On Thursday 17 November 2005 14:55, Craig White wrote: >On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 19:32 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: >> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:00 -0700, Craig White wrote: >> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:41 -0700, kwhiskers wrote: >> > > I've so far gotten 55 of their spams for the 6 messages I posted >> > > last night. I simply ignore them - well, actually I have both >> > > those AntiSpam UOL messages blocked in procmail with a moderately >> > > specific test but also a more general from uol.com.br at the >> > > moment. >> > > >> > > It's hard to igore them, I'd say. >> > > >> > > There are so many of them that it is impossible to see the actual >> > > thread one's following. >> > > >> > > I don't know why google/gmail isn't picking it up as spam. It is >> > > very successful withthe rest of it. >> > >> > ---- >> > because it is an official bounce-back error type message. >> >> No, it isn't. If it was a real bounce, it would go back to redhat's >> mail system because the envelope sender address for list messages >> (which is where bounces go) is fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx On a >> list of this size there will be lots of bounces for each outgoing >> message simply as a result of email address churn, temporarily broken >> mail systems etc. >> >> This message is a challenge to the originator of the email, which is >> sent to the header sender address, hence people posting to the list >> are getting them. Such challenges are widely regarded as spam, and >> therefore it's reasonable to ask why why google/gmail isn't picking >> it up as spam. > >--- >You're correct and I'm wrong - I forgot about all the details since I >have effectively solved the issue. It is a challenge/response system. I >suppose someone can ask google/gmail or whomever why they don't bounce >it as spam but you'll never get a definitive answer because it doesn't >meet the general application of spam control. >--- > >> > The problem is that someone is subscribing with a mail account, >> > bouncing it to an account at uol.com.br which has severe anti-spam >> > restrictions which is bombarding any sender to this list. >> >> s/bouncing/forwarding/ > >--- >not always >--- > >> > Self defense dictates that we filter them to /dev/null using >> > procmail/sieve on the server, rejects on the server or mail filters >> > in your mail program. >> >> Yep. Rejects on the server here for any uol.com.br address. >> >> > Under the banner of a good offense makes a great defense, I >> > proposed some type of tar pit set up by a number of fedora users >> > and within minutes, the smtp servers at uol.com.br will be shut >> > down and they will investigate the issue. >> >> But anyone clueless enough to set up a challenge-response "anti-spam" >> system may be too clueless to figure out what's going on too... > >--- >being typical American, I lack linguistic understanding of anything but >English (and I suppose the Brits would have an argument about my >knowledge of that language too) but looking at www.uol.com.br makes me >think that they are a relatively sizable ISP in Brazil and offer this >type of anti-spam as a feature to their customers (regardless of how > you and I judge the concept to be flawed) and since their > abuse@xxxxxxxxxx is seemingly deaf to abuses that at least one person > has engaged in, the pro-active measure seems to me to be a suitable > candidate for fixing the problem. > >Perhaps as you suggest, they would be clueless to figure out what is >going on but it wouldn't take them very long to act...Each smtp server >only gets so many delivery processes and if enough subscribers use smtp >servers which are tar-pitted for hosts from uol.com.br with each > message from fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx it won't take but a few minutes to > tie up their servers in the tar pit. This is the pro-active solution > to the problem. Filtering to /dev/null is a single server solution at > best. > >The only other pro-active measure that I can conceive of is to have all >users of this list send a protest email to abuse@xxxxxxxxxx (but of >course, we have no knowledge that these won't samba over to the >Brazilian equivalent of /dev/null. > >Craig Well, I found that kmail can bounce it, and add headers, so I just set mine up to add a header X_Clueless_Twit with the value of FOAD. And play one of the kde error sounds to get my attention... It will probably start an endless loop, but it will be fun till then. :-) > >-- >This message has been scanned for viruses and >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >believed to be clean. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.36% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
