This is yet another problem that I don't know how to solve (in addition to the problem of getting list owners to cooperate with the building of a central registry of all mailing lists). But I don't feel too bad about the fact that I don't know how to solve this (character judging) part of the problem. Apparently, AOL doesn't have a reliable solution for this part of the problem either (which explains why they occasionally mess up and treat Good Guys as if they were Bad Guys). From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 17:00:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09186; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09179 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA48506 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:53:45 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:36:26 -0500. <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net>, "Bernie Cosell" wrote: >On 18 Nov 99, at 12:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> Let's say that I am an ISP (perhaps even AOL), and that you are a mailing >> list owner/administrator. Now let's say that I send you a short questionare >, >> and ask you to fill it out and send it back to me if you want to be able >> to send mail to my users. What will be your reaction? What will be the >> reaction fo the typical mailing list administrator? > >AND... what will be your reaction when this is the 2,587th request, as >yet *another* ISP checks in. Yes. There's a problem there too. >> .. I'm sure that some percentage of list admins would be >> understanding, and that they would just comply (as long as the request >> seemed polite and inoffensive enough), but I suspect that there are many >> more who would take offense, and who would never comply, no matter how >> trivial or easy complying might be, and that there would be an even larger >> number who wouldn't take offense, but would just ignore the request because >> they feel that they are too busy to be answering silly questions from ISP. > >And, as I say, even if you're gracious about the first ISP or the tenth, >I doubt you'll _still_ be a cooperative camper with the hundredth or >thousandth... Agreed. >The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted >global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be >able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and >then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother >the list-admin. Yep. That was my point. In theory, yes, this would be nice. Could it be made to work in practice? That looks very iffy. >It is always exciting trying to create order out of anarchy... Exciting yes, but if I have understood it right, I believe that the third (or was it the second) law of thermodynamics insures that in the Long Run, anarchy always wins. :-( >... but if it >could be done, it could might even be feasible: the next version of >majordomo, say, could include as a feature auto-registering any new >mailing list on behalf of the list owner, or something like that ... And >so all you need is almost every MLM, almost every list admin and almost >every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Right! Piece of cake! <> >Of course, you'd also have >to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- >least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] Yea. There's that little problem too. (AOL's solution, imperfect as it is, is looking better and better all the time. :-) >So, on top of everything else, don't you still have the problem that >email is largely unauthenticated? Or is that a >separate/simpler/different problem? Same problem, different context. Neither I nor anybody else seem to care very much if you send _one_ unauthenticated message to my server. If you are trying to send 50,000 message to my server however, I might kinda like to know (a) that you are who you say you are and that (b) you are not a spammer. Part (a) is easily possible to acheve with modern public key cryptography, at least if one assumes the cooperation of all of the relevant parties. Part (b) however may be insoluable, unless of course all mailing lists admins worldwide are henceforth required to put up non-trivial monetary bonds (which would be non- refundable if they were caught spamming). And on that note, I will ask to be excused now. I have to go feed my flock of flying pigs. :-) From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 17:15:11 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA09412; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA09399 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA09663; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:12:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:12:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Bernie Cosell cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL Situation Resolved In-Reply-To: <199911182236.RAA15899@smtp2.usit.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Bernie Cosell wrote: > The only possible hope for something like this is some sort of trusted > global registry: if enough ISPs banded together coercively, they might be > able to convince list admins to fill in some standard form *once*, and > then any ISP that cares would be able to consult the DB and not bother > the list-admin. See my earlier post to the list (which hasn't come across into my mailbox yet). > every ISP to agree... piece of cake... :o) Of course, you'd also have > to find a way to prevent a spammer from 'registering' [amidst the at- > least hundreds-of-thousands of lists in the master registry] Well, more likely you'd have a way to lodge complaints against a registered address, and once a complaint was determined to be valid, the registration could be either revoked, or marked as 'blacklisted' - the latter might almost be better, because then you could have an MTA that was compliant with this registry able to add some sort of pattern to its local UCE/blacklist/whatever, upon getting a blacklisted response. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Nov 18 22:21:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA12075; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu (bp.ucs.usl.edu [130.70.40.36]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA12068 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from usl.edu (isb9112.usl.edu [130.70.65.242]) by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/ucs-server_1.3) with ESMTP id AAA00720 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:06:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3834E918.BD803D65@usl.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:07:20 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley Organization: Philosophy, USL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Stupid low tech idea References: <48504.942972825@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi there, My list is inhabited by the 'technically challenged'. Also, the variety of systems they use often make hi-tech solutions problematic (do you have any idea what the 'state of the art' is in a 'have not' country? -- 286 technology is not unknown). I have an alternate way of dealing with spam -- a social engineering solution. I am fortunate enough to run my list on State machines. Our State prohibits the commercial use of their machines. So, to put it simply, spam is technically illegal. My policy is to be VERY aggressive about spam (1,000 auto-dialled collect calls etc.). It is not hi-tech, but it seems to work -- out of 24 attempts, I have 22 account deletions. Get a reputation and try and keep the scam bags at bay. It isn't rocket science, but it (so far at least, fingers crossed etc.) seems to work. Just a suggestion... Istvan -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. Philosophy & Cognitive Science E-mail: istvan@usl.edu The University of Louisiana at Lafayette [Formerly, The University of Southwestern Louisiana] P.O. Box 43770 Tel: +1 318 482-6807 Lafayette, LA 70504-3770 Fax: +1 318 482-6195 USA http://www.ucs.usl.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 04:16:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA19194; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:46:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.Ca [192.75.95.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA19183 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (user: 'potter', uid#5005) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca id ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:49:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:49:45 -0400 (AST) From: "David L. Potter" To: Nicole Marie Spring cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: AOL & Lists Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Nicole/everyone... We host a couple of hundred lists includins several busy automobile/health (oldsmobile/tourette) lists that deliver into AOL. If AOL is prepared to discuss matters with individual list-owners perhaps they would consider a 'certification' program of some sort that involves registering a list or site. The problem with filtering systems is that legitimate trafic is certain to get caught up in the trap. We filter incoming mail to mailing list and indeed I make adjustments every week. If we have to jump through hoops, it would be better to do so as part of list creation process and have that certification apply to all organizations that are in a similar position to AOL (managing large volumes of mail for users). Nicole, perhaps you could pass this along to AOL. david potter From list-managers-owner Fri Nov 19 09:27:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA23791; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA23784 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:05:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from v4j31 (ip12.proper.com [165.227.249.12]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17222; Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:07:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.1.19991119090856.00ad48c0@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:09:17 -0800 To: Istvan Berkeley From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Stupid low