Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 09:34:05 von Alan Connor

A lot of people post things on this group, a lot of links
are offered and a lot of official-looking headers.

Anyone can say anything on the Usenet, and anyone can put
anything on a website. The hosts of a large server or
server-farm simply cannot keep track of all the webpages
or other files on their server(s), and a very reputable
organization often has webpages (etc.) containing pure mis- and
dis- information.

So when you look at one of the articles posted here that looks
official and factual, take a real close look at the headers
and bear in mind that spammers can post here put up webpages too.
Check out the credentials of the person posting it.

Start with: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

What do you imagine would inspire a spammer to do such a thing?

Why, a spam-filter that they can't beat.

They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.

Google (this is a literal search-string):

"challenge response" OR "challenge-response"

and you will find many websites, controlled by those with a
vested interest in keeping the spam flowing, that contain nothing
but exagerrations and lies about Challenge-Response systems.

Again: Because the spammers (and trolls) can't beat them.

Anonymous mail does not get past a Challenge-Response System.

Spammers love to promote Bayesian and other popular (and
not very effective) spamfilters because they CAN beat them.

They are the world's foremost _experts_ in the use of such
filters. Of course. What else do they have to do?

Which is why you still get spam. (And lose important mail.)

You have been warned.
---------------------

Let the reader beware.

(now that troll is probably going to post the link to his
Alan Connor Hate Page. Yawn. There are thousands of sites
that claim to offer proof that people have been abducted by
little grey men from outer space)

AC

--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 10:49:31 von Mike Easter

Alan Connor wrote:
>Challenge-Response System.

Misdirected challenges are spamcop reportable

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html Messages which may be
reported: -- Misdirected challenges from challenge/response spam
filtering systems

--
Mike Easter

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 10:53:34 von Viper

Please ignore this k00k. He passes HIS spam onto others.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 10:54:07 von Viper

Mike Easter wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
>> Challenge-Response System.
>
> Misdirected challenges are spamcop reportable
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html Messages which may be
> reported: -- Misdirected challenges from challenge/response spam
> filtering systems

Wow thats cool. I didnt know that. :)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 10:58:37 von Pete Stephenson

In article ,
"Mike Easter" wrote:

> Misdirected challenges are spamcop reportable
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html Messages which may be
> reported: -- Misdirected challenges from challenge/response spam
> filtering systems

Most interesting.

I haven't kept up to date with what is and isn't reportable with
SpamCop. After reading this, it'll make my daily chore of sorting
through my spam and removing stuff that isn't reportable much less of a
task. Many thanks for pointing this out.

--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 11:51:14 von Peter Peters

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:34:05 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

>They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.

I have the proof they can beat those systems in my mailbox.

Person A (let's call him Willy) sends a complaint because he got some
spam in his mailbox. He uses software that that fires complaints to any
and all addresses he can find for any and all IP-addresses (including
10.0.0.0/8) and domains. And all addresses are put in the To: header.

Ofcourse our IP address is in a forged header so I kindly tell Willy to
use other software. And what do I get back? Yes, your are right. A
challenge pointing to spamarrest.

So Willy uses a C-R system and he gets spam in his mailbox.

The next complaint from Willy will be converted to a complaint to his
provider. Just like the guy who had over 40 addresses in his To: when
using the same complaint software.

--
Peter Peters, senior netwerkbeheerder
Dienst Informatietechnologie, Bibliotheek en Educatie (ITBE)
Universiteit Twente

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 15:59:04 von Firewoman

"Mike Easter" wrote in message
news:LSLGd.9859$Ii4.7068@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Alan Connor wrote:
>>Challenge-Response System.
>
> Misdirected challenges are spamcop reportable
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html Messages which may be
> reported: -- Misdirected challenges from challenge/response spam
> filtering systems
>
>
> --
> Mike Easter
>

What about misdirected newgroup postings? This is a welcome to
comp.mail.mis, not nanae. I'd sure think twice about a newsgroup if the
welcome to it was from the OP.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 16:31:08 von Robert Moir

Alan Connor wrote:
[snip]
> They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
[more snip]
> Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response

I'm not sure why you'd need a spam filter if spammers cannot beat the
Challange-Response system.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.01.2005 17:31:46 von axlq

In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Alan Connor wrote:
>They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.

So do non-spammers. Remember:

* If the message is forged, the challenge is spam.
* Those who emit spam are spammers.
* If the pre-filtering system is perfect, there's no need for
challenges.
* If it isn't perfect, it drops real email or causes spam to be
emitted.
* It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
agent.

(borrowed from Seth Briedbart)

Only clueless twits think C-R is a solution.
-A

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.00) (was Re: Welcome to Comp Ma

am 17.01.2005 17:49:35 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 04:30:12 von Troy Piggins

* Robert Moir wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
> [snip]
>> They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
> [more snip]
>> Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
>
> I'm not sure why you'd need a spam filter if spammers cannot beat the
> Challange-Response system.

To filter out obvious spam, and greatly reduce the number of challenges
sent out to minimise the impact on forged email From:'s
--
T R O Y P I G G I N S
e : usenet@piggo.com

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 05:47:39 von ghoul

Alan Connor wrote:

> A lot of people post things on this group, a lot of links
> are offered and a lot of official-looking headers.
>
> Anyone can say anything on the Usenet, and anyone can put
> anything on a website. The hosts of a large server or
> server-farm simply cannot keep track of all the webpages
> or other files on their server(s), and a very reputable
> organization often has webpages (etc.) containing pure mis- and
> dis- information.
>
> So when you look at one of the articles posted here that looks
> official and factual, take a real close look at the headers
> and bear in mind that spammers can post here put up webpages too.
> Check out the credentials of the person posting it.
>
> Start with: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> What do you imagine would inspire a spammer to do such a thing?
>
> Why, a spam-filter that they can't beat.
>
> They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
>
> Google (this is a literal search-string):
>
> "challenge response" OR "challenge-response"
>
> and you will find many websites, controlled by those with a
> vested interest in keeping the spam flowing, that contain nothing
> but exagerrations and lies about Challenge-Response systems.
>
> Again: Because the spammers (and trolls) can't beat them.
>
> Anonymous mail does not get past a Challenge-Response System.
>
> Spammers love to promote Bayesian and other popular (and
> not very effective) spamfilters because they CAN beat them.
>
> They are the world's foremost _experts_ in the use of such
> filters. Of course. What else do they have to do?
>
> Which is why you still get spam. (And lose important mail.)
>
> You have been warned.
> ---------------------
>
> Let the reader beware.
>
>
> (now that troll is probably going to post the link to his
> Alan Connor Hate Page. Yawn. There are thousands of sites
> that claim to offer proof that people have been abducted by
> little grey men from outer space)
>
>
> AC
>
>

also bear in mind Allan is a troll and a bad one at that. He eats poopy off
the ground as well.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 13:59:05 von Frank Slootweg

axlq wrote:
> In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Alan Connor wrote:
> >They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
>
> So do non-spammers. Remember:
[deleted]
> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
> agent.

No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
and the pointers in
there.

> (borrowed from Seth Briedbart)

I don't think that Seth said that (or at least it was debunked later).
Do you have a cite (i.e. (archived) Message-ID)?

On second thought, perhaps Seth Briedbart *has* said it, but not Seth
Breidbart! :-)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 17:43:10 von Firewoman

"Alan Connor" wrote in message
news:1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>A lot of people post things on this group, a lot of links
> are offered and a lot of official-looking headers.
>
> Anyone can say anything on the Usenet, and anyone can put
> anything on a website.

Thanks for proving that once again, and thanks for the laugh :)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 19:39:57 von Norman Miller

In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Alan
Connor says...

> A lot of people post things on this group, a lot of links
> are offered and a lot of official-looking headers.

I am certainly glad that you are not in the artillery. How did a "Welcome to
Comp Mail Misc" article land in "news.admin.net-abuse.email"? Incompetence
comes to mind...

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 19:44:37 von Norman Miller

In article , Troy Piggins says...

> * Robert Moir wrote:
> > Alan Connor wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
> > [more snip]
> >> Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response

> > I'm not sure why you'd need a spam filter if spammers cannot beat the
> > Challange-Response system.

> To filter out obvious spam, and greatly reduce the number of challenges
> sent out to minimise the impact on forged email From:'s

It seems to me that the best way to minimize the impact of challenges to
forged email accounts is to not send them at all. Apparently the number of
misdirected challenges has risen to a level of abuse that SpamCop now allows
their users to report them; see Mike Easter's post announcing that change.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 20:09:59 von sethb

In article <41ed0818$0$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>axlq wrote:
>> In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Alan Connor wrote:
>> >They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
>>
>> So do non-spammers. Remember:
>[deleted]
>> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
>> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
>> agent.
>
> No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
>the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
>many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
> and the pointers in
>there.

That's wrong. If I do the right thing, and someone else does the
wrong thing because of it, that isn't my fault. (E.g. 55x response
for "no such user" could also cause the sender's MTA to generate a DSN
to a forged address; does that mean no 55x should ever be given, or
that sending MTAs should have reason to believe the address they send
DSNs to?)

>> (borrowed from Seth Briedbart)
>
> I don't think that Seth said that (or at least it was debunked later).
>Do you have a cite (i.e. (archived) Message-ID)?

Yes, I did say it.

> On second thought, perhaps Seth Briedbart *has* said it, but not Seth
>Breidbart! :-)

Nice try :-)

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 21:25:40 von Frank Slootweg

Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <41ed0818$0$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >axlq wrote:
> >> In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >> Alan Connor wrote:
> >> >They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
> >>
> >> So do non-spammers. Remember:
> >[deleted]
> >> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
> >> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
> >> agent.
> >
> > No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
> >the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
> >many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
> > and the pointers in
> >there.
>
> That's wrong. If I do the right thing, and someone else does the
> wrong thing because of it, that isn't my fault. (E.g. 55x response
> for "no such user" could also cause the sender's MTA to generate a DSN
> to a forged address; does that mean no 55x should ever be given, or
> that sending MTAs should have reason to believe the address they send
> DSNs to?)

(IMO) The consensus was that "someone else" is *not* doing "the wrong
thing", but is actually doing the *right* thing (see, for *example*
(there were many more), the pointers I gave in the above referenced
article). (Assuming that with "someone else", you mean the sending
MTA which, when it gets a 55x return code, will (have to) send the DSN
(email) message to the (possibly forged) sender.)

As to "does that mean ... that sending MTAs should have reason to
believe the address they send DSNs to?", the answer is yes. It would be
*nice* if MTAs tried to prevent sending to forged addresses as much as
possible, but since it is impossible to always detect all forgeries,
that can only be a want, never a must.

In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your "that isn't my
fault" reasoning? Because it means that you would also (have to) agree
with AC's approach. I.e. there is no real difference between a
misdirected challenge caused by a 55x return and one caused by a bounce.
Either both are spam (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not
spam. You can't define one as non-spam and the other as spam.

> >> (borrowed from Seth Briedbart)
> >
> > I don't think that Seth said that (or at least it was debunked later).
> >Do you have a cite (i.e. (archived) Message-ID)?
>
> Yes, I did say it.

Yes, I seem to remember that and that we 'disagreed' initially, but
after some more discussion, (mostly) agreed. If anyone is interested,
then searching cmm for the last 6 to 9 months on your and my name should
reveal what was really said. Alternatively, posters *could* read/browse/
search/ past discussions, so that we don't have to repeat them
every few months, or, in this case, days! :-(

[deleted]

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 21:59:35 von Alan Connor

On 18 Jan 2005 20:25:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>> In article <41ed0818$0$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>, Frank
>> Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> >axlq wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> >> Alan Connor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE
>> >> >them.
>> >>
>> >> So do non-spammers. Remember:
>> >
>> >[deleted]
>> >
>> >> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method
>> >> in the rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a
>> >> user's delivery agent.
>> >
>> > No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with
>> >a bypass method in the rejection; ... done by the
>> >MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked many times in
>> >this group. See the recent (January 15) article
>> > and the
>> >pointers in there.
>>
>> That's wrong. If I do the right thing, and someone else does
>> the wrong thing because of it, that isn't my fault. (E.g. 55x
>> response for "no such user" could also cause the sender's MTA
>> to generate a DSN to a forged address; does that mean no 55x
>> should ever be given, or that sending MTAs should have reason
>> to believe the address they send DSNs to?)
>
> (IMO) The consensus was that "someone else" is *not* doing
> "the wrong thing", but is actually doing the *right* thing
> (see, for *example* (there were many more), the pointers I
> gave in the above referenced article). (Assuming that with
> "someone else", you mean the sending MTA which, when it gets a
> 55x return code, will (have to) send the DSN (email) message to
> the (possibly forged) sender.)
>
> As to "does that mean ... that sending MTAs should have
> reason to believe the address they send DSNs to?", the answer
> is yes. It would be *nice* if MTAs tried to prevent sending
> to forged addresses as much as possible, but since it is
> impossible to always detect all forgeries, that can only be a
> want, never a must.
>
> In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your
> "that isn't my fault" reasoning? Because it means that you
> would also (have to) agree with AC's approach. I.e. there is
> no real difference between a misdirected challenge caused by a
> 55x return and one caused by a bounce. Either both are spam
> (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not spam. You can't
> define one as non-spam and the other as spam.
>

You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
commercial email.

First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
rare, (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
invite investigation and prosecution.

Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.

In order to be classified as spam, the "mis-directed challenge"
would have to contain an advertisement/solicitation, and they
don't: Challenges don't include the body of the mail that
triggered them, spam or otherwise. And, it would have to be
replicated, with each copy going to a different address.

Which doesn't happen. Challenges go to one specific address.

But you know this, and the spammer/troll hiding behind all of
these aliases knows this.

And so does everyone else likely to read these groups, so I
really do wonder just who you and "Seth" think you are fooling.

Morons can't operate computers.

AC

--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 22:20:19 von Frank Slootweg

Alan Connor wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2005 20:25:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> wrote:
>
> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
[deleted]
> > In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your
> > "that isn't my fault" reasoning? Because it means that you
> > would also (have to) agree with AC's approach. I.e. there is
> > no real difference between a misdirected challenge caused by a
> > 55x return and one caused by a bounce. Either both are spam
> > (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not spam. You can't
> > define one as non-spam and the other as spam.
>
> You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
> commercial email.

No. Guess why "UBE" doesn't have a "C" in it? The "commercial" bit is
not required/relevant. A message can be totally non-commercial and still
be spam (if it is U, B and E).

(And yes, *sometimes* people will use the term "UCE" if they mean
*commercial* spam. I.e. UCE is a subset of UBE.)

[More misconceptions deleted.]

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 22:31:33 von pv+usenet

cantspam20041216nanaeuser@aosake.net writes:
>I am certainly glad that you are not in the artillery. How did a "Welcome to
>Comp Mail Misc" article land in "news.admin.net-abuse.email"? Incompetence
>comes to mind...

It's from Alan Connor, so by definition it's wrong in as many ways as
possible, and in some other ways not previously thought possible. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Free ipod? http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=10031125

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 18.01.2005 22:54:17 von Alan Connor

On 18 Jan 2005 21:20:19 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jan 2005 20:25:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
>> > In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your
>> > "that isn't my fault" reasoning? Because it means that you
>> > would also (have to) agree with AC's approach. I.e. there is
>> > no real difference between a misdirected challenge caused
>> > by a 55x return and one caused by a bounce. Either both
>> > are spam (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not
>> > spam. You can't define one as non-spam and the other as
>> > spam.
>>
>> You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
>> commercial email.
>
> No. Guess why "UBE" doesn't have a "C" in it? The
> "commercial" bit is not required/relevant. A message can be
> totally non-commercial and still be spam (if it is U, B and E).
>
> (And yes, *sometimes* people will use the term "UCE" if they
> mean *commercial* spam. I.e. UCE is a subset of UBE.)
>

The vast majority of people consider spam to be of a commercial
nature.

Certainly most of the UBE that bothers people is of a commercial
nature, so I don't know who you think you are fooling with
these silly word games.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spam&db=%2A

spam Audio pronunciation of "Spam" ( P )
Pronunciation Key (sp*m)
n.

Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial
nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple
mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups;
junk e-mail.

Never-the-less, an un-solicited Challenge is not "bulk".
It *was* solicited by the spammer; and it is *not*
"indiscriminate". It is deliberately sent to a single
address.

DUH.

A Challenge-Response System receives one of the very rare spams
that contain some innocent person's or organization's return
address, and a single, tiny mail is sent to that address.

> [More misconceptions deleted.]

Considering that you don't even know that a single mail is not
bulk mail, I really doubt that anyone gives your opinions here
any credence.

Like I said: 'Morons can't operate computers'.

Listen: Everyone here knows that spammers and trolls hate
Challenge-Response Systems because these criminals/headcases
can't beat them.

You want people to think you are a spammer or a headcase, Frank?

Just keep it up.

AC

--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 00:11:09 von Buss Error

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in news:csjmu7$o38$1
@panix5.panix.com:

> (E.g. 55x response
> for "no such user" could also cause the sender's MTA to generate a DSN
> to a forged address;

About the only way I can figure an 55x being sent to a forged address is if
it's done post smtp chat.

During chat, sorce port forging won't do it, the TCP sequence will be wrong
and the session won't be established on the forged source IP. The 55x will
be sent down the exsisting connection so the envelope sender's ID isn't
used, it's sent to the connecting server via the exsisting connection.

Isn't sending a 5xx (hard fail) frowned upon if done post chat? Or is it
that is't just an increadablly stupid idea, that I just think it's frowned
upon?

Or am I missing something and being stupid all at once?

As far as the sender doing something with a DSN to somewhere it shouldn't,
well, that's their problem to fix.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 00:33:43 von sethb

In article <41ed70c3$0$42202$1b2cd167@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> In article <41ed0818$0$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >axlq wrote:
>> >> In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

>> >> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
>> >> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
>> >> agent.
>> >
>> > No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
>> >the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
>> >many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
>> > and the pointers in
>> >there.
>>
>> That's wrong. If I do the right thing, and someone else does the
>> wrong thing because of it, that isn't my fault.
.. . .
> (IMO) The consensus was that "someone else" is *not* doing "the wrong
>thing", but is actually doing the *right* thing (see, for *example*
>(there were many more), the pointers I gave in the above referenced
>article).

I did.

> (Assuming that with "someone else", you mean the sending
>MTA which, when it gets a 55x return code, will (have to) send the DSN
>(email) message to the (possibly forged) sender.)

As I wrote, it isn't my problem if I tell someone else "I'm not
accepting that" and as a result he spams. (Suppose he tried a machine
that isn't running a mailswerver; should I be accepting email there
just in case he might otherwise spam?)

> As to "does that mean ... that sending MTAs should have reason to
>believe the address they send DSNs to?", the answer is yes. It would be
>*nice* if MTAs tried to prevent sending to forged addresses as much as
>possible, but since it is impossible to always detect all forgeries,
>that can only be a want, never a must.

While it's impossible to detect all forgeries, it's possible to limit
yourself to stuff you know is not forged (e.g. only allowed logged-in
users to send, and the DSN goes back to them; or at least, if it goes
to the wrong person, you know who to lart).

> In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your "that isn't my
>fault" reasoning? Because it means that you would also (have to) agree
>with AC's approach. I.e. there is no real difference between a
>misdirected challenge caused by a 55x return and one caused by a bounce.
>Either both are spam (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not
>spam. You can't define one as non-spam and the other as spam.

They're both spam. They both make the machine that sent them the
guilty party. If machine A tries to send to my machine B, and B says
"550", and as a result A send a DSN (spam) to Z, then A is guilty, and
B is not. If machine A tries to send to Alan's machine C, and C sends
a challenge (spam) to Y, then C is guilty. See the difference?

>> Yes, I did say it.
>
> Yes, I seem to remember that and that we 'disagreed' initially, but
>after some more discussion, (mostly) agreed.

I don't think my stand (as above) has changed. The guilt falls on the
(controller of the) machine that sends the spam. The fact that it
sends spam because I said "not interested" or someone he didn't know
sent something to Alan or my machine said "that IP address is prime"
doesn't matter.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 00:42:01 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 00:44:18 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 00:46:27 von sethb

In article ,
Alan Connor wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2005 20:25:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> wrote:

>> In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your
>> "that isn't my fault" reasoning? Because it means that you
>> would also (have to) agree with AC's approach. I.e. there is
>> no real difference between a misdirected challenge caused by a
>> 55x return and one caused by a bounce. Either both are spam
>> (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not spam. You can't
>> define one as non-spam and the other as spam.
>
>You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
>commercial email.

No, it doesn't have to be commercial. God-bothering spam is well
known, albeit a small fraction of the total. So is political spam.

>First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
>rare,

So you claim. Other people find otherwise. By the standards of total
amount of spam, they're rare. By the standards of winning the
lottery, they're a dime a dozen.

> (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
>that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
>addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
>invite investigation and prosecution.

That's quite false. Sometimes, spammers go out of their way to forge
the email address of somebody who complained about them. I'm not the
only one in nanae who has had that experience several times.

Other times, spammers use "nearby" addresses in their lists as the
sender, in the hopes that it will be whitelisted by their victim.

And sometimes it seems they just make up addresses.

I've never known them to take any effort to remove real addresses from
their false sender lists (and I've seen analysis of a lot of
spamware).

>Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
>the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.

You lose. (The second one in my spambox that I just looked at is a
419 whose sender's address hadn't been cancelled yet when I checked.)

>In order to be classified as spam, the "mis-directed challenge"
>would have to contain an advertisement/solicitation,

No, it doesn't. Spam is UBE, no requirement for advertisements.

> and they
>don't: Challenges don't include the body of the mail that
>triggered them, spam or otherwise. And, it would have to be
>replicated, with each copy going to a different address.

Well, if they don't include the body, they all look very similar,
sufficiently so to make them bulk.

>Which doesn't happen. Challenges go to one specific address.

Each one does. If all of them did, there's be less of a problem.
(The owner of that address would be sol, but he could just reject
them.)

>And so does everyone else likely to read these groups, so I
>really do wonder just who you and "Seth" think you are fooling.

Do those scare quotes mean you think my parents were lying to me?

>Morons can't operate computers.

But they can click and drool.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 02:05:20 von Alan Connor

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:54:17 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Jan 2005 21:20:19 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> wrote:
>
>
>> Alan Connor wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Jan 2005 20:25:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>>> > In any case, may I suggest to be very careful with your
>>> > "that isn't my fault" reasoning? Because it means that you
>>> > would also (have to) agree with AC's approach. I.e. there is
>>> > no real difference between a misdirected challenge caused
>>> > by a 55x return and one caused by a bounce. Either both
>>> > are spam (which, IMO, is the consensus) or both are not
>>> > spam. You can't define one as non-spam and the other as
>>> > spam.
>>>
>>> You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
>>> commercial email.
>>
>> No. Guess why "UBE" doesn't have a "C" in it? The
>> "commercial" bit is not required/relevant. A message can be
>> totally non-commercial and still be spam (if it is U, B and E).
>>
>> (And yes, *sometimes* people will use the term "UCE" if they
>> mean *commercial* spam. I.e. UCE is a subset of UBE.)
>>
>
> The vast majority of people consider spam to be of a commercial
> nature.
>
> Certainly most of the UBE that bothers people is of a commercial
> nature, so I don't know who you think you are fooling with
> these silly word games.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spam&db=%2A
>
> spam Audio pronunciation of "Spam" ( P )
> Pronunciation Key (sp*m)
> n.
>
> Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial
> nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple
> mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups;
> junk e-mail.
>

The vast majority of UBE is also *anonymous*, which
in this context means that the return address on the
mail, whether in the From:, Reply-To:, or Return-Path:
headers, is not the real return address of the party
that sent the UBE.

(Usually, it is an address that belongs to no one, by
design: Using someone's address is a good way to bring
on some real negative attention, and people fairly
frequently get pissed off at spam and hit 'Reply' and
send a nasty note off. Fortunately, 9,999 times out
of 10,000, that attempted reply just bounces.)

Challenge-Responses are NOT anonymous.

The anonymity of UBE (and trollmail) is the weakness that a
Challenge-Response System exploits: If the Challenge is not
returned because the address was bogus (ususally) or the address
is just a dump, then it isn't returned and the mail that elicited
it is deleted without the C-R user even knowing it arrived in the
first place.

A real live human being has to be reading the mail there, and
they have to paste an included password on the Subject line and
send it back. (5 seconds)

Trolls and spammers, criminals by definition, do not like to
use their real return addresses, so their mail is never seen
by the C-R user.

>
> Never-the-less, an un-solicited Challenge is not "bulk".
> It *was* solicited by the spammer; and it is *not*
> "indiscriminate". It is deliberately sent to a single
> address.
>
> DUH.
>
> A Challenge-Response System receives one of the very rare spams
> that contain some innocent person's or organization's return
> address, and a single, tiny mail is sent to that address.
>

AC

--
Pro-Active Spam Fighter
Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 02:20:48 von af380

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
[snip]
> First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
> rare, (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
> that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
> addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
> invite investigation and prosecution.
>
> Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
> the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.
[snip]

If spammers never forge others' real addresses, please explain why I get
bounces for email I never sent, why the user-support mailing list here
gets bounces for email it never sent, and why even my ISP's abuse address
has received bounces for messages it never sent?

(Yes, you read that correctly. The Chebucto Community Net's abuse address
has been forged more than once as the alleged sender of spam.)

--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
My Usenet 2005 calendar: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Year-2005.txt
For explanation: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Links.Books.html#TandD

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 02:54:23 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 03:30:03 von sethb

In article ,
Alan Connor responded to himself, there being nobody
else he can win an argument with:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:54:17 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
>> On 18 Jan 2005 21:20:19 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> wrote:
>>> Alan Connor wrote:

>>>> You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
>>>> commercial email.
>>>
>>> No. Guess why "UBE" doesn't have a "C" in it? The
>>> "commercial" bit is not required/relevant. A message can be
>>> totally non-commercial and still be spam (if it is U, B and E).
>>>
>>> (And yes, *sometimes* people will use the term "UCE" if they
>>> mean *commercial* spam. I.e. UCE is a subset of UBE.)
>>
>> The vast majority of people consider spam to be of a commercial
>> nature.

The vast majority of people are idiots.

>> Certainly most of the UBE that bothers people is of a commercial
>> nature, so I don't know who you think you are fooling with
>> these silly word games.

"Most of" doesn't mean "all of". You're the one trying to play word
games, saying that since C/R spam doesn't have the same
characteristics as most other spam, it isn't spam. Would you say the
same about god-bothering spam? How about political spam?

>The vast majority of UBE is also *anonymous*,

So you admit that something can be UBE and not be anonymous.

>(Usually, it is an address that belongs to no one, by
>design: Using someone's address is a good way to bring
>on some real negative attention, and people fairly
>frequently get pissed off at spam and hit 'Reply' and
>send a nasty note off. Fortunately, 9,999 times out
>of 10,000, that attempted reply just bounces.)

Want to bet? I'll bet that at least 1% of the return addresses on my
next 500 spams are replyable, at least until I lart them.

>Challenge-Responses are NOT anonymous.

So they're in the remaining fraction of UBE after the vast majority
that is anonymous is removed.

>The anonymity of UBE (and trollmail) is the weakness that a
>Challenge-Response System exploits: If the Challenge is not
>returned because the address was bogus (ususally) or the address
>is just a dump, then it isn't returned and the mail that elicited
>it is deleted without the C-R user even knowing it arrived in the
>first place.

And if the forged sender is a real account, an innocent victim gets
spammed by the C/R system.

>A real live human being has to be reading the mail there, and
>they have to paste an included password on the Subject line and
>send it back. (5 seconds)

Which is 5 seconds wasted of the innocent's victim time.

>Trolls and spammers, criminals by definition,

Trolls aren't criminals by definition. Neither are spammers,
unfortunately.

> do not like to use their real return addresses,

One of us, Mr. xxxx@yyy.zzz, is using his real email address here.

>> Never-the-less, an un-solicited Challenge is not "bulk".

A single one isn't. So a C/R system that shuts itself off
permanently after the first failure to confirm isn't spamming.

>> It *was* solicited by the spammer;

So what? All spam is solicited by the spammer. If the C/R system
sends to me because the spammer forged my email address, then the C/R
system is spamming me.

>> and it is *not* "indiscriminate". It is deliberately sent to a
>> single address.

Which is all too often that of an innocent victim.

>> A Challenge-Response System receives one of the very rare spams
>> that contain some innocent person's or organization's return
>> address, and a single, tiny mail is sent to that address.

All spammers whine that their spam isn't so bad.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 03:31:15 von sethb

In article ,
Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Alan Connor wrote:

>> First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
>> rare, (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
>> that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
>> addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
>> invite investigation and prosecution.
>>
>> Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
>> the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.
>
>If spammers never forge others' real addresses, please explain why I get
>bounces for email I never sent, why the user-support mailing list here
>gets bounces for email it never sent, and why even my ISP's abuse address
>has received bounces for messages it never sent?

Or just look at the return addresses on all the phishing spam.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 03:33:43 von sethb

In article ,
Buss Error wrote:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in news:csjmu7$o38$1
>@panix5.panix.com:
>
>> (E.g. 55x response
>> for "no such user" could also cause the sender's MTA to generate a DSN
>> to a forged address;
>
>About the only way I can figure an 55x being sent to a forged address is if
>it's done post smtp chat.

The 55x isn't sent to a forged address; rather, it causes the sender's
MTA to send a DSN to a forged address.

>Isn't sending a 5xx (hard fail) frowned upon if done post chat? Or is it
>that is't just an increadablly stupid idea, that I just think it's frowned
>upon?

It's impossible once the mail is accepted.

>Or am I missing something and being stupid all at once?

Apparently. :-)

>As far as the sender doing something with a DSN to somewhere it shouldn't,
>well, that's their problem to fix.

But now you have my point precisely. The _sender_ (MTA) is sending
the DSN to the wrong place, as a result of my 55x.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 05:23:35 von Buss Error

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in news:cskgu7$nde$1
@panix5.panix.com:

> But now you have my point precisely. The _sender_ (MTA) is sending
> the DSN to the wrong place, as a result of my 55x.

But...but... (sputter) that's a problem with someone else's MTA!

As far as accepting the email then getting a hard fail, well, that's my
point too. It "shouldn't" happen that way. Once accepted, there simply
isn't a reliable way to report an error, therefore, no error should be
reported to any envelope address, only the postmaster of the system with
the hard fail. Unfortunately, that answer doesn't scale. Godlings, does it
NOT scale....

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 07:08:29 von af380

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Sam wrote:

> Norman L. DeForest writes:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Beavis wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
> >> rare, (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
> >> that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
> >> addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
> >> invite investigation and prosecution.
> >>
> >> Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
> >> the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.
> > [snip]
> >
> > If spammers never forge others' real addresses, please explain why I get
> > bounces for email I never sent, why the user-support mailing list here
> > gets bounces for email it never sent, and why even my ISP's abuse address
> > has received bounces for messages it never sent?
>
> This is one of the Frequently Asked Questions that Beavis never answers.
> See the regularly-posted FAQ to this newsgroup.

*I* know that. *You* know that. AC, himself knows that.
I just want to make sure that newbies to comp.mail.misc see
that for themselves.

--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
My Usenet 2005 calendar: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Year-2005.txt
For explanation: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Links.Books.html#TandD

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 09:06:16 von Greg Samson

Alan Connor wrote:

>>>A Challenge-Response System receives one of the very rare spams
>>>that contain some innocent person's or organization's return
>>>address, and a single, tiny mail is sent to that address.

And there's the heart of the problem right there.

I've received thousands of bounces from badly configured systems when a
forged address at my domain is used in spam headers. (They're far from
"very rare.") FEWER badly configured systems are needed; your tool
instead creates more of them.

"A single, tiny mail" to an innocent person's forged address is a
concept that doesn't scale.

--
u wi zat clue stick dotorg

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 13:42:54 von Norman Miller

In article , Alan
Connor says...

> Like I said: 'Morons can't operate computers'.

Ah. But you, yourself, prove the contrary!

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 14:40:35 von Tim

Alan Connor wrote:

>
>>
>>
>
>
>Morons can't operate computers.
>
>AC
>
>

They can.You are incontrovertible proof of that.

>
>
>
>

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 14:48:42 von Tim

Alan Connor wrote:

>
>
>You want people to think you are a spammer or a headcase, Frank?
>
>Just keep it up.
>
>
>AC
>
>
>
>

A lunatic worrying about whether someone else is perceived as a
'headacase'. How quirky!

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 19.01.2005 21:32:03 von sethb

In article ,
Buss Error wrote:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in news:cskgu7$nde$1
>@panix5.panix.com:
>
>> But now you have my point precisely. The _sender_ (MTA) is sending
>> the DSN to the wrong place, as a result of my 55x.
>
>But...but... (sputter) that's a problem with someone else's MTA!

That was my point all along.

>As far as accepting the email then getting a hard fail, well, that's my
>point too. It "shouldn't" happen that way. Once accepted, there simply
>isn't a reliable way to report an error, therefore, no error should be
>reported to any envelope address, only the postmaster of the system with
>the hard fail. Unfortunately, that answer doesn't scale. Godlings, does it
>NOT scale....

The bigger your setup, the more accurate you need your acceptances to
be. Then it scales.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 10:17:11 von Frank Slootweg

Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <41ed70c3$0$42202$1b2cd167@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >> In article <41ed0818$0$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> >axlq wrote:
> >> >> In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>
> >> >> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
> >> >> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
> >> >> agent.
> >> >
> >> > No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
> >> >the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
> >> >many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
> >> > and the pointers in
> >> >there.
> >>
> >> That's wrong. If I do the right thing, and someone else does the
> >> wrong thing because of it, that isn't my fault.
> . . .
> > (IMO) The consensus was that "someone else" is *not* doing "the wrong
> >thing", but is actually doing the *right* thing (see, for *example*
> >(there were many more), the pointers I gave in the above referenced
> >article).
>
> I did.
>
> > (Assuming that with "someone else", you mean the sending
> >MTA which, when it gets a 55x return code, will (have to) send the DSN
> >(email) message to the (possibly forged) sender.)
>
> As I wrote, it isn't my problem if I tell someone else "I'm not
> accepting that" and as a result he spams. (Suppose he tried a machine
> that isn't running a mailswerver; should I be accepting email there
> just in case he might otherwise spam?)

Sorry, Seth and (earlier) axlq! And my thanks to Sam whose short
response showed me the error of my ways.

Apparently I had a bad brain day when I wrote my response to axlq
().

Of course you (both) are right! You were talking about rejecting
"suspected spam", but that bit didn't sink in with me. There have been
so many proponents of a challenge-with-55x C-R system, that I thought
you were talking about those, i.e. challenging 'suspected' *legitimate*
mail, i.e. the phase *after* a/the spam 'filter'.

So you guys were talking about rejecting suspected spam while I was
(thinking :-) I was) talking about (challenge-) rejecting legitimate
mail. No wonder we didn't agree! :-)

Again: Sorry!

[rest deleted]

--
Frank "Hmmm! Egg! Nice!" :-) Slootweg

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 10:21:12 von Frank Slootweg

Tim wrote:
> Alan Connor wrote:
> >
> >
> >Morons can't operate computers.
> >
> >AC
> >
> >
>
> They can.You are incontrovertible proof of that.

Nah! Sorry, but I would have to agree with AC! It has only been shown
that they *do* operate computers, not that they *can*.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 11:32:06 von Frank Slootweg

Two days ago, wrote:
> axlq wrote:
> > In article <1MKGd.9842$Ii4.6299@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Alan Connor wrote:
> > >They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
> >
> > So do non-spammers. Remember:
> [deleted]
> > * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
> > rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's delivery
> > agent.
>
> No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in
> the rejection; ... done by the MTA"). This fallacy has been debunked
> many times in this group. See the recent (January 15) article
> and the pointers in
> there.

After my apology (),
I'm thinking if I wasn't right after all, at least as far a *your*
(axlq) standpoint is concerned.

So, can you perhaps describe more clearly what *exactly* you mean by
"reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the rejection"?

Do you mean that it is indeed *suspected* spam, i.e. 1) you think it
is probably spam, but it might be legitimate mail? Or is it the other
way around, i.e. 2) you think it is probably legitimate mail, but it
might be spam?

And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say so,
because "a bypass method" is rather vague.

If 1), then indeed a (55x) reject is fine.

However if 2), then I think a (55x) reject is as bad as AC's bouncing
method. I.e. you think it is probably legitimate mail, but you are not
sure, so you are putting the burden on the (assumed) sender and hence
spam the (assumed) sender if their address was forged.

[rest of my earlier response deleted]

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 11:36:38 von Frank Slootweg

[Disclaimer: One of these days, I'll get it right! :-(]

A little earlier, I wrote:
> Two days ago, wrote:

That should of course have been:

> Two days ago, I wrote:
^
[rest deleted. please respond to the parent of this article.]

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 19:18:08 von sethb

In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:

> After my apology (),
>I'm thinking if I wasn't right after all, at least as far a *your*
>(axlq) standpoint is concerned.
>
> So, can you perhaps describe more clearly what *exactly* you mean by
>"reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the rejection"?
>
> Do you mean that it is indeed *suspected* spam, i.e. 1) you think it
>is probably spam, but it might be legitimate mail? Or is it the other
>way around, i.e. 2) you think it is probably legitimate mail, but it
>might be spam?

I'd mean "I don't know if it's spam; the indications aren't clear."

> And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
>C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say so,
>because "a bypass method" is rather vague.

Something like that, yes.

> If 1), then indeed a (55x) reject is fine.
>
> However if 2), then I think a (55x) reject is as bad as AC's bouncing
>method.

A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation request to a
(possibly or probably) forged sender.

> I.e. you think it is probably legitimate mail, but you are not
>sure, so you are putting the burden on the (assumed) sender and hence
>spam the (assumed) sender if their address was forged.

I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
verify its input.

Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
causing spam to be sent in the first case?

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 19:29:02 von spamtrap

In , on 01/18/2005
at 09:33 PM, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) said:

>The 55x isn't sent to a forged address; rather, it causes the
>sender's MTA to send a DSN to a forged address.

Not even that. It notifies the sender of nondelivery. What the sender
does at that point depends on how its admin configured it.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 20:45:54 von Frank Slootweg

Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > After my apology (),
> >I'm thinking if I wasn't right after all, at least as far a *your*
> >(axlq) standpoint is concerned.
> >
> > So, can you perhaps describe more clearly what *exactly* you mean by
> >"reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the rejection"?
> >
> > Do you mean that it is indeed *suspected* spam, i.e. 1) you think it
> >is probably spam, but it might be legitimate mail? Or is it the other
> >way around, i.e. 2) you think it is probably legitimate mail, but it
> >might be spam?
>
> I'd mean "I don't know if it's spam; the indications aren't clear."
>
> > And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
> >C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say so,
> >because "a bypass method" is rather vague.
>
> Something like that, yes.

Thanks for your clarifications.

> > If 1), then indeed a (55x) reject is fine.
> >
> > However if 2), then I think a (55x) reject is as bad as AC's bouncing
> >method.
>
> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation request to a
> (possibly or probably) forged sender.

I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many cases the
sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN email message because
it *cannot* "verify its input" (see below).

> > I.e. you think it is probably legitimate mail, but you are not
> >sure, so you are putting the burden on the (assumed) sender and hence
> >spam the (assumed) sender if their address was forged.
>
> I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
> do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
> that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
> verify its input.

With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the sender in
the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life systems, such checks
are often not possible.

For example my primary MSP (== my ISP) believes (read: *has to*
believe) whatever I (read: my MUA) put in the MAIL FROM: command. It has
to believe it, otherwise I couldn't use it for sending mail from my
*other* email addresses (and I *have* to use my MSP's/ISP's MTA because
they have closed outgoing port 25 (don't go there, it's not debatable)).
They have no way of knowing *who* (i.e. which email-address/mailbox) is
actually issuing the MAIL FROM: command. The only thing which my MSP/ISP
knows is that the *subscription* of a person named Frank Slootweg is
used, not if Frank Slootweg himself is using it. So what is the MSP to
do? Send the DSN to my mailbox? I'm sure that my wife won't like that if
her mail fails and I get the DSN (and possibly/probably a copy of the
failed private mail). As has been discussed in these groups (or at least
in cmm), what goes for my MSP/ISP goes for many other similar MSPs/ISPs
and also for 'pure' MSPs like Yahoo! Mail, etc..

So let's face it, as has been discussed in these groups several times
before, there *is no* clearly defined concept of 'sender', so let's not
pretend there is, and let's not pretend that MTA should (or even must)
"verify their input"/'sender', because (often) they *can't*.

[Yes, I know that SMTP authentication can improve things, but 1) it can not
completely solve the problem(s) and 2) it is not widely used, at least
not with consumer-type ISPs/MSPs.]

> Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
> will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
> through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
> generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
> causing spam to be sent in the first case?

No, because in the first case you have no other option (i.e. you can
not deliver the message and dropping it would plainly be wrong).

In the second case you could, and IMO you should, just deliver the
message and let the recipient handle it. Yes, that might not be fair on
the recipient, but it isn't fair on the forged sender either. As someone
put it, by (challenge) rejecting (or bouncing) it, you basically
*delegate* the responsibility for *your* spam filtering to an *unknown*
party, and you *will* have to accept *their* decisions. I.e. if your
misdirected challenge gets to me and I respond to it, you can't
complain, because you have, on beforehand, put your fate in my hands.

Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or by 55x
rejecting.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 23:09:22 von Skua

Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:

> Morons can't operate computers.

You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a Sasquatch
running your computer for you.

Skua

--

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo
(1863 - 1941)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 23:17:18 von Theo Vermeulen

Skua wrote:
> Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:
>
>> Morons can't operate computers.
>
> You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a Sasquatch
> running your computer for you.
>
> Skua

Alan is a good guy. it's not his fault people are faking him...

and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.

for some reason, you guys just want to shit on M Connor, even though he's a wise
man, who can help with a lot of problems, and he knows a lot of answers.

and even if you really really don't like M Connor, you should at least get
off his back for a sec. you should admire him for still being here to defend
himself to shitbags like you.

if someone asks a question, and alan replies with a good valid correct
answer, _WHY_ do you guys always start flaming him for totally unrelated
matters?

for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to post this,
and we have nothing to do with each other. I just think he's a good guy who
deserves some respect.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 23:35:04 von rescyou

On 20 Jan 2005 22:17:18 GMT, Theo Vermeulen
wrote:

>for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to post this,
>and we have nothing to do with each other. I just think he's a good guy who
>deserves some respect.

You get what you give on Usenet, same as in meat space. If Mr.
Connor wanted to be treated with respect, he should have treated his
detractors with a measure of respect, rather than labeling them as
spammers and flinging personal insults.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 20.01.2005 23:56:15 von Skua

Theo Vermeulen wrote:
> Skua wrote:
>
>>Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Morons can't operate computers.
>>
>>You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a Sasquatch
>>running your computer for you.
>>
>>Skua
>
>
>
> Alan is a good guy. it's not his fault people are faking him...

Al is not a good guy, and no one is faking him. He is his own worst enemy.

> and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
> still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.

CR is not a solution to spam. You need to deal with this concept.

> for some reason, you guys just want to shit on M Connor, even though he's a wise
> man, who can help with a lot of problems, and he knows a lot of answers.

No, I do not want to shit on Al. My excrement deserves better than to
fall on the likes of AC. The only problems AC can help with is where to
find a Sasquatch. Al know no answers.

> and even if you really really don't like M Connor, you should at least get
> off his back for a sec. you should admire him for still being here to defend
> himself to shitbags like you.

So I am a shitbag? I tell you what, that is much better than being Alan
Connor or one of his suck puppets. The only explanation for AC's
continued 'defense' of himself is that he is a net kook.

> if someone asks a question, and alan replies with a good valid correct
> answer, _WHY_ do you guys always start flaming him for totally unrelated
> matters?

Al is incapable of real discussion. AC has made CR personal. He has only
himself to blame.

> for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to post this,
> and we have nothing to do with each other. I just think he's a good guy who
> deserves some respect.

Al is not a good guy, and he does not deserve the shit out my rectum,
let alone any respect.

> Greetings

HAND!

Skua

--

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo
(1863 - 1941)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 00:19:04 von Alan Connor

On 20 Jan 2005 22:17:18 GMT, Theo Vermeulen
wrote:

> Skua wrote:
>
>> Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:
>>
>>> Morons can't operate computers.
>>
>> You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a
>> Sasquatch running your computer for you.
>>
>> Skua
>
>
> Alan is a good guy. it's not his fault people are faking him...
>
> and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the
> world, it's still up to the user to decide what he uses to get
> rid of spam.
>
> for some reason, you guys just want to shit on M Connor, even
> though he's a wise man, who can help with a lot of problems,
> and he knows a lot of answers.
>
> and even if you really really don't like M Connor, you should
> at least get off his back for a sec. you should admire him for
> still being here to defend himself to shitbags like you.
>
> if someone asks a question, and alan replies with a good valid
> correct answer, _WHY_ do you guys always start flaming him for
> totally unrelated matters?
>
>
> for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to
> post this, and we have nothing to do with each other. I just
> think he's a good guy who deserves some respect.
>
>
> Greetings
>
>
> Theo Vermeulen

Thank you very much, Theo. Coming from a Usenet pro like
yourself, such statements have real meaning.

All the more so because we have had minor clashes in the past.

You are a man of integrity.

---------

For the record: I have never been anally raped by a Sasquatch.
(Pretty sure I'd remember something like that :-)

As for these trolls? Who cares what a bunch of cowardly little
losers with big and ignorant mouths hiding behind the Internet
think? They don't do anything in the real world, and are thus
non-threats.

No one I respect has any respect for their opinions.

Most of the time they just talk to their own sock-puppets.

I completely ignore 99.9% of their posts. Let them fart into
the wind. Who cares?

Probably keeps the creeps from torturing the neighbor's cats.

-------------

AC

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 01:51:18 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 01:56:37 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 02:13:23 von Fred Viles

Frank Slootweg wrote in
news:41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>...
>> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation
>> request to a (possibly or probably) forged sender.
>
> I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many
> cases the sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN
> email message because it *cannot* "verify its input" (see
> below).

You truly think having a potential relay MTA generate a potentially
bogus DSN in *some* cases is just as bad as having your own MTA
send a potentially bogus DSN in *every* case?

Are you aware that in many (I believe most, by a long shot) cases
spam and malware is delivered *directly* by spamware, not via a
legitimate relay MTA? And such spamware does not waste its time
generate DSNs?

>...
> With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the
> sender in the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life
> systems, such checks are often not possible.
>...

Of course, but irrelevant. As you say, legitimate relay MTAs in
general don't (and usually shouldn't) require MAIL FROM: to specify
a local mailbox address. But they can and do restrict relaying to
authorized sources, and they can and do keep logs.

So it is still better for the relay MTA to be responsible for the
DSN. Since most bogus DSNs will be undeliverable, they come to the
notice of the MTAs administrators who can then punish the guilty
without having to wait for complaints to roll in. They can't
enforce valid MAIL FROM in advance, but after the fact they can
withdraw relay authorization from abusers of their systems.

> Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or
> by 55x rejecting.

On this we can agree, but it doesn't follow that I should not
reject mail for policy reasons.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 03:19:12 von Alan Connor

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:19:04 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

You know, I haven't read one of "Sam's" posts in years, no matter
what alias or newsserver it uses.

Yet it seems to believe that I do, no matter how many times I
inform it of the facts, and no matter how many thousands of
its posts receive no response from me.

"Sam": The posts of this and dozens of your other aliases have
their bodies stripped and their Subjects changed to "XXXXXXXX"
before they even reach my local news cache, much less my
newsreader. The rest of the headers are stripped down to bare
bones. All the ones you can munge or insert are deleted.

I can't even _accidentally_ read anything you say on the Usenet.

I don't read new posts on-line. Slrnpull retrieves new posts,
then procmail filters them and returns them to slrnpull before
the script brings up slrn to read them.

This is exactly the treatment you have earned.

Reading your posts is comparable to sitting down to a meal of
old dog turds.

I just won't do it, and you can't make me.

AC

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 03:50:38 von Alan Connor

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:19:12 GMT, Alan Connor
wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:19:04 GMT, Alan Connor
> wrote:
>
> You know, I haven't read one of "Sam's" posts in years, no
> matter what alias or newsserver it uses.
>
> Yet it seems to believe that I do, no matter how many times I
> inform it of the facts, and no matter how many thousands of its
> posts receive no response from me.
>
> "Sam": The posts of this and dozens of your other aliases have
> their bodies stripped and their Subjects changed to "XXXXXXXX"
> before they even reach my local news cache, much less my
> newsreader. The rest of the headers are stripped down to bare
> bones. All the ones you can munge or insert are deleted.
>
> I can't even _accidentally_ read anything you say on the
> Usenet.
>
> I don't read new posts on-line. Slrnpull retrieves new posts,
> then procmail filters them and returns them to slrnpull before
> the script brings up slrn to read them.
>

All of the above is done to any responses to "Sam's" posts, too.
(Most of which are from its own sock-puppets) The References:
header is not touched.

Anyone responding to a post of "Sam's" (that isn't on my
Preferred list) is given a level-one troll score: Possible
troll/sock-puppet.

These are cumulutive, and if they reach a certain, small, sum,
that person's/sock-puppet's posts are treated just like "Sam's".

> This is exactly the treatment you have earned.
>
> Reading your posts is comparable to sitting down to a meal of
> old dog turds.
>
> I just won't do it, and you can't make me.
>
>
>

Sure can't.

AC

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.00) (was Re: Welcome to Comp Ma

am 21.01.2005 03:54:35 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:08:50 von DevilsPGD

In message <41f02dee$0$6221$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> Theo Vermeulen
wrote:

>and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
>still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.

If my solution to spam is to forward it to you (you personally, I mean)
is that an acceptable solution?

--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:12:59 von kd6lvw

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Troy Piggins wrote:
> * Robert Moir wrote:
> > Alan Connor wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> They can't beat Challenge-Response systems, and they HATE them.
> > [more snip]
> >> Pass-list --> Spam-Filter --> Challenge-Response
> >
> > I'm not sure why you'd need a spam filter if spammers cannot beat the
> > Challange-Response system.
>
> To filter out obvious spam, and greatly reduce the number of challenges
> sent out to minimise the impact on forged email From:'s

Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.

If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so why
does it need to be challenged?

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:23:57 von kd6lvw

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, MASTER TWIT Alan Connor wrote:
> You can't define either as spam. Spam is un-solicited, bulk,
> commercial email.

Spam may have started as unsolicited bulk e-mail, but now clearly includes any
traffic in the e-mail system that directly results from the spam - such as
[misdirected] replies and challenges.

> First-of-all, "mis-directed challenges" are extraordinarily
> rare, (unless deliberately solicited by some spammer/troll) given
> that spammers go out of their way to avoid using false return
> addresses that might belong to someone and thus anger people and
> invite investigation and prosecution.

Someone who missed the "spamcop.org" report above.... If something is common
enough to be classifed as spam, it's not "extraordinarily rare."

> Try hitting "Reply" to the next hundred spams you receive, and
> the odds are that all of those mails will bounce.

Wrong. Since most MTAs now require valid sending domains, ALL of those mails
will at least get delivered to the destination MTA, subject to the existence of
the username portion. Spammers usually have been selecting VALID usernames.

> In order to be classified as spam, the "mis-directed challenge"
> would have to contain an advertisement/solicitation, and they
> don't: Challenges don't include the body of the mail that
> triggered them, spam or otherwise. And, it would have to be
> replicated, with each copy going to a different address.

In which case, the person has no idea why he's getting the challenge,
especially if he never sent to the mailbox that originated the challenge
because the person actually sent to another mailbox that forwarded the message
to the challenging mailbox. In order to AVOID the classification of a
challenge as spam, you have to disallow mailbox forwarding - and because of
spammers' past behavior, that will never happen.

[Note that I said "challenge," not "misdirected challenge."]

> Morons can't operate computers.

You've already proven that to us, AC, personally.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:25:42 von Gunnar

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0501210312110.66@kd6lvw.ampr.org...

[snip

>
> Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
>
> If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so
> why
> does it need to be challenged?

Because a spam filter is not perfect? If there were there would be no
discussion about spam...

I have no opinion for or against CR systems, but I am amused to see the
emotional outbursts from a lot of posters.
But then most posts regarding CR seems to be personal attacks more than
objective arguments...

Gunnar.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:31:21 von kd6lvw

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Alan Connor wrote:
> The vast majority of people consider spam to be of a commercial
> nature.

You mean, they used to.

> Certainly most of the UBE that bothers people is of a commercial
> nature, so I don't know who you think you are fooling with
> these silly word games.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spam&db=%2A
> spam Audio pronunciation of "Spam" ( P )
> Pronunciation Key (sp*m)
> n.
> Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial
> nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple
> mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups;
> junk e-mail.

....And if I were to look up the word "GAY" in a sufficiently old enough
dictionary, I would find meanings ONLY of the nature of "happy" and no mention
of "homosexuality."

Definitions change. The world is dynamic. However, how would AC know that?
He's stuck (or should be) in his padded cell at the Washington State Hospital.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 04:57:31 von kd6lvw

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Skua wrote:
> CR is not a solution to spam. You need to deal with this concept.

Now, let's get it correctly stated: C/R is a solution to the spam problem.
It's just not one that works - due to its inherent, fatal flaws.

A solution can exist and not be optimal. Example:

"Best way of avoiding spam:" Don't have an e-mail mailbox.
No mailbox => No spam. 100% guarenteed.

However, that's not even practical let alone optimal for most people. :-)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 06:02:45 von kd6lvw

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <41f02dee$0$6221$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> Theo Vermeulen
> wrote:
> >and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
> >still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.
>
> If my solution to spam is to forward it to you (you personally, I mean)
> is that an acceptable solution?

Aside: Well, it is A solution. No one said it had to be practical nor
acceptable! :-)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 06:06:16 von kd6lvw

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Gunnar wrote:
> "D. Stussy" wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0501210312110.66@kd6lvw.ampr.org...
> > Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
> >
> > If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so
> > why
> > does it need to be challenged?
>
> Because a spam filter is not perfect? If there were there would be no
> discussion about spam...

Then ADJUST the filter. That's what the rest of us do. Another problem with
his system is that he will never know that his filter is "out of alignment."

> I have no opinion for or against CR systems, but I am amused to see the
> emotional outbursts from a lot of posters.
> But then most posts regarding CR seems to be personal attacks more than
> objective arguments...

You were obviously not here at the beginning of it all, in 2003.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 06:23:05 von axlq

In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> After my apology (),
>I'm thinking if I wasn't right after all, at least as far a *your*
>(axlq) standpoint is concerned.
>
> So, can you perhaps describe more clearly what *exactly* you mean by
>"reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the rejection"?

Sorry, I've been on business travel for several days and couldn't
find my way back into this thread.

All I did was quote Seth, who jumped in and clarified things much
better than I could have. The details of the discussion between you
two is somewhat over my head, I admit.

> Do you mean that it is indeed *suspected* spam, i.e. 1) you think it
>is probably spam, but it might be legitimate mail? Or is it the other
>way around, i.e. 2) you think it is probably legitimate mail, but it
>might be spam?

Well from my point of view, suspected spam is that which has
telltales of being spam, so I'd answer #1. Telltales making it
suspected spam would be, say, mail from a dynamic IP address, mail
without matching rDNS, suspect domains or subject words in the
header, blind carbon copy mail from a sender not listed as being
allowed to send me blind carbon copy mail.

> And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
>C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say so,
>because "a bypass method" is rather vague.

No, the response part of a normal C-R approach would send the bypass
instructions (the "challenge") to whoever is unfortunate enough to
have been forged in the From header. That's wrong. Rather, the
bypass instructions would have to be sent back to the originating
IP address while the connection is in progress. In contrast, C-R
mechanisms, as they are currently implemented as a function in an
end-user's mail client, only send back the challenge *after* the
connection has been terminated, which I think is stupid.

> If 1), then indeed a (55x) reject is fine.

Good.

> However if 2), then I think a (55x) reject is as bad as AC's bouncing
>method. I.e. you think it is probably legitimate mail, but you are not
>sure, so you are putting the burden on the (assumed) sender and hence
>spam the (assumed) sender if their address was forged.

Put that way, the difference seems a matter of degree... In one
case, you're flagging some mail as spam and rejecting it, and in the
other case, you're flagging all mail as spam and rejecting it.

-A

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 09:32:16 von Peter Peters

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:25:42 GMT, "Gunnar" wrote:

>> Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
>>
>> If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so
>> why
>> does it need to be challenged?
>
>Because a spam filter is not perfect? If there were there would be no
>discussion about spam...

So because one's filter is not perfect he is allowed to spam other
people with his challenges?

--
Peter Peters, senior netwerkbeheerder
Dienst Informatietechnologie, Bibliotheek en Educatie (ITBE)
Universiteit Twente

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 16:52:35 von Frank Slootweg

Fred Viles wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote in
> news:41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >>...
> >> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation
> >> request to a (possibly or probably) forged sender.
> >
> > I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many
> > cases the sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN
> > email message because it *cannot* "verify its input" (see
> > below).
>
> You truly think having a potential relay MTA generate a potentially
> bogus DSN in *some* cases is just as bad as having your own MTA
> send a potentially bogus DSN in *every* case?

No, I don't think that. What I do think is that the number of cases is
about the same, hence it is as bad. (I think) The number of cases is
about the same because (I think for the reasons I have explained) that
it is not often possible to know that a MAIL FROM: address is forged.
I.e. in the bounce case the From: (et al) is forged, but you don't know
it and in the 55x reject case the MAIL FROM: is forged and you don't
know it. Same difference.

> Are you aware that in many (I believe most, by a long shot) cases
> spam and malware is delivered *directly* by spamware, not via a
> legitimate relay MTA? And such spamware does not waste its time
> generate DSNs?

Yes, I am aware of that, but I'm also aware that many consumer-grade
ISPs (like mine) are closing outbound port 25 (see the parts of my
response which you snipped), so this kind of spamware will fail and will
have to use the user's ISP's MTA (which some viruses/spamware actually
do (they get the MTA address from the Windows registry)).

> >...
> > With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the
> > sender in the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life
> > systems, such checks are often not possible.
> >...
>
> Of course, but irrelevant. As you say, legitimate relay MTAs in
> general don't (and usually shouldn't) require MAIL FROM: to specify
> a local mailbox address. But they can and do restrict relaying to
> authorized sources, and they can and do keep logs.

And they can use these logs *how*? Note that as I explained, the
sending MTA will *have to* convert the 55x reject into a DSN *email
message* and send it to the (possibly forged) address in the MAIL FROM:
command. It (generally) does not have any other information that it can
use. As I explained in the parts you snipped, there *is no* clearly
defined concept of 'sender', so in most cases the sending MTA is stuck
with what it has got, the address in the MAIL FROM: command.

> So it is still better for the relay MTA to be responsible for the
> DSN. Since most bogus DSNs will be undeliverable, they come to the
> notice of the MTAs administrators who can then punish the guilty
> without having to wait for complaints to roll in.

The DSNs which I am referring to are not undeliverable. They are
deliverable to forged 'sender' addresses. (Also I wouldn't call them
"bogus", but let's not quibble about that.)

> They can't
> enforce valid MAIL FROM in advance, but after the fact they can
> withdraw relay authorization from abusers of their systems.

True. They *can*. Whether they actually *do* is another matter. I'm
not too impressed by many/most ISPs/MSPs efforts to really go after
abuse. So I'm holding the actual cause, the C-R system/user, responsible
for the abuse (misdirected challenges) that *it* causes, not some other
party (like the sending MTA).

> > Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or
> > by 55x rejecting.
>
> On this we can agree, but it doesn't follow that I should not
> reject mail for policy reasons.

True, but those policy reasons should make sense. Past discussions in
these groups have indicated that, except for a very few, people do not
consider challenge-rejecting probably-legitimate mail a sensible policy
reason.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 17:36:38 von Frank Slootweg

axlq wrote:
> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:

[much deleted]

Thanks for your response and clarifications. I will address just this
point:

> > And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
> >C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say so,
> >because "a bypass method" is rather vague.
>
> No, the response part of a normal C-R approach would send the bypass
> instructions (the "challenge") to whoever is unfortunate enough to
> have been forged in the From header. That's wrong. Rather, the
> bypass instructions would have to be sent back to the originating
> IP address while the connection is in progress. In contrast, C-R
> mechanisms, as they are currently implemented as a function in an
> end-user's mail client, only send back the challenge *after* the
> connection has been terminated, which I think is stupid.

Not that it really matters for the essence of this discussion, but for
all intents and purposes, there *is no* communication channel by which
"the bypass instructions would have to be sent back to the originating
IP address while the connection is in progress."! Most MTAs *queue*
messages after they have accepted them from the MUA/MSA, so there is no
IP connection back to the 'sender'. But even if there was, i.e. the MTA
is not very busy and directly tries to send the message to the receiving
MTA and the receiving MTA rejects the message, *how* can it use an *IP
address* to communicate to the (human) sender? I don't know about you,
but all the DSNs I've ever seen as an e-mail user were *email messages*
in my inbox. It is common to have the MUA/MSA report directly to the
(MUA/MSA) user if it has problems communicating with the *sending* MTA,
but have never seen one communicate a reject from the *receiving* MTA
directly to the user.

[rest deleted]

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 18:33:59 von Skua

D. Stussy wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Skua wrote:
>
>>CR is not a solution to spam. You need to deal with this concept.
>
>
> Now, let's get it correctly stated: C/R is a solution to the spam problem.
> It's just not one that works - due to its inherent, fatal flaws.
>
> A solution can exist and not be optimal. Example:
>
> "Best way of avoiding spam:" Don't have an e-mail mailbox.
> No mailbox => No spam. 100% guarenteed.
>
> However, that's not even practical let alone optimal for most people. :-)

I guess I should have been more clear. CR 'may' be a solution to your
spam problem, but in so, it will aggravate the general spam problem.

Skua

--

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo
(1863 - 1941)

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 18:40:23 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>> Skua wrote:
>>> Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Morons can't operate computers.
>>>
>>> You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a Sasquatch
>>> running your computer for you.
>>>
>>> Skua
>>
>>
>> and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
>> still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.
>
> Oh, and I suppose that you're a big expert.

I never said I was.

> # Newsgroups: alt.smokers.pipes
> # From: Theo Vermeulen
> # Subject: Re: What's everyone's age?
> # Date: 16 Jan 2005 11:54:52 GMT
> # Message-ID: <41ea560c$0$6211$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
> #
> # Ben Scofield wrote:
> # > I've seen polls about age on other pipe sites but was wondering what
> # > our ages were on here. I'm 24.
> # >
> # > Ben Scofield
> # > http://www.scofieldpipes.com
> #
> # I'm 17 years old
>
> Speaks for itself.

are you saying that 17 year-olds can't be an expert? (I am _not_ an expert,
though)

and what's wrong with being 17 yo? It's not my fault, I can't do anything
about it. I guess you were on the internet a long time befor I was born, and
I respect that, because it means that you have been internetting on a
80286... and I envy you for that. but I don't see what that means in terms
of expertise ...

> Blame Beavis. It's his fault, for claiming that you're a "Usenet Pro", that=
>
> prompted me to investigate exactly what kind of a "Usenet Pro" you are.

I don't blame you for searching google for posts of mine. that's what google
is for...

>> and even if you really really don't like M Connor, you should at least get
>> off his back for a sec. you should admire him for still being here to defe=
> nd
>> himself to shitbags like you.
>
> Son, after you succesfully experience puberty, then you'll earn a right to
> call others here "shitbags".
>
> But not until then.

damn, you must be 80 or something...

>> if someone asks a question, and alan replies with a good valid correct
>> answer, _WHY_ do you guys always start flaming him for totally unrelated
>> matters?
>
> Because Beavis never "replies with a good valid correct answer". That would=
>
> be a historical moment, but it hasn't happened yet.

he helped me in thepast, I saw him giving a lot of decent, correct
replies... but of course, if you only care to read what you want to read
(all the beavis-orientated-threads and nothing else) you won't find any
responses. true. (and I am _NOT_ talking about CR-threads, but regular
questions)

>> for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to post this,
>> and we have nothing to do with each other. I just think he's a good guy wh=
> o
>> deserves some respect.
>
> Yes, coming from a seventeen year old pipe smoker, that sure counts for a
> lot.

coming from someone who posts in mime-messages (signed or not), I don't
really think I should mind you.
and what's wrong with being 17 yo? It's not my fault, I can't do anything
about it

>
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25463-1106268678-0009
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25463-1106268678-0009--

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 19:55:15 von Gunnar

"Peter Peters" wrote in message
news:gff1v05sphbhjcauiqis5g6tt4b3qvo74t@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:25:42 GMT, "Gunnar" wrote:
>
>>> Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
>>>
>>> If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so
>>> why
>>> does it need to be challenged?
>>
>>Because a spam filter is not perfect? If there were there would be no
>>discussion about spam...
>
> So because one's filter is not perfect he is allowed to spam other
> people with his challenges?
>

I am not judging the use of CR, I was simply responding to the premise of
the other poster that if the email had passed the spam filter it was
presumedly not spam. Which is a false premise.

Gunnar

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 19:56:15 von Fred Viles

Frank Slootweg wrote in
news:41f12542$0$91938$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Fred Viles wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg wrote in
>> news:41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:
>>
>> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation
>> >> request to a (possibly or probably) forged sender.
>> >
>> > I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in
>> > many cases the sending MTA has no other option than to send
>> > a DSN email message because it *cannot* "verify its input"
>> > (see below).
>>
>> You truly think having a potential relay MTA generate a
>> potentially bogus DSN in *some* cases is just as bad as having
>> your own MTA send a potentially bogus DSN in *every* case?
>
> No, I don't think that. What I do think is that the number of
> cases is about the same,

Ah, OK. Am I correct, then, in assuming that you don't run an MTA
of any size? I don't see how else you could maintain that opinion.

> (I think) The number of
> cases is about the same because (I think for the reasons I have
> explained) that it is not often possible to know that a MAIL
> FROM: address is forged.

That's not a sufficient rationale. Whether a relay MTA can or can
not detect forged envelope senders provides no information on the
quantities of forged mail sent through relay MTAs versus sent
directly.

>> Are you aware that in many (I believe most, by a long shot)
>> cases spam and malware is delivered *directly* by spamware, not
>> via a legitimate relay MTA? And such spamware does not waste
>> its time generate DSNs?
>
> Yes, I am aware of that,

I don't think you are. Either that, or you're making a logical
error. As you repeat above, you think that a negligibly small
percentage of rejectable mail is directly delivered, because you
think bouncing these cases instead of rejecting them would not
significantly increase the total number of bounces ("number of
cases is about the same...").

> but I'm also aware that many consumer-grade
> ISPs (like mine) are closing outbound port 25

True, and maybe someday it will get to the point where it affects
the data. But for now, in my spam quarrantine folders I'm seeing
about 90% direct delivery. The real world doesn't (yet) seem to
line up with your theories.

>> Of course, but irrelevant. As you say, legitimate relay MTAs
>> in general don't (and usually shouldn't) require MAIL FROM: to
>> specify a local mailbox address. But they can and do restrict
>> relaying to authorized sources, and they can and do keep logs.
>
> And they can use these logs *how*?

To identify the source of the abusive mail, and terminate their
access.

>...
>> So it is still better for the relay MTA to be responsible for
>> the DSN. Since most bogus DSNs will be undeliverable, they
>> come to the notice of the MTAs administrators who can then
>> punish the guilty without having to wait for complaints to roll
>> in.
>
> The DSNs which I am referring to are not undeliverable. They
> are deliverable to forged 'sender' addresses.

Are you are saying you think that all sender addresses on spam are
deliverable? If not, what is your rationale for ignoring the
undeliverable ones?

>> > Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing
>> > or by 55x rejecting.
>>
>> On this we can agree, but it doesn't follow that I should not
>> reject mail for policy reasons.
>
> True, but those policy reasons should make sense.

And what we are discussing is whether a policy of rejecting spam
and malware makes sense.

> Past discussions in
> these groups have indicated that, except for a very few, people
> do not consider challenge-rejecting probably-legitimate mail a
> sensible policy reason.

Nobody I have seen, aside from the original thread some time ago
where the idea was first floated by somebody, has suggested
otherwise. I don't know where you keep getting that idea.

The problem (as I see it) is that when you jump every thread where
someone mentions rejecting mail at SMTP time to "debunk" it, you
flatly state that one should not reject mail for policy reasons.
If you would just make it clear that you're only talking about
rejecting apparently legitimate mail as part of a C/R system, it
would really help. Then the poster you're replying to (as well as
the rest of us) would realize that you just jumped to a wrong
conclusion, and there's no reason to prolong the thread by arguing
with you.

- Fred

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 21.01.2005 21:20:11 von Frank Slootweg

Fred Viles wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote in
> news:41f12542$0$91938$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > Fred Viles wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg wrote in
> >> news:41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:
> >>
> >> > Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >> >>...
> >> >> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation
> >> >> request to a (possibly or probably) forged sender.
> >> >
> >> > I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in
> >> > many cases the sending MTA has no other option than to send
> >> > a DSN email message because it *cannot* "verify its input"
> >> > (see below).
> >>
> >> You truly think having a potential relay MTA generate a
> >> potentially bogus DSN in *some* cases is just as bad as having
> >> your own MTA send a potentially bogus DSN in *every* case?
> >
> > No, I don't think that. What I do think is that the number of
> > cases is about the same,
>
> Ah, OK. Am I correct, then, in assuming that you don't run an MTA
> of any size? I don't see how else you could maintain that opinion.
>
> > (I think) The number of
> > cases is about the same because (I think for the reasons I have
> > explained) that it is not often possible to know that a MAIL
> > FROM: address is forged.
>
> That's not a sufficient rationale. Whether a relay MTA can or can
> not detect forged envelope senders provides no information on the
> quantities of forged mail sent through relay MTAs versus sent
> directly.

Sorry, but we are apparently having totally seperate discussions!

I don't understand *why*, but I now see we *are*. At first I thought
not to whine about your use of "relay" in "relay MTA", i.e. I would just
say "MTA". But now I see you use "relay MTA" and/versus "your own MTA"
and "through relay MTAs versus sent directly". I don't understand *why*
you are using that distinction, because *I* never talked about "your/my
own MTA" or/and sending directly.

So I can only suggest to reread my response(s) and respond to what I
actually wrote.

[even more off-track stuff deleted]

> >> > Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing
> >> > or by 55x rejecting.
> >>
> >> On this we can agree, but it doesn't follow that I should not
> >> reject mail for policy reasons.
> >
> > True, but those policy reasons should make sense.
>
> And what we are discussing is whether a policy of rejecting spam
> and malware makes sense.

No, "we" are not, *you* (apparently) are.

> > Past discussions in
> > these groups have indicated that, except for a very few, people
> > do not consider challenge-rejecting probably-legitimate mail a
> > sensible policy reason.
>
> Nobody I have seen, aside from the original thread some time ago
> where the idea was first floated by somebody, has suggested
> otherwise. I don't know where you keep getting that idea.

*What* "idea"? Don't you think that two or three people are "a very
few"? Did you see/read the "not" in my sentence? (Don't answer these.
Think about them.)

> The problem (as I see it) is that when you jump every thread where
> someone mentions rejecting mail at SMTP time to "debunk" it, you
> flatly state that one should not reject mail for policy reasons.

I never have stated that. If you think otherwise: cite (i.e. Google
Groups URL).

> If you would just make it clear that you're only talking about
> rejecting apparently legitimate mail as part of a C/R system, it
> would really help. Then the poster you're replying to (as well as
> the rest of us) would realize that you just jumped to a wrong
> conclusion, and there's no reason to prolong the thread by arguing
> with you.

Pot, kettle, black! May I suggest you *read* the stuff you are
quoting? Your first response to me in this sub-thread *started* (see top
of this response for (quick) confirmation) with:

> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>>...
>> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation
>> request to a (possibly or probably) forged sender.

Exactly which part of "a confirmation request" didn't you understand?
Seth was clearly talking about C-R. You would have known that if you had
*read* the earlier part, instead of snipping it, i.e.:

Me> > And, "with a bypass method", I assume you mean the Response part of a
Me> >C-R appoach", right? If so, then I think you should specifically say
Me> >so,because "a bypass method" is rather vague.

Seth> Something like that, yes.

I.e. I specifically *said* "... C-R ..." and Seth confirmed.

So bottom line: I *was* talking about C-R *in* the response to which
you responded.

So I think that the "jump[ing] every thread where someone mentions
rejecting mail at SMTP time" was yours, not mine.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 00:07:57 von Fred Viles

Frank Slootweg wrote in news:41f163fb$0
$91950$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl:

>...
>> The problem (as I see it) is that when you jump every thread
>> where
>> someone mentions rejecting mail at SMTP time to "debunk" it, you
>> flatly state that one should not reject mail for policy reasons.
>
> I never have stated that. If you think otherwise: cite

OK. This very thread is a good example. Quoting from your *first*
entry in this thread:

Frank Slootweg wrote in news:41ed0818$0
$51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:

> axlq wrote:
>...
>> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
>> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's
>> delivery agent.
>
> No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass
> method in the rejection; This fallacy has been debunked
> many times in this group. ...

Re-read what axlq actually wrote (which you quoted). Re-read what
you wrote in your reply. Compare to how I described it above.

axlq went on to say:

>> Only clueless twits think C-R is a solution.

which you snipped. On review, do you still think you were correct
to conclude that axlq was saying that it's good to reject
*legitimate* mail at SMTP time, as a C/R technique?

- Fred

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 02:30:00 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 12:55:24 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
> > are you saying that 17 year-olds can't be an expert?
>
> I'm saying that this is not how a 17 year-old "expert" would look like.

In my eyes an expert only needs the knowledge and a computer ... (and
preferably an internet connection).

> > (I am _not_ an expert, though)
>
> There's no need to state the obvious.

just covering myself before you will start claiming that I said I am an
expert

> > and what's wrong with being 17 yo?
>
> There are always rare exceptions, but a 17 year-old will know far less
> about life, universe, and everything, then adults twice his age.

I read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy .... and I have been trough more
then the avarage 30 year old.

> > I guess you were on the internet a long time befor I was born, and I
> > respect that, because it means that you have been internetting on a
> > 80286...
>
> Now that's an example of what's wrong with being a 17 year-old: because of
> your limited knowledge you've assumed that one can only access the
> Internet using a PC.

or an apple, or a commodore ... I was just wishfull thinking ;) the oldest I
can find is a 386 (which I also use) and I just would love to downgrade to a
286. a mac II would be cool too. but that's a bit besides the point here..

> > I saw him giving a lot of decent, correct replies...
>
> That's what YOU think.

tested on similar problems, and it works

> > but of course, if you only care to read what you want to read (all the
> > beavis-orientated-threads and nothing else) you won't find any
> > responses. true. (and I am _NOT_ talking about CR-threads, but regular
> > questions)
>
> One more thing: Beavis announced yesterday that his divine Usenet filter
> will automatically killfile anyone who replies to me. You have been
> killfiled. Your hero has deserted you.

I never said he was my hero. he's only a good guy

> > > > for the record: I am not alan connor, alan has not asked me to post
> > > > this, and we have nothing to do with each other. I just think he's a
> > > > good guy who deserves some respect.
> > >
> > > Yes, coming from a seventeen year old pipe smoker, that sure counts
> > > for a lot.
> >
> > coming from someone who posts in mime-messages (signed or not), I don't
> > really think I should mind you.
>
> Digitally-signed E-mail has been an Internet standard for about eight years
> now. Almost half your lifetime.

flash-movies have been on the internet a very long time as well, but it
still is very annoying. murder has existed from the beginning of mankind,
and still most people don't want to get murdered

> > and what's wrong with being 17 yo? It's not my fault, I can't do anything
> > about it
>
> But you can be quiet and pay attention to your mental superiors.

I am always quiet when I type. the keyboard makes some noize, but I myself
am absolutely quiet. and I am paying attention as well, but there is a
difference between paying attention, and believeing everything 'some guy' on
usenet says.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 19:57:46 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 20:06:42 von rescyou

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:57:46 -0600, Sam wrote:

You feel better now, tough guy?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 21:25:17 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Theo Vermeulen writes:
> >>
> >> > are you saying that 17 year-olds can't be an expert?
> >>
> >> I'm saying that this is not how a 17 year-old "expert" would look like.
> >
> > In my eyes an expert only needs the knowledge and a computer ... (and
> > preferably an internet connection).
>
> Even a drooling moron carries some knowledge. So, let's give him a
> laptop, and he'll be an instant expert.

I said _THE_ knowledge, not some

> [snip]i[snip] like our pal Beavis [snip]

:P

> >> > I saw him giving a lot of decent, correct replies...
> >>
> >> That's what YOU think.
> >
> > tested on similar problems, and it works
>
> I have a broken grandfather clock. You know what? It still manages to
> show the right time twice a day.

you just don't want to believe alan does something good on usenet, right?
it's your right.

what if I didn't like gay people (just an example) then I wouldn't be going
round on the streets and call them names. it takes a big man to insult
another man, but it takes a bigger man to keep the insults to yourself.

> >> One more thing: Beavis announced yesterday that his divine Usenet
> >> filter will automatically killfile anyone who replies to me. You have
> >> been killfiled. Your hero has deserted you.
> >
> > I never said he was my hero. he's only a good guy
>
> And Timothy McVeigh's neighbor from childhood also said that Timmy was
> such a good boy, growing up.

who?

> >> > and what's wrong with being 17 yo? It's not my fault, I can't do
> >> > anything about it
> >>
> >> But you can be quiet and pay attention to your mental superiors.
> >
> > I am always quiet when I type. the keyboard makes some noize, but I
> > myself am absolutely quiet.
>
> But you're not paying attention then.

I am, it is discussed in the next part, which you, for some reason have put
in another part of the quote.

> > and I am paying attention as well, but there is a difference between
> > paying attention, and believeing everything 'some guy' on usenet says.
>
> Eventually you will grow up, get married, and have kids. Your kids will
> eventually find this Usenet message, archived in Google. Afterwards, they
> will immediately order a paternity test.

what does 'not believing what some guy on the net says' has to do with kids
ordering a paternity test?

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 22:20:02 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 22:24:15 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 22.01.2005 22:44:42 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
> > Sam wrote:
> >> I have a broken grandfather clock. You know what? It still manages to
> >> show the right time twice a day.
> >
> > you just don't want to believe alan does something good on usenet,
> > right?
>
> I know that he doesn't do anything productive here, I don't just believe
> it.

I could say something that would prove my point, but would make alans life
even tougher than it probably already is.

/me starts thinking about it
....
/me stops thinking about it

because it affects me as well as a lot of other people, I will just have to
let this go.

> >> And Timothy McVeigh's neighbor from childhood also said that Timmy was
> >> such a good boy, growing up.
> >
> > who?
>
> Is it really so difficult to enter that name into Google, and reading the
> results?

it is, yes. all my RAM is being used by an OS and a news-reader... that's
what I get for using a 386

> >> Eventually you will grow up, get married, and have kids. Your kids
> >> will eventually find this Usenet message, archived in Google.
> >> Afterwards, they will immediately order a paternity test.
> >
> > what does 'not believing what some guy on the net says' has to do with
> > kids ordering a paternity test?
>
> Figure it out. Consider it to be your graduation test.

so basicly, you said some nonsense, someone pointed out that what you said
was nonsense and now you are trying to talk yourself a way out of it ....

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 00:30:26 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 00:39:01 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
> > Sam wrote:
> > it is, yes. all my RAM is being used by an OS and a news-reader... that's
> > what I get for using a 386
>
> Then you'll just have to wait until you grow up, get yourself a real job,
> and can afford something better.

I can afford something better, I have a PII somewhere as well... but I just
don't like it much. besides, you can't blame me for not wanting to spend a
shitload of money on a computer that will break down when you sit on the
mobo, or just use it ... I have a 386, it's been trough war and back, I have
used the CPU as a comb, and it still works. when I see a PIV, people freak
out when you dare to touch the cpu with bare hands... I don't like that.

> >> >> Eventually you will grow up, get married, and have kids. Your kids
> >> >> will eventually find this Usenet message, archived in Google.
> >> >> Afterwards, they will immediately order a paternity test.
> >> >
> >> > what does 'not believing what some guy on the net says' has to do
> >> > with kids ordering a paternity test?
> >>
> >> Figure it out. Consider it to be your graduation test.
> >
> > so basicly, you said some nonsense,
>
> If someone says something that you do not understand, it does not mean
> that it's nonsense. It probably means that you are not smart enough to
> understand it.
>
> > someone pointed out that what you said was nonsense and now you are
> > trying to talk yourself a way out of it ....
>
> Do you always talk about yourself in third person?

no. I was just describing the situation. I knew you weren't really bright,
and short-sighted, but I didn't realise you are stupid

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 03:12:57 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 03:23:56 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> Sam wrote:
>>> > someone pointed out that what you said was nonsense and now you are
>>> > trying to talk yourself a way out of it ....
>>>
>>> Do you always talk about yourself in third person?
>>
>> no. I was just describing the situation. I knew you weren't really bright,
>> and short-sighted, but I didn't realise you are stupid
>
> You should be ashamed of yourself. Even Beavis can come up with something
> more creative than that.

what do you mean, creative? I was just naming some facts. tough luck if it
looks like a lame response, but I can not be bothered to care

> You look up to him (you poor soul), so at least try to emulate your deity.

I have said it before, but you just don't seem to listen; I do not look up
to him, I just think he should be appreciated, because he is one of the only
people on here that will actually help other people. but that does not mean
that I look up to him. only usenet-person I look up to is sven guckes. let's
hope you understand it this time... no matter how much you make fun of me
for being only 17, thus dumb and moronic, you are more then twice my age (or
so you said), but still you seem incapable of just reading a simple text.

Think about it...

> Or, perhaps, your strategy is to bore everyone into a coma, with your
> mind-numbing monotone. Nice try. You show some promise.

1) a person can _not_ be bored into a coma.
2) if your comment is an attempt to be funny, you miserably failed.
3) for those who had a too much experience with comas, it really hurts
4) I have no strategy in the way you describe.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 04:06:51 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 12:18:39 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> I was just naming some facts. tough luck if it looks like a lame
>> response, but I can not be bothered to care
>
> Your understanding of what a fact is, is wrong. The dictionary defines a
> fact as "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences", and not "An
> imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually
> fulfilling a wish or psychological need". The latter is really called a
> "fantasy".

I _am_ aware of what a fantasy is. I also know the meaning of 'fact'.

you know, it's funny, I'm playing yes-no-games with a man of twice my age
who already thinks I'm childish...

>> I just think he should be appreciated,
>
> I appreciate Beavis. I appreciate him very much. He serves a valuable
> function around here. Whenever things get a bit boring, he never fails to
> provide comic relief. He's our virtual village idiot, and we fully
> appreciate his contribution to the overall entertainment value of Usenet.
>
>> because he is one of the only
>> people on here that will actually help other people.
>
> His "help" typically consists of advising clueless newbies, like yourself,
> to use an insecure mechanisms remote login access. If you do that, often
> enough, you'll end up getting hacked.

1) I am not a newbie. not a pro either, but not a newb.
2) it's cracked, not hacked
3) flaming somebody on usenet is not smart either if you're affraid of
getting "hacked"

> You can only evaluate the level of Beavis' "helpfulness" if you, yourself,
> possess sufficient amount of technical knowledge. By your own admission,
> you don't. So you are not qualified to judge how helpful Beavis is or
> isn't.

read my posts again, I didn't say I have no technical knowledge. I _have_
technical knowledge. not enough to be a pro, true, but still, I can help
myself 99% of the time.. the other 1% I find a workaround, or I ask someone,
thus learning new things.

>> but that does not mean that I look up to him.
>
> Oh, come on. Only the other day the two of you were almost ready to elope.

"An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream,
usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need". This is called a
"fantasy".

you were saying?

>> only usenet-person I look up to is sven guckes. let's hope you understand
>> it this time... no matter how much you make fun of me for being only 17,
>
> I don't need to make fun of you. There's an old saying: when someone is
> making a fool of himself, the best thing to do is to stay out of his way.

what's the deal with flaming alan then? in your eyes, he's a fool, but yet
you fail to stay out of his way

>> 3) for those who had a too much experience with comas, it really hurts
>
> That's ok. They won't notice.

having had experience means that you're not in the coma anymore. I also
never said first-hand experience. those people _can_ read usenet, and they
_can_ notice your remark
a very good friend of mine has fought for her life, while in a coma. she
regained consiousness, but it still makes me feel bad.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 14:37:42 von Troy Piggins

* D. Stussy wrote:
>> To filter out obvious spam, and greatly reduce the number of challenges
>> sent out to minimise the impact on forged email From:'s
>
> Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.

I would appreciate you getting to know me before you call me an idiot ;)
I /have/ figured out the problem. I think you have assumed I use CR - I
don't.

All I said was it minimises the impact from his system. His system
sends out challenges. I know damn well that you will say "Well the best
way to minimise impact is to not send them at all." And so the cycle
continues.

> If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so why
> does it need to be challenged?

Some do slip through. And AC uses CR as a final check/authorisation.
He is just an end-user (no insults intended - I am too), not a mail
administrator like many of those against CR. I am sure the few emails
that get through his system that invoke a challenge would take up less
bandwidth than these CMM threads condemning it.

Innocent forged email addresses being used getting challenges - I agree
with you and part of reason I don't implement CR.

The post I replied to required a simple one sentence answer and that is
what I provided.

--
T R O Y P I G G I N S - 'idiot' to his friends ...
e : usenet@piggo.com

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 23.01.2005 16:16:04 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 24.01.2005 01:08:49 von massie121

Hey, Wilson, still carrying your superiority complex around like
you're the Interent police? Take a hike you creep! Crawl back under
your Idaho potato farm where you are a "tech writer" hahaha . . .

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 24.01.2005 04:53:49 von kd6lvw

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Gunnar wrote:
> "Peter Peters" wrote in message
> news:gff1v05sphbhjcauiqis5g6tt4b3qvo74t@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:25:42 GMT, "Gunnar" wrote:
> >
> >>> Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
> >>>
> >>> If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so
> >>> why
> >>> does it need to be challenged?
> >>
> >>Because a spam filter is not perfect? If there were there would be no
> >>discussion about spam...
> >
> > So because one's filter is not perfect he is allowed to spam other
> > people with his challenges?
> >
>
> I am not judging the use of CR, I was simply responding to the premise of
> the other poster that if the email had passed the spam filter it was
> presumedly not spam. Which is a false premise.

If one's spam filter were perfect, the premise would be true. The fact that
it's not means that one's filter is not perfect and thus the software component
that needs to be adjusted is identified.

Regardless, it's not a valid justification to inflict one's spam onto others.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 24.01.2005 05:03:49 von kd6lvw

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Troy Piggins wrote:
> * D. Stussy wrote:
> >> To filter out obvious spam, and greatly reduce the number of challenges
> >> sent out to minimise the impact on forged email From:'s
> >
> > Another idiot that hasn't figured out the problem.
>
> I would appreciate you getting to know me before you call me an idiot ;)
> I /have/ figured out the problem. I think you have assumed I use CR - I
> don't.

Then don't take his side. It is fatally flawed. Too bad he isn't. The
problem is that ANY C/R message is spam amplification. ONE is too many.

> All I said was it minimises the impact from his system. His system
> sends out challenges. I know damn well that you will say "Well the best
> way to minimise impact is to not send them at all." And so the cycle
> continues.
>
> > If it has already passed the spam filter, it is PRESUMEDLY NOT SPAM, so why
> > does it need to be challenged?
>
> Some do slip through. And AC uses CR as a final check/authorisation.
> He is just an end-user (no insults intended - I am too), not a mail
> administrator like many of those against CR. I am sure the few emails
> that get through his system that invoke a challenge would take up less
> bandwidth than these CMM threads condemning it.

The fact that some spam slips through means ADJUST THE FILTER. It is not a
license to spam others via C/R.

> Innocent forged email addresses being used getting challenges - I agree
> with you and part of reason I don't implement CR.
>
> The post I replied to required a simple one sentence answer and that is
> what I provided.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 24.01.2005 11:32:15 von Troy Piggins

* D. Stussy wrote:
>> I would appreciate you getting to know me before you call me an idiot ;)
>> I /have/ figured out the problem. I think you have assumed I use CR - I
>> don't.
>
> Then don't take his side. It is fatally flawed. Too bad he isn't. The
> problem is that ANY C/R message is spam amplification. ONE is too many.

I am not taking any sides. I am neither for, nor against, CR. This
subthread started because I gave a simple answer to a direct question -
totally non-biased.

> The fact that some spam slips through means ADJUST THE FILTER. It is not a
> license to spam others via C/R.

I agree. I always adjust my filter - when I get the chance. Hope this
clears up my position for what it is worth.

Peace
--
T R O Y P I G G I N S - just call me Switzerland
e : usenet@piggo.com

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 24.01.2005 20:23:23 von Gunnar

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
news:slrncv9jf2.fho.usenet@piggo.com...
>* D. Stussy wrote:
>>> I would appreciate you getting to know me before you call me an idiot ;)
>>> I /have/ figured out the problem. I think you have assumed I use CR - I
>>> don't.
>>

Most people on the newsnet don't know how to argue a point. After all, some
issues being discussed may not have a clear solution, and so people offer
their OPINION about the issue.

A lot of people on these groups will immediately call other people idiots
(or worse) if their opinion differs.
My solution is to silently killfile the most obnoxious posters here that
exhibit this behaviour...

>> Then don't take his side. It is fatally flawed. Too bad he isn't. The
>> problem is that ANY C/R message is spam amplification. ONE is too many.
>

D. Stussy, if I wish to agree with anyone here no-one can tell me to "not
take his side". I prefer to form my own opinion. If an intelligent argument
is presented to me _why_ I should not take "side", I will definitely take
that into consideration and may well change my opinion if the premises of
the argument are sound.

Gunnar.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 25.01.2005 20:34:59 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
>
>> you know, it's funny, I'm playing yes-no-games with a man of twice my age
>> who already thinks I'm childish...
>
> I also find some amusement in observing the sad outcome of contemporary
> public school education.

you are the sad outcome of public school education.

>> 1) I am not a newbie. not a pro either, but not a newb.
>
> Let me guess: you're Monty Python's Black Knight?

wrong

>> 3) flaming somebody on usenet is not smart either if you're affraid of
>> getting "hacked"
>
> Your reading comprehension is sub-par. Read everything again.
>
> And it's not flaming either. It's called "tough love".

from what I have read (alan-related) it's just a bit more then tough
love.... in my country it's already illegal to put sand in somebodys
lunchbox. because it could hurt feelings. and the things you say about alan
are worse then that. good thing alan is a strong enouhg man to handle it
all, but that's not the point. I was just pointing out that you did more
then just tough love

>>> You can only evaluate the level of Beavis' "helpfulness" if you, yourself,
>>> possess sufficient amount of technical knowledge. By your own admission,
>>> you don't. So you are not qualified to judge how helpful Beavis is or
>>> isn't.
>>
>> read my posts again, I didn't say I have no technical knowledge. I _have_
>> technical knowledge.
>
> Your technical knowledge appears to lack even the basic understanding of
> what an Internet standard is.

if it's a _standard_, how comes slrn can't process it correctly? out of all
readers, slrn would be exected to be one of the better, right?

>>>> only usenet-person I look up to is sven guckes. let's hope you understand
>>>> it this time... no matter how much you make fun of me for being only 17,
>>>
>>> I don't need to make fun of you. There's an old saying: when someone is
>>> making a fool of himself, the best thing to do is to stay out of his way.
>>
>> what's the deal with flaming alan then?
>
> The above saying applies in your case.

wow! Awesome!!! I have an old saying all for myself. Old School!!11! (or
something similar)

>> in your eyes, he's a fool, but yet you fail to stay out of his way
>
> How am I in his way?

by 'hatin' on him every time he posts a single thing.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 01:28:43 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 01:52:18 von sethb

In article <26_Hd.1319$YD5.671@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Alan Connor wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:19:12 GMT, Alan Connor
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:19:04 GMT, Alan Connor
>> wrote:

I think you left out a level of followup to yourself. Not that it
matters.

>> You know, I haven't read one of "Sam's" posts in years, no
>> matter what alias or newsserver it uses.

And we should care because why?

Are you that proud of yourself for having been shown how to use a
killfile?

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 03:11:37 von sethb

In article <41f02dee$0$6221$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Theo Vermeulen wrote:
>Skua wrote:
>> Alan 'I was anally raped by a Sasquatch' Connor wrote:
>>
>>> Morons can't operate computers.
>>
>> You are proof that your statement is false. Unless you have a Sasquatch
>> running your computer for you.
>
>and okay, his C-R system might not be the best system in the world, it's
>still up to the user to decide what he uses to get rid of spam.

If what he uses is itself abusive, then it's up to the rest of us
(especially his ISP) to decide if he's going to be permitted to
continue using it; and if they decide he is, it's up to the rest of us
(tinrou) to decide how much connectivity to offer him or his ISP.
You'll note he doesn't actually _use_ his system.

>if someone asks a question, and alan replies with a good valid correct
>answer, _WHY_ do you guys always start flaming him for totally unrelated
>matters?

I don't. (I don't see any of his correct answers about C-R.)

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 03:19:19 von sethb

In article <41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:

>> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation request to a
>> (possibly or probably) forged sender.
>
> I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many cases the
>sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN email message because
>it *cannot* "verify its input" (see below).

How can "many cases" be as bad as "every time"?

>> I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
>> do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
>> that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
>> verify its input.
>
> With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the sender in
>the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life systems, such checks
>are often not possible.

If it's forged, at least the sending MTA knows who to blame.

> For example my primary MSP (== my ISP) believes (read: *has to*
>believe) whatever I (read: my MUA) put in the MAIL FROM: command. It has
>to believe it, otherwise I couldn't use it for sending mail from my
>*other* email addresses (and I *have* to use my MSP's/ISP's MTA because
>they have closed outgoing port 25 (don't go there, it's not debatable)).
>They have no way of knowing *who* (i.e. which email-address/mailbox) is
>actually issuing the MAIL FROM: command. The only thing which my MSP/ISP
>knows is that the *subscription* of a person named Frank Slootweg is
>used, not if Frank Slootweg himself is using it. So what is the MSP to
>do? Send the DSN to my mailbox? I'm sure that my wife won't like that if
>her mail fails and I get the DSN (and possibly/probably a copy of the
>failed private mail). As has been discussed in these groups (or at least
>in cmm), what goes for my MSP/ISP goes for many other similar MSPs/ISPs
>and also for 'pure' MSPs like Yahoo! Mail, etc..
>
> So let's face it, as has been discussed in these groups several times
>before, there *is no* clearly defined concept of 'sender', so let's not
>pretend there is, and let's not pretend that MTA should (or even must)
>"verify their input"/'sender', because (often) they *can't*.

It can, if necessary, send the DSN to the MAIL FROM address, with a
header line like "Frank Slootweg was logged in and used this address
as the MAIL FROM for a message that got rejected. If he isn't
entitled to do that, please notify ."

It knows who to blame, the recipient knows when to blame, the
combination causes the blame to land when and where appropriate.

>> Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
>> will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
>> through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
>> generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
>> causing spam to be sent in the first case?
>
> No, because in the first case you have no other option (i.e. you can
>not deliver the message and dropping it would plainly be wrong).
>
> In the second case you could, and IMO you should, just deliver the
>message and let the recipient handle it. Yes, that might not be fair on
>the recipient, but it isn't fair on the forged sender either.

The recipient either is me or pays me (or is someone I'm doing a favor
for); as such, his wishes have priority over those of some unknown MTA
trying to get email that is probably unwanted into his mailbox.

> As someone put it, by (challenge) rejecting (or bouncing) it, you
>basically *delegate* the responsibility for *your* spam filtering to
>an *unknown* party, and you *will* have to accept *their*
>decisions. I.e. if your misdirected challenge gets to me and I
>respond to it, you can't complain, because you have, on beforehand,
>put your fate in my hands.

My challenge goes to the sending MTA. If it misfires, then I can
block it. It an entire ISP loses out, then their MTA should do a
better job of not sending DSNs to forged MAIL FROM addresses.

> Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or by
>55x rejecting.

Again, how is it more abusive than "55x no such user"?

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 05:47:12 von Fred Viles

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in
news:ct6un7$6o1$1@panix5.panix.com:

>...
>> Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or
>> by 55x rejecting.
>
> Again, how is it more abusive than "55x no such user"?

Rejecting invalid addresses is not abusive at all, it is the correct
and expected behavior. OTOH, rejecting legitimate mail to valid
addresses as part of a C/R system is subject to all the same
criticisms as an accept-then-bounce C/R system, plus one more (it's
less effective). The fact that it quantitatively does less damage
doesn't negate any of the arguments usually made against C/R systems.

Hence, if you accept that C/R systems are abusive at all, then a "55x
C/R challenge (instructions)" rejection is more abusive than a "55x
no such user" rejection. If you don't, then it isn't (in your view).

- Fred

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 26.01.2005 15:30:55 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>> from what I have read (alan-related) it's just a bit more then tough
>> love.... in my country it's already illegal to put sand in somebodys
>> lunchbox. because it could hurt feelings.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. It must suck living in a nanny-state.

I don't live in no state... if you wouldn't be so small-minded, you would
notice that there is a whole world outside of the USA.

>>> Your technical knowledge appears to lack even the basic understanding of
>>> what an Internet standard is.
>>
>> if it's a _standard_, how comes slrn can't process it correctly?
>
> Because it doesn't implement it. Duh.

and why would one of the best news-readers not have an internet standard
included? (I know that best is personal, but I haven't seen any better reader)

>> out of all
>> readers, slrn would be exected to be one of the better, right?
>
> Wrong. Says who?

well, some guys I know.. and everybody I ever talked to that reads usenet on
a unix-box (and that are lots of people)

>> wow! Awesome!!! I have an old saying all for myself. Old School!!11! (or
>> something similar)
>
> Whatever.

jealous?

> Poor Beavis. His only remaining fan is a 17 year-old pipe smoker.

pipe smoking is fun

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 27.01.2005 01:49:28 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 27.01.2005 12:14:58 von kd6lvw

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Gunnar wrote:
> >> Then don't take his side. It is fatally flawed. Too bad he isn't. The
> >> problem is that ANY C/R message is spam amplification. ONE is too many.
>
> D. Stussy, if I wish to agree with anyone here no-one can tell me to "not
> take his side". I prefer to form my own opinion. If an intelligent argument
> is presented to me _why_ I should not take "side", I will definitely take
> that into consideration and may well change my opinion if the premises of
> the argument are sound.

The intelligent argument, one exposing the major flaws of any C/R system, was
posted here long ago; when it was first proposed. It's not my problem that you
aren't "up to speed" on the issue before you decided to jump in.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 27.01.2005 20:34:33 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> take the advice I gave you earlier of keeping your mouth shut, and paying
> attention when your mental superior tells you something.

I do. but I just have to say that you are NOT my mental superiour.

>> well, some guys I know..
>
> If Beavis is representative sample of your social peers, you are in deep
> trouble.

I don't know alan personally.

>
>> and everybody I ever talked to that reads usenet on
>> a unix-box (and that are lots of people)
>
> It doesn't look like you talk to a lot of people.

what would it matter if I don't?

anyway, I do talk to lots of people. many people who are mentally superiour
to you.

>>> Poor Beavis. His only remaining fan is a 17 year-old pipe smoker.
>>
>> pipe smoking is fun
>
> Jim Jones also said that drinking Kool-Aid will be fun too.

nothing beats drinking lava-lamp fluids ... you should try it sometime ..

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

PS. I was thinking ... what should I do?
killfile you, ignore you, or just keep replying to your short sighted, out
of context replies ...

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 28.01.2005 01:19:47 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 28.01.2005 11:01:17 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> Sam wrote:
>>> take the advice I gave you earlier of keeping your mouth shut, and paying
>>> attention when your mental superior tells you something.
>>
>> I do. but I just have to say that you are NOT my mental superiour.
>
> Well, it was ME who had to teach YOU about what certain words mean. And
> what thanks do I get for that?

knowing what some words mean isn't the same as being mentally superiour.

> After you're done looking up all the words I told you to look up before, you
> should also look up the meaning of "ingrate".

I don't have to look up the meaning of words I already know.

> If I didn't know this already, I would've guessed that you're French.

well, there you're wrong. which surprises me, realy ... because you did find
out that I'm a 17yo pipesmoker, but a more recent post on that newsgroup
shows that I'm Belgian. how could you have found out I'm 17 without seeing
the post about me living in belgium? or were you just not paying attention ...

>>>> and everybody I ever talked to that reads usenet on
>>>> a unix-box (and that are lots of people)
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like you talk to a lot of people.
>>
>> what would it matter if I don't?
>
> It would explain a lot of things.
>
>> anyway, I do talk to lots of people. many people who are mentally superiour
>> to you.
>
> And how exactly did you reach that conclusion, Popeye?

well, not all your some comebacks give a good expression. also, knowing
profs is a helpfull thing as well

>> PS. I was thinking ... what should I do?
>> killfile you, ignore you, or just keep replying to your short sighted, out
>> of context replies ...
>
> Ask Beavis. He has me all figured out, you know. He'll tell you to
> killfile me. It really stopped me from making fun of him, you know.

thaht's why I was thinking instead of doing ... anyway, if I'd killfile you,
I couldn't have a laugh at your lame replies ... so I'll keep on answering,
I think

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 28.01.2005 17:36:57 von sethb

In article ,
Fred Viles wrote:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in
>news:ct6un7$6o1$1@panix5.panix.com:
>
>>> Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or
>>> by 55x rejecting.
>>
>> Again, how is it more abusive than "55x no such user"?
>
>Rejecting invalid addresses is not abusive at all, it is the correct
>and expected behavior. OTOH, rejecting legitimate mail to valid
>addresses as part of a C/R system is subject to all the same
>criticisms as an accept-then-bounce C/R system,

No, it isn't: rejecting doesn't cause _my_ mailswerver to emit spam,
_sometimes_ it will cause the sending server to do so (but the sending
server in that case SHOULD know who is responsible).

> plus one more (it's less effective).

That's the problem of the person using it.

> The fact that it quantitatively does less damage
>doesn't negate any of the arguments usually made against C/R systems.

"Less effective" is an argument against is, but "less damage" isn't in
its favor? I'd argue the other way, as a third party I don't care
about less effective, I do care about less damage.

>Hence, if you accept that C/R systems are abusive at all,

C/R per se needn't be. Sending "challenges" to forged third parties
is abusive, and the abuse is done by whoever connects to Panix in
order to dump their garbage into my mailbox.

The fact that most implementations of C/R are abusive does not imply
that the concept of C/R is abusive, or that all implementations of it
must be abusive.

> then a "55x C/R challenge (instructions)" rejection is more abusive
>than a "55x no such user" rejection. If you don't, then it isn't (in
>your view).

The latter is my viewpoint.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 29.01.2005 02:31:46 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 29.01.2005 20:43:38 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>> take the advice I gave you earlier of keeping your mouth shut, and paying
>>>>> attention when your mental superior tells you something.
>>>>
>>>> I do. but I just have to say that you are NOT my mental superiour.
>>>
>>> Well, it was ME who had to teach YOU about what certain words mean. And
>>> what thanks do I get for that?
>>
>> knowing what some words mean isn't the same as being mentally superiour.
>
> But when the words in question are quite common, an ordinary, then someone
> who lacks the knowledge to understand them is clearly mentally inferior to a
> well-educated person who knows what they mean.

depends on which words, and wether it's one of the obvious usages of said
word. If a meaning of this word would be very obvious, but the meaning would
be wrong, instead of more correct but farfetched (it almost seems as a way to
talk yourself out of it), a man is tempted to go for the obvious meaning of a
word rather then a farfetched, less incorrect meaning.

>>> After you're done looking up all the words I told you to look up before, you
>>> should also look up the meaning of "ingrate".
>>
>> I don't have to look up the meaning of words I already know.
>
> Correction: you THINK you already know.

och, hottem toe

>>> If I didn't know this already, I would've guessed that you're French.
>>
>> well, there you're wrong. which surprises me, realy ... because you did find
>> out that I'm a 17yo pipesmoker, but a more recent post on that newsgroup
>> shows that I'm Belgian.
>
> And that's why I wrote above, that I would've guessed that you're French
> *only* if I didn't already know otherwise.
>
> Your grasp of English is even worse than Beavis'.

DUDE, THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. (sorry, capslock ;) you can go on about me
not being perfect in the english language, but I do know that you said I am
French. you can say all you like, but you are using my foreignness as an
excuse to say stupid, ignorant stuff.

>> how could you have found out I'm 17 without seeing
>> the post about me living in belgium? or were you just not paying attention ...
>
> No, you just don't understand plain English.

aaah, isn't it cute... mister I know everything best is telling me to learn
english ... You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
"if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french. LEARN YOUR OWN FRIGGING
LANGUAGE, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP, NOOB!

>>>> anyway, I do talk to lots of people. many people who are mentally superiour
>>>> to you.
>>>
>>> And how exactly did you reach that conclusion, Popeye?
>>
>> well, not all your some comebacks give a good expression. also, knowing
>> profs is a helpfull thing as well
>
> If, and when, you venture out in the real world you will soon quickly
> discover that the ancient fossils, who entomb themselves in the ivory halls
> of academia, don't always have a good grasp of how the world out there
> works. They sit inside, toiling away in their scholarly studies, and
> drawing grandiose designs on how the world outside they think should work,
> but really don't bother verify whether their dissertations actually reflect
> reality.

from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
about. and now you will say something about me not being good at english. so
fuck you.

>>>> PS. I was thinking ... what should I do?
>>>> killfile you, ignore you, or just keep replying to your short sighted, out
>>>> of context replies ...
>>>
>>> Ask Beavis. He has me all figured out, you know. He'll tell you to
>>> killfile me. It really stopped me from making fun of him, you know.
>>
>> thaht's why I was thinking instead of doing ...
>
> That was your first mistake. Stop thinking. You haven't mastered how to do
> it, quiet yet.

ok lets bang my head against my keyboard then :S

6gbvfgfgvt

there no thinking involved. happy now?

> If you act on it, you will lose the only friend you have in the whole wide
> world.
>
> How sad.

you seem to know how that feels ....

See ya

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 29.01.2005 21:23:44 von Jari Aalto

* 2005-01-22 Theo Vermeulen comp.mail.misc
| Sam wrote:
| you just don't want to believe alan does something good on usenet, right?
| it's your right.
|
| what if I didn't like gay people (just an example) then I wouldn't be going
| round on the streets and call them names. it takes a big man to insult
| another man, but it takes a bigger man to keep the insults to yourself.

Theo,

I'm sure your intentions are good and you have got the impression that
Alan Connor is a respected person, because he has helped you in the
past (if I understood your posts correctly).

Could it be possible, that you have only seen one side of the issue?
Perhaps you haven't read the past discussions here in the
comp.mail.misc during 2004 (or so).

What I'm pointing you into is, that Alan may help other in one area,
but does damage and is incapable of reasoning some issues in another
area. There is nothing wrong with his procmail answers and it is
always good that there are people giving hand to others.

However, the spam problem is one thing that people fight against every
day. There are many solutions out there and some may be lured to think
that "this is the solution - the ultimate solution".

Alan is trying to convince that Challenge-Response system is superior
to anything known or in use today.

But is it so? If you think that Alan may be right and that he could
have good argument for the C-R system in general, I would like to
invite you to read the story's another side.

http://pm-lib.sf.net/README.html
...
1.3 Challenge-Response systems make matters worse

Perhaps that can help you to understand the issue running here in
comp.mail.misc with the Alan Connor's C-R initiative.

Jari

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 29.01.2005 21:36:20 von Theo Vermeulen

Jari wrote:
> Alan is trying to convince that Challenge-Response system is superior
> to anything known or in use today.
>
> But is it so? If you think that Alan may be right and that he could have
> good argument for the C-R system in general, I would like to invite you to
> read the story's another side.
>
> http://pm-lib.sf.net/README.html
> ...
> 1.3 Challenge-Response systems make matters worse
>
> Perhaps that can help you to understand the issue running here in
> comp.mail.misc with the Alan Connor's C-R initiative.

Hi Jari

I don't think C-R is good. even more, I don't like it neither. but I don't
care what other people think about it.

CR is crap, but if alan likes it, it's his right to try and get other people
to like it.

but that's no reason to hate him.

anyway, it may be wise if I would just back out of this all before it gets
ugly ...

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 30.01.2005 00:27:25 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 30.01.2005 01:19:00 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>
>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If I didn't know this already, I would've guessed that you're French.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>
>> you can go on about me
>> not being perfect in the english language, but I do know that you said I am
>> French.
>
> No I didn't, Popeye. I said that "if I didn't know any better, I would've
^^^^^^^^^^
> guessed that you're French".

NO fuckhead, no you didn't.

any better =/= this already. you must be one of the dumbest people I know if
you don't know the difference

> You are ignoring about half of that sentence,

if by 'ignoring' you mean reading, and noticing how wrong you are, then yes, I
ignored half the sentence.. even more, if so, I "ignored" the whole sentence

>> you can say all you like, but you are using my foreignness as an
>> excuse to say stupid, ignorant stuff.
>
> I'm demonstrating that your lack of complete understanding of nuances of
> king's English disqualifies you from passing judgement on Beavis'
> qualifications for membership in the Englishs-speaking world.

so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allowed to
have an opinion about alan? in that case, you should fuck off and keep your
mouth shut, since you obviously are too stupid to understand what you wrote
yourself.

>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>
> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,

I did, and they said I should go kill you for calling me french, they asked
wether you took your medicines, they asked if I had a shower today, and how
the hell you came to the conclusion that I'm french.
everybody says your sentence means you said I'm french.

> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?

yes, I do.

> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian, I
> would've guessed you to be French.

no it doesn't. it means "I know you're french, but even if I didn't know it,
I could have guessed anyway". and there's no point in denying that, because
we all know that it's exactly what it means.

> Now, go back to school, close your mouth, and pay attention to what your
> mental superiors are telling you.

coming from a man who talks gibberish and blames it on the fact that he's an
english-speaking person, those words mean an awful lot to me. NOT

>> LEARN YOUR OWN FRIGGING
>> LANGUAGE, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP, NOOB!
>
> I know my language very well,

it doesn't seem that way though. people who know their language know
whatever they say means ...

>>> If, and when, you venture out in the real world you will soon quickly
>>> discover that the ancient fossils, who entomb themselves in the ivory
>>> halls of academia, don't always have a good grasp of how the world out
>>> there works. They sit inside, toiling away in their scholarly studies,
>>> and drawing grandiose designs on how the world outside they think should
>>> work, but really don't bother verify whether their dissertations
>>> actually reflect reality.
>>
>> from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
>> about.
>
> Of course not. Where did I say that?

comp.mail.misc

>> and now you will say something about me not being good at english.
>
> I don't think I need to say this so often, any more. That much, is patently
> obvious by now.

it's funny how you know nothing about me at all. all you know is that I'm
not old, that I smoke pipe, and that I'm foreign. you don't know anything
about my abilities to speak other languages. I know more languages then you
do (at least when you were my age) and I understand all of them better then
you can understand english

Theo "I have to kill you because you called me French" Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 30.01.2005 02:20:20 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107048020-0003
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Theo Vermeulen writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>
>>> Sam wrote:
>>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I didn't know this already, I would've guessed that you're French.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>>>
>>> you can go on about me
>>> not being perfect in the english language, but I do know that you said I am
>>> French.
>>
>> No I didn't, Popeye. I said that "if I didn't know any better, I would've
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> guessed that you're French".
>
> NO fuckhead, no you didn't.

Yes, I did. Same thing, no semantical difference.

> any better =/= this already. you must be one of the dumbest people I know if
> you don't know the difference

There is no difference, Popeye. Puffing your chest up with righteous
indignation won't help you in avoiding the embarassment.

>> You are ignoring about half of that sentence,
>
> if by 'ignoring' you mean reading, and noticing how wrong you are, then yes, I
> ignored half the sentence.. even more, if so, I "ignored" the whole sentence

"Ignoring" means just that: ignoring. You are attempting to redefine the
established meaning of plain words, in an attempt to avoid admitting that
you were wrong

>
>>> you can say all you like, but you are using my foreignness as an
>>> excuse to say stupid, ignorant stuff.
>>
>> I'm demonstrating that your lack of complete understanding of nuances of
>> king's English disqualifies you from passing judgement on Beavis'
>> qualifications for membership in the Englishs-speaking world.
>
> so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allowed to
> have an opinion about alan?

They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and admit
that they might be wrong, on some key points.

> in that case, you should fuck off and keep your
> mouth shut, since you obviously are too stupid to understand what you wrote
> yourself.

I know exactly what I wrote. But do we really need to pull out the
dictionary, again, and go over your previous accomplishments in
demonstrating your advanced knowledge of English?

Do you even have the foggiest idea why I particularly picked the French as
your most likely heritage, if it wasn't known already? You probably think
that it's a random choice, or one that's based on trivial details.

Well, it's not. It's just that the French have a certain "reputation", that
I was implicitly referring to. That's right, my guess as to your French
heritage had an implicit undertone that, together with many other things,
went completely over your head.

That's what I meant, when I refer to your failure to heed your mental
superior. Every time you blabber, you just show how uneducate you are, and
how little you know.

Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.

Let's try to figure this out. Please answer the following two questions:

A) Do you have an urge to surrender, for some reason, at least three times a
week?

B) What do you think of Jerry Lewis?

So far, this simple quiz is yet to fail to uncover even the tiniest thread
of French lineage.

>>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
>>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,
>
> I did,

Who was it? I'd like to have a word with t hem.

> and they said I should go kill you for calling me french, they asked
> wether you took your medicines, they asked if I had a shower today,

Well, did you?

> and how
> the hell you came to the conclusion that I'm french.
> everybody says your sentence means you said I'm french.

Who's "everybody"? You and your imaginary friend?

>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>
> yes, I do.

Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit out.

>> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian, I
>> would've guessed you to be French.
>
> no it doesn't.

Of course it does.

You identified yourself as a Belgian. I replied "if I didn't know this
already, I would've guessed that you're French", implying that you're the
shining paragon of everything the French are famous for.

And I thank you for proving my point.

> it means "I know you're french, but even if I didn't know it,
> I could have guessed anyway". and there's no point in denying that, because
> we all know that it's exactly what it means.

Who's "we"?

>> Now, go back to school, close your mouth, and pay attention to what your
>> mental superiors are telling you.
>
> coming from a man who talks gibberish and blames it on the fact that he's an
> english-speaking person, those words mean an awful lot to me. NOT

Words mean things. To you, they apparently mean something different than
they mean to everyone else. Who's right, you, or everyone else?

The only logical answer to this dilemma is that you must either be the
world's smartest person, or the dumbest idiot.

Which possibility do you believe is more likely?

>>> LEARN YOUR OWN FRIGGING
>>> LANGUAGE, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP, NOOB!
>>
>> I know my language very well,
>
> it doesn't seem that way though. people who know their language know
> whatever they say means ...

I know exactly what I mean. I choose my words carefully. I already gave
you two English lessons, explaining what "state" and "French" means. And
look what thanks I get for that?

Ingrate. (by the way, did you ever find out what that word means, too?)

>
>>>> If, and when, you venture out in the real world you will soon quickly
>>>> discover that the ancient fossils, who entomb themselves in the ivory
>>>> halls of academia, don't always have a good grasp of how the world out
>>>> there works. They sit inside, toiling away in their scholarly studies,
>>>> and drawing grandiose designs on how the world outside they think should
>>>> work, but really don't bother verify whether their dissertations
>>>> actually reflect reality.
>>>
>>> from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
>>> about.
>>
>> Of course not. Where did I say that?
>
> comp.mail.misc

I never said that "entombing oneself in the ivory halls of academia" is a
guaranteed path to mental superiority. You must be referring to someone
else.

>>> and now you will say something about me not being good at english.
>>
>> I don't think I need to say this so often, any more. That much, is patently
>> obvious by now.
>
> it's funny how you know nothing about me at all.

I'm very observant. Before this is over, I'm very optimistic that your
French heritage will be estalished, after all.

> all you know is that I'm
> not old, that I smoke pipe,

Actually, a more technically accurate statement would be that you smoke
whatever you put in that pipe of yours. Would you like to share with us
exactly what you're smoking?

> and that I'm foreign. you don't know anything
> about my abilities to speak other languages.

Ok, what languages do you speak?

> I know more languages then you
> do (at least when you were my age) and I understand all of them better then
> you can understand english

What languages do you know?

> Theo "I have to kill you because you called me French" Vermeulen

I didn't call you French. Not yet, at least.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107048020-0003
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBB/DZUx9p3GYHlUOIRAoU6AJ0fLCIdmHVmc+RUKTlUmGiDtQTZPQCd FnUx
KD/NOsUFU35CsrWadtDX9xQ=
=v67z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107048020-0003--

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 30.01.2005 02:51:56 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>
>> any better =/= this already. you must be one of the dumbest people I know if
>> you don't know the difference
>
> There is no difference, Popeye. Puffing your chest up with righteous
> indignation won't help you in avoiding the embarassment.
>
>>> You are ignoring about half of that sentence,
>>
>> if by 'ignoring' you mean reading, and noticing how wrong you are, then yes, I
>> ignored half the sentence.. even more, if so, I "ignored" the whole sentence
>
> "Ignoring" means just that: ignoring. You are attempting to redefine the
> established meaning of plain words, in an attempt to avoid admitting that
> you were wrong

all I did was try to make your statement correct. hell, I was helping you
out here! _I_ was saving _YOU_ the emberresment. and what do I get for it?
nuttin.

>>>> you can say all you like, but you are using my foreignness as an
>>>> excuse to say stupid, ignorant stuff.
>>>
>>> I'm demonstrating that your lack of complete understanding of nuances of
>>> king's English disqualifies you from passing judgement on Beavis'
>>> qualifications for membership in the Englishs-speaking world.
>>
>> so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allowed to
>> have an opinion about alan?
>
> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and admit
> that they might be wrong, on some key points.

I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I won't
admit to be wrong. sounds logical

>> in that case, you should fuck off and keep your
>> mouth shut, since you obviously are too stupid to understand what you wrote
>> yourself.
>
> I know exactly what I wrote.

no you don't

> Do you even have the foggiest idea why I particularly picked the French as
> your most likely heritage, if it wasn't known already?
> You probably think that it's a random choice, or one that's based on
> trivial details.

no I don't

> Well, it's not. It's just that the French have a certain "reputation",
> that I was implicitly referring to. That's right, my guess as to your
> French heritage had an implicit undertone that, together with many other
> things, went completely over your head.

no it didn't

> That's what I meant, when I refer to your failure to heed your mental
> superior. Every time you blabber, you just show how uneducate you are,
> and how little you know.

look who's talking

> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.

yes I am

> Let's try to figure this out. Please answer the following two questions:
>
> A) Do you have an urge to surrender, for some reason, at least three times a
> week?

no

> B) What do you think of Jerry Lewis?

hell with him

> So far, this simple quiz is yet to fail to uncover even the tiniest thread
> of French lineage.

the fun part is that you will assign values to my answers, just to make me
french anyway

>>>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
>>>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>>>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,
>>
>> I did,
>
> Who was it? I'd like to have a word with t hem.

everyone on alt.smokers.pipes irc.undernet.org

>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>
>> yes, I do.
>
> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit out.

in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
life, because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS

>>> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian, I
>>> would've guessed you to be French.
>>
>> no it doesn't.
>
> Of course it does.
>
> You identified yourself as a Belgian. I replied "if I didn't know this
> already, I would've guessed that you're French", implying that you're the
> shining paragon of everything the French are famous for.
>
> And I thank you for proving my point.

and thank you for proving my point.

>> it means "I know you're french, but even if I didn't know it,
>> I could have guessed anyway". and there's no point in denying that, because
>> we all know that it's exactly what it means.
>
> Who's "we"?

you, me, everybody who will ever read this or already has read it.

>>> Now, go back to school, close your mouth, and pay attention to what your
>>> mental superiors are telling you.
>>
>> coming from a man who talks gibberish and blames it on the fact that he's an
>> english-speaking person, those words mean an awful lot to me. NOT
>
> Words mean things.

yep

> To you, they apparently mean something different than
> they mean to everyone else.

you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass

> Who's right, you, or everyone else?

in this particular discussion, I'm affraid I have to say I'm right. just
because you are the wrongest that I have ever encountered

>> it doesn't seem that way though. people who know their language know
>> whatever they say means ...
>
> I know exactly what I mean.

no you don't

> I choose my words carefully. I already gave you two English lessons,
> explaining what "state" and "French" means. And look what thanks I get
> for that?
>
> Ingrate. (by the way, did you ever find out what that word means, too?)

I know the meaning of "ingrate" for over 10 years.

>>>>> If, and when, you venture out in the real world you will soon quickly
>>>>> discover that the ancient fossils, don't always have a good grasp of
>>>>> how the world out there works. They sit inside, toiling away in their
>>>>> scholarly studies, and drawing grandiose designs on how the world
>>>>> outside they think should work, but really don't bother verify whether
>>>>> their dissertations actually reflect reality.
>>>>
>>>> from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> Of course not. Where did I say that?
>>
>> comp.mail.misc
>
> I never said that "entombing oneself in the ivory halls of academia" is a
> guaranteed path to mental superiority. You must be referring to someone
> else.

there, fixed the quote. happy now?

>> all you know is that I'm
>> not old, that I smoke pipe,
>
> Actually, a more technically accurate statement would be that you smoke
> whatever you put in that pipe of yours. Would you like to share with us
> exactly what you're smoking?

nothing illegal.

>> and that I'm foreign. you don't know anything
>> about my abilities to speak other languages.
>
> Ok, what languages do you speak?

dutch, english, latin and french, and a bit of german
(yes, I know french. what are you going to do. make fun of me for being
wiser then you?)

>> Theo "I have to kill you because you called me French" Vermeulen
>
> I didn't call you French. Not yet, at least.

yes you did.

Theo

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 30.01.2005 03:51:11 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107053470-0005
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Theo Vermeulen writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>> Sam wrote:
>>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>>
>>> any better =/= this already. you must be one of the dumbest people I know if
>>> you don't know the difference
>>
>> There is no difference, Popeye. Puffing your chest up with righteous
>> indignation won't help you in avoiding the embarassment.
>>
>>>> You are ignoring about half of that sentence,
>>>
>>> if by 'ignoring' you mean reading, and noticing how wrong you are, then yes, I
>>> ignored half the sentence.. even more, if so, I "ignored" the whole sentence
>>
>> "Ignoring" means just that: ignoring. You are attempting to redefine the
>> established meaning of plain words, in an attempt to avoid admitting that
>> you were wrong
>
> all I did was try to make your statement correct. hell, I was helping you
> out here! _I_ was saving _YOU_ the emberresment. and what do I get for it?
> nuttin.

You are very charitable, but there's no need to worry on my part. I have
enough self confidence to avoid even a slightest chance of embarassment,
especially on the part of an underage Popeye-wannabe.

>>> so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allowed to
>>> have an opinion about alan?
>>
>> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
>> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and admit
>> that they might be wrong, on some key points.
>
> I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I won't
> admit to be wrong. sounds logical

Sounds logical in theory, now all you have to do is follow your own advice.

>>> in that case, you should fuck off and keep your
>>> mouth shut, since you obviously are too stupid to understand what you wrote
>>> yourself.
>>
>> I know exactly what I wrote.
>
> no you don't

I know exactly what I wrote. I am, afterall, the one who wrote it, so,
logically, I'm in the best position to know it.

>> Do you even have the foggiest idea why I particularly picked the French as
>> your most likely heritage, if it wasn't known already?
>> You probably think that it's a random choice, or one that's based on
>> trivial details.
>
> no I don't

So, share with us your theory. Inquiring minds want to know.

>> Well, it's not. It's just that the French have a certain "reputation",
>> that I was implicitly referring to. That's right, my guess as to your
>> French heritage had an implicit undertone that, together with many other
>> things, went completely over your head.
>
> no it didn't

Really? Then feel free to share with us what specific connotations,
regarding individuals of a French persuasion, I had in mind! I'll be happy
to admit it if your guess turns out to be correct. But, of course, you
won't be. And, you should easily be able to confirm, independently, that
this is a common undertone of plenty of French jokes.

>> That's what I meant, when I refer to your failure to heed your mental
>> superior. Every time you blabber, you just show how uneducate you are,
>> and how little you know.
>
> look who's talking

Ummmm, yes. Yes, indeed.

>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>
> yes I am

I knew it!

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the buffet.

>> Let's try to figure this out. Please answer the following two questions:
>>
>> A) Do you have an urge to surrender, for some reason, at least three times a
>> week?
>
> no
>
>> B) What do you think of Jerry Lewis?
>
> hell with him

This is a very unfortunate turn of events. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Well, I think we're getting to the root cause of your internal turmoil. On
one hand, your French heritage is pulling you one way, subconsciously. On
the other hand, your environmental upbringing is pulling you in a different
direction, that runs contrary to your French-influenced predispositions.

The resulting turmoil is causing you internal pain and suffering. Hence
your rebellion against anyone who's clearly your mental superior.

I feel your pain.

>> So far, this simple quiz is yet to fail to uncover even the tiniest thread
>> of French lineage.
>
> the fun part is that you will assign values to my answers, just to make me
> french anyway

Well, you just admitted to your French heritage, so I don't really have to
make you anything that you're not already.

>>>>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
>>>>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>>>>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,
>>>
>>> I did,
>>
>> Who was it? I'd like to have a word with t hem.
>
> everyone on alt.smokers.pipes irc.undernet.org

Ok, would you mind posting a message ID of someone on alt.smokers.pipes who
have risen to your defense, as well as the IRC logs, of the same?

>>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>>
>>> yes, I do.
>>
>> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit out.
>
> in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
> life,

Well, better late then never.

Good plan.

Go for it.

> because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS

Your stipulation of your French heritage is the ultimate proof that I was
right.

>>>> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian, I
>>>> would've guessed you to be French.
>>>
>>> no it doesn't.
>>
>> Of course it does.
>>
>> You identified yourself as a Belgian. I replied "if I didn't know this
>> already, I would've guessed that you're French", implying that you're the
>> shining paragon of everything the French are famous for.
>>
>> And I thank you for proving my point.
>
> and thank you for proving my point.

What point was that? The only point I see is the one on your head.

>>> it means "I know you're french, but even if I didn't know it,
>>> I could have guessed anyway". and there's no point in denying that, because
>>> we all know that it's exactly what it means.
>>
>> Who's "we"?
>
> you, me, everybody who will ever read this or already has read it.

Well, I clearly disagree with your assertion, so right there the foundation
of your logical argument has already collapsed.

>>>> Now, go back to school, close your mouth, and pay attention to what your
>>>> mental superiors are telling you.
>>>
>>> coming from a man who talks gibberish and blames it on the fact that he's an
>>> english-speaking person, those words mean an awful lot to me. NOT
>>
>> Words mean things.
>
> yep

But, the problem is that sometimes words mean things that are different from
what you think they mean. Right?

>> To you, they apparently mean something different than
>> they mean to everyone else.
>
> you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass

I'm curious who you think I'm mistaking myself for, Popeye. Do you have a
name, or a phone number, or anything else that can be used to positively
identify the mysterious person I'm supposedly mistaking myself?

>> Who's right, you, or everyone else?
>
> in this particular discussion, I'm affraid I have to say I'm right. just

You're right to be afraid, because you're wrong.

I suppose that this can be called progress. With some effort, I estimate
that perhaps in a month's time you'll no longer be afraid of the truth.

> because you are the wrongest that I have ever encountered

What did I tell you, Popeye, about proper behavior towards your mental
superiors? Have you ever been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder?
I'm not sure what it's called in French, I think it's called
"jerrylewisitis", but I'm not sure.

>>> it doesn't seem that way though. people who know their language know
>>> whatever they say means ...
>>
>> I know exactly what I mean.
>
> no you don't

You misspelled "you do, but I don't". Glad to be of service.

>> I choose my words carefully. I already gave you two English lessons,
>> explaining what "state" and "French" means. And look what thanks I get
>> for that?
>>
>> Ingrate. (by the way, did you ever find out what that word means, too?)
>
> I know the meaning of "ingrate" for over 10 years.

So why do you refuse to answer why you're such an ingrate?

Please don't use your French heritage as an excuse.

>>>>>
>>>>> from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
>>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not. Where did I say that?
>>>
>>> comp.mail.misc
>>
>> I never said that "entombing oneself in the ivory halls of academia" is a
>> guaranteed path to mental superiority. You must be referring to someone
>> else.
>
> there, fixed the quote. happy now?

I don't see exactly what you fixed. I was right before, and I'm still
right, on that particular issue.

By the way, I certainly never held an occasional spelling or a grammatical
error against you. I don't see any reason for that. This is not a
dissertation, it's just a Usenet post.

But I note that you really get very sensitive, sometimes, in pointing out a
typo that I occasionally make. Can I ask why you do that, Popeye? It
almost looks like you really can't formulate a substantive reply, so you
have to pick on trivial, nonmaterial, things in order to try to avoid facing
the issues head on.

>>> all you know is that I'm
>>> not old, that I smoke pipe,
>>
>> Actually, a more technically accurate statement would be that you smoke
>> whatever you put in that pipe of yours. Would you like to share with us
>> exactly what you're smoking?
>
> nothing illegal.

I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?

>
>>> and that I'm foreign. you don't know anything
>>> about my abilities to speak other languages.
>>
>> Ok, what languages do you speak?
>
> dutch, english, latin and french, and a bit of german
> (yes, I know french. what are you going to do. make fun of me for being
> wiser then you?)

No, I'm just curious what's French for "I don't know what I'm talking
about", and "Please don't blame me, I was dropped on my head, as a child."

>>> Theo "I have to kill you because you called me French" Vermeulen
>>
>> I didn't call you French. Not yet, at least.
>
> yes you did.

No, I didn't. I can't blame you for being offended, though. What an
indignity!

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107053470-0005
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBB/Euex9p3GYHlUOIRAlkQAJ9Pnc+/SbRvNnWfT1ixPTiQscv90QCf dj/5
RWvDH3GJZteEjojy8SErMLI=
=ntR3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-1935-1107053470-0005--

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 31.01.2005 00:30:55 von Theo Vermeulen

>>>> so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allowed to
>>>> have an opinion about alan?
>>>
>>> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
>>> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and admit
>>> that they might be wrong, on some key points.
>>
>> I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I won't
>> admit to be wrong. sounds logical
>
> Sounds logical in theory, now all you have to do is follow your own advice.

I do so all the time.

>>> I know exactly what I wrote.
>>
>> no you don't
>
> I know exactly what I wrote. I am, afterall, the one who wrote it, so,
> logically, I'm in the best position to know it.

you would think so ... that's what makes it more scary ..

>>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>>
>> yes I am
>
> I knew it!

I am sure that I don't have some French in me.

>>> So far, this simple quiz is yet to fail to uncover even the tiniest thread
>>> of French lineage.
>>
>> the fun part is that you will assign values to my answers, just to make me
>> french anyway
>
> Well, you just admitted to your French heritage, so I don't really have to
> make you anything that you're not already.

no i didn't

>>>>>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. saying
>>>>>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>>>>>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,
>>>>
>>>> I did,
>>>
>>> Who was it? I'd like to have a word with t hem.
>>
>> everyone on #alt.smokers.pipes irc.undernet.org
>
> Ok, would you mind posting a message ID of someone on alt.smokers.pipes who
> have risen to your defense, as well as the IRC logs, of the same?

you could drop by if you'd like ... it saves me from weeding trough the log.
but if you really really like, I could put it online for a sec

>>>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>>>
>>>> yes, I do.
>>>
>>> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit out.
>>
>> in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
>> life,
>
> Well, better late then never.
|| || || || || || || || || ||
that'll be never, \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
>> because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS

>>>>> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian, I
>>>>> would've guessed you to be French.
>>>>
>>>> no it doesn't.
>>>
>>> Of course it does.
>>>
>>> You identified yourself as a Belgian. I replied "if I didn't know this
>>> already, I would've guessed that you're French", implying that you're the
>>> shining paragon of everything the French are famous for.
>>>
>>> And I thank you for proving my point.
>>
>> and thank you for proving my point.
>
> What point was that? The only point I see is the one on your head.

my point about you being an ignorant prick taking words never said and puts
them in some weird context as long as it won't make you look stupid.

>>> To you, they apparently mean something different than
>>> they mean to everyone else.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass
>
> I'm curious who you think I'm mistaking myself for, Popeye.

LEARN TO READ! YOU ARE MISTAKING YOURSELF FOR EVERYONE ELSE! whoops caps
again ...

if you keep being as ignorant, I'm afraid I'll have to start ignoring you.
you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point

> Do you have a name, or a phone number, or anything else that can be used
> to positively identify the mysterious person I'm supposedly mistaking
> myself?

any name, any phone number is correct. because you seem to be mistaking
yourself for EVERYBODY ELSE

>>> Who's right, you, or everyone else?
>>
>> in this particular discussion, I'm affraid I have to say I'm right. just
>
> You're right to be afraid, because you're wrong.
>
> I suppose that this can be called progress. With some effort, I estimate
> that perhaps in a month's time you'll no longer be afraid of the truth.

I can handle the truth though. it's only you I'm annoyed about. I don't like
people trying to change facts to 'so-called-facts' just to be right...

>> because you are the wrongest that I have ever encountered
>
> What did I tell you, Popeye, about proper behavior towards your mental
> superiors?

stop acting like you're superiour to me. becausem frankly, you aren't

>>>> it doesn't seem that way though. people who know their language know
>>>> whatever they say means ...
>>>
>>> I know exactly what I mean.
>>
>> no you don't
>
> You misspelled "you do, but I don't". Glad to be of service.

wtf are you talking bout?

> Please don't use your French heritage as an excuse.

what french heritage?

>>>>>> from what you said before, THAT _IS_ what being mentally superiour is all
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not. Where did I say that?
>>>>
>>>> comp.mail.misc
>>>
>>> I never said that "entombing oneself in the ivory halls of academia" is a
>>> guaranteed path to mental superiority. You must be referring to someone
>>> else.
>>
>> there, fixed the quote. happy now?
>
> I don't see exactly what you fixed.

yeah, DUH, if you start cutting the fixed quotes, it's not my responsability
if you seem to be dumb.

> By the way, I certainly never held an occasional spelling or a grammatical
> error against you.

I don't do that stuff to you neither.

> But I note that you really get very sensitive, sometimes, in pointing out a
> typo that I occasionally make.

I have no idea what you're talking about

> Can I ask why you do that, Popeye?

why what?

>>> Would you like to share with us exactly what you're smoking?
>>
>> nothing illegal.
>
> I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?

a pipe, dumbass.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 31.01.2005 02:59:56 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-3300-1107136795-0003
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Theo Vermeulen writes:

>>>>> so people who don't fully understand the english language are not allo=
wed to
>>>>> have an opinion about alan?
>>>>
>>>> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
>>>> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and admi=
t
>>>> that they might be wrong, on some key points.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I won'=
t
>>> admit to be wrong. sounds logical
>>
>> Sounds logical in theory, now all you have to do is follow your own advic=
e.
>
> I do so all the time.

I've yet to see such an earth-shattering event take place.

>>>> I know exactly what I wrote.
>>>
>>> no you don't
>>
>> I know exactly what I wrote. I am, afterall, the one who wrote it, so,
>> logically, I'm in the best position to know it.
>
> you would think so ... that's what makes it more scary ..

What's so scary about it?

>>>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>>>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>>>
>>> yes I am
>>
>> I knew it!
>
> I am sure that I don't have some French in me.

Then why did you just say that you did?

>>>> So far, this simple quiz is yet to fail to uncover even the tiniest thr=
ead
>>>> of French lineage.
>>>
>>> the fun part is that you will assign values to my answers, just to make =
me
>>> french anyway
>>
>> Well, you just admitted to your French heritage, so I don't really have t=
o
>> make you anything that you're not already.
>
> no i didn't

Well, it looked to me like you did, but let's say that you didn't. You're
entitled to change your mind, after all.

>>>>>>> You should try and understand english as well, mister. s=
aying
>>>>>>> "if I didn't know this already I would've guessed you're french"
>>>>>>> ___M__E__A__N__S___ that you "know" I'm french.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Ask to have someone else explain it to you,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did,
>>>>
>>>> Who was it? I'd like to have a word with t hem.
>>>
>>> everyone on #alt.smokers.pipes irc.undernet.org
>>
>> Ok, would you mind posting a message ID of someone on alt.smokers.pipes w=
ho
>> have risen to your defense, as well as the IRC logs, of the same?
>
> you could drop by if you'd like ... it saves me from weeding trough the lo=
g.
> but if you really really like, I could put it online for a sec

Go ahead. This should be fun.

>>>>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, I do.
>>>>
>>>> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit out=
..
>>>
>>> in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
>>> life,
>>
>> Well, better late then never.
> || || || || || || || || || ||
> that'll be never, \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
>>> because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS

Nice ASCII art. Too bad that you're wrong, though.

>>>>>> It means exactly that: if I already didn't know that you were Belgian=
, I
>>>>>> would've guessed you to be French.
>>>>>
>>>>> no it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does.
>>>>
>>>> You identified yourself as a Belgian. I replied "if I didn't know this=

>>>> already, I would've guessed that you're French", implying that you're t=
he
>>>> shining paragon of everything the French are famous for.
>>>>
>>>> And I thank you for proving my point.
>>>
>>> and thank you for proving my point.
>>
>> What point was that? The only point I see is the one on your head.
>
> my point about you being an ignorant prick taking words never said and put=
s

You never made any such point. Do you have a particular message ID I can
look up on Google?

> them in some weird context as long as it won't make you look stupid.

What's so stupid about me pointing out a slight misinterpretation, on your
part, of a simple sentence?

>>>> To you, they apparently mean something different than
>>>> they mean to everyone else.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass
>>
>> I'm curious who you think I'm mistaking myself for, Popeye.
>
> LEARN TO READ! YOU ARE MISTAKING YOURSELF FOR EVERYONE ELSE! whoops caps
> again ...

That's not true. I certainly am not mistaking myself for you, for example. =

I don't smoke, for starters.

> if you keep being as ignorant, I'm afraid I'll have to start ignoring you.

Oh, please! Don't ignore me! Beavis is already ignoring me, and it breaks
my heart sooooooooo much. Yes, it does. How could I possibly go on with my=

life after being ignored both by Beavis and Popeye?

> you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point

In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who's paying attention to you,=

around here. Everyone has written you off as another kookbag, already.
Only little me is still putting in some effort in helping you see the light
of day.

>> Do you have a name, or a phone number, or anything else that can be used
>> to positively identify the mysterious person I'm supposedly mistaking
>> myself?
>
> any name, any phone number is correct. because you seem to be mistaking
> yourself for EVERYBODY ELSE

That can't be right. Go ahead, dial a phone number at random. Chance are
that it won't be me on the other end of the line.

>>>> Who's right, you, or everyone else?
>>>
>>> in this particular discussion, I'm affraid I have to say I'm right. just
>>
>> You're right to be afraid, because you're wrong.
>>
>> I suppose that this can be called progress. With some effort, I estimate=

>> that perhaps in a month's time you'll no longer be afraid of the truth.
>
> I can handle the truth though.

Ok, let's see if you do. Which occasional poster to comp.mail.misc is known=

for:

A) His claim of having an amorous encounter with an Amazonian Princess

B) Practicing medicine without a license, and

C) Membership in some UFO cult

Bonus clue: you look up to him and consider him to be your mentor.

> it's only you I'm annoyed about. I don't li=
ke
> people trying to change facts to 'so-called-facts' just to be right...

Ok, what facts did I change?

>>> because you are the wrongest that I have ever encountered
>>
>> What did I tell you, Popeye, about proper behavior towards your mental
>> superiors?
>
> stop acting like you're superiour to me. becausem frankly, you aren't

Such disrespect to your bettersâ=A6 Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I am superior to you in at least one way: I have not surrendered my self
control to a mind-altering substance. That should count for something,
shouldn't it?

>>>> I know exactly what I mean.
>>>
>>> no you don't
>>
>> You misspelled "you do, but I don't". Glad to be of service.
>
> wtf are you talking bout?

I'm referring to a slight typo of yours. I fixed it, at no charge.

>> Please don't use your French heritage as an excuse.
>
> what french heritage?

The one that you claimed for a moment, but renounced very quickly. I can't
blame you for that, though. The only thing worse than being French is being=

a French soldier. Every day you have to spend at least ten minutes
practicing how to raise your arms into the air.

>>>> I never said that "entombing oneself in the ivory halls of academia" is=
a
>>>> guaranteed path to mental superiority. You must be referring to someon=
e
>>>> else.
>>>
>>> there, fixed the quote. happy now?
>>
>> I don't see exactly what you fixed.
>
> yeah, DUH, if you start cutting the fixed quotes, it's not my responsabili=
ty
> if you seem to be dumb.

I did not cut anything, Popeye. Your previous quote was reproduced exactly
as it was.

>> By the way, I certainly never held an occasional spelling or a grammatica=
l
>> error against you.
>
> I don't do that stuff to you neither.

Well you did, sort of, in message
<41fc3dbc$0$28994$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, but that's OK, you're a pipe
smoker, after all.

>> But I note that you really get very sensitive, sometimes, in pointing out=
a
>> typo that I occasionally make.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about

You probably forgot already. See what smoking does to your brain.

>> Can I ask why you do that, Popeye?
>
> why what?

Make a big deal out of an occasional typo, Popeye.

>>>> Would you like to share with us exactly what you're smoking?
>>>
>>> nothing illegal.
>>
>> I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?
>
> a pipe, dumbass.

What's in the pipe, Popeye?

If you insist on playing guessing game, ok, here I go:

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-3300-1107136795-0003
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBB/ZEbx9p3GYHlUOIRAnBAAJ4zpF2/pDvdkQz8/H/yCV9Dw0xXbQCd Fh+z
sJTVBuj+1Pd1SKhw+9/5eo8=
=2Nx8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-3300-1107136795-0003--

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 31.01.2005 05:41:25 von Jonathan de Boyne Pollard

AK> Challenge-Response System.

ME> Misdirected challenges are spamcop reportable

F> What about misdirected newgroup postings? This is a welcome to
F> comp.mail.misc, not nanae.

Don't worry. Alan will no doubt be adding comp.os.linux,
comp.mail.mutt, and all of his other long-time favourites to the
newsgroups field soon enough. You're not being singled out.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 31.01.2005 20:18:51 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>>>>> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
>>>>> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and
>>>>> admit that they might be wrong, on some key points.
>>>>
>>>> I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I
>>>> won't admit to be wrong. sounds logical
>>>
>>> Sounds logical in theory, now all you have to do is follow your own
>>> advice.
>>
>> I do so all the time.
>
> I've yet to see such an earth-shattering event take place.

that's because I haven't been wrong yet when you are involved

>>> I know exactly what I wrote. I am, afterall, the one who wrote it, so,
>>> logically, I'm in the best position to know it.
>>
>> you would think so ... that's what makes it more scary ..
>
> What's so scary about it?

the fact that you know what you mean, but yest don't know what you type.
it's scary, because it means you're mentally not 100% waterproof, and noone
knows what you will do next. not even you.

>>>>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>>>>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>>>>
>>>> yes I am
>>>
>>> I knew it!
>>
>> I am sure that I don't have some French in me.
>
> Then why did you just say that you did?

the yes I am was an answer to "Are you sure that you don't have some french
in you", but the snipping got a bit out of hand :)

>>> Ok, would you mind posting a message ID of someone on alt.smokers.pipes
>>> who have risen to your defense, as well as the IRC logs, of the same?
>>
>> you could drop by if you'd like ... it saves me from weeding trough the
>> log. but if you really really like, I could put it online for a sec
>
> Go ahead. This should be fun.

http://ascona.dynu.com/sam

>>>>>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit
>>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
>>>> life,
>>>
>>> Well, better late then never.
>> || || || || || || || || || ||
>> that'll be never, \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
>>>> because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS
>
> Nice ASCII art.

thanks :blush:

>>>>> To you, they apparently mean something different than
>>>>> they mean to everyone else.
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass
>>>
>>> I'm curious who you think I'm mistaking myself for, Popeye.
>>
>> LEARN TO READ! YOU ARE MISTAKING YOURSELF FOR EVERYONE ELSE! whoops caps
>> again ...
>
> That's not true. I certainly am not mistaking myself for you, for
> example. I don't smoke, for starters.

you don't have the guts. wuss

>> you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point
>
> In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who's paying attention to
> you, around here. Everyone has written you off as another kookbag,
> already.

but if people ignore me totally, I don't care as much as when people act
like they do, but don't

>>> Do you have a name, or a phone number, or anything else that can be used
>>> to positively identify the mysterious person I'm supposedly mistaking
>>> myself?
>>
>> any name, any phone number is correct. because you seem to be mistaking
>> yourself for EVERYBODY ELSE
>
> That can't be right. Go ahead, dial a phone number at random. Chance are
> that it won't be me on the other end of the line.

that's why I used the word 'mistaking'. I never said you are everybody else,
I said you acted like you are...

>> it's only you I'm annoyed about. I don't li ke people trying to change
>> facts to 'so-called-facts' just to be right...
>
> Ok, what facts did I change?

the whole french-business, the whole lokking up to alan-thing etc etc

> I am superior to you in at least one way: I have not surrendered my self
> control to a mind-altering substance. That should count for something,
> shouldn't it?

what are you talking about?

>>> Please don't use your French heritage as an excuse.
>>
>> what french heritage?
>
> The one that you claimed for a moment, but renounced very quickly. I
> can't blame you for that, though.

> The only thing worse than being French
> is being a French soldier. Every day you have to spend at least ten
> minutes practicing how to raise your arms into the air.

lol it's funny cause it's true :roflmao:

no, there is something worse then being a french soldier.
being 2 french soldiers

> I did not cut anything, Popeye. Your previous quote was reproduced exactly
> as it was.

I was talking about your whole profs-thing

>>> By the way, I certainly never held an occasional spelling or a
>>> grammatica l error against you.
>>
>> I don't do that stuff to you neither.
>
> Well you did, sort of, in message
><41fc3dbc$0$28994$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, but that's OK, you're a pipe
> smoker, after all.

I can't find myself holding a spelling or grammatical error against you in
that post. I only pointed some vocabulary-errors, but that was only because
you don't seem to know what your words mean

>>> But I note that you really get very sensitive, sometimes, in pointing
>>> out a typo that I occasionally make.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about
>
> You probably forgot already. See what smoking does to your brain.

I really have no idea about complaining about spelling errors.. google isn't
being much of a help neither

>>> Can I ask why you do that, Popeye?
>>
>> why what?
>
> Make a big deal out of an occasional typo, Popeye.

I don't

>>>>> Would you like to share with us exactly what you're smoking?
>>>>
>>>> nothing illegal.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?
>>
>> a pipe, dumbass.
>
> What's in the pipe, Popeye?

Dunhill EMP.

Theo

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 01.02.2005 01:25:12 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-19826-1107217512-0008
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Theo Vermeulen writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>
>>>>>> They are allowed to express an initial opinion; but when corrected by
>>>>>> someone who knows more than they do, they should pay attention and
>>>>>> admit that they might be wrong, on some key points.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit that I'm wrong. WHEN I'M WRONG. as long as I am right, I
>>>>> won't admit to be wrong. sounds logical
>>>>
>>>> Sounds logical in theory, now all you have to do is follow your own
>>>> advice.
>>>
>>> I do so all the time.
>>
>> I've yet to see such an earth-shattering event take place.
>
> that's because I haven't been wrong yet when you are involved

Your English comprehension is still somewhat lacking. The reason it would
be an earth-shattering event is because it almost never happens, like an
earthquake, and not because it happens all the time.

See?

>>>> I know exactly what I wrote. I am, afterall, the one who wrote it, so,
>>>> logically, I'm in the best position to know it.
>>>
>>> you would think so ... that's what makes it more scary ..
>>
>> What's so scary about it?
>
> the fact that you know what you mean,

Why does that scare you?

> but yest don't know what you type.

I know exactly what I type (excepting, of course, an occasional,
unintentional typo).

> it's scary, because it means you're mentally not 100% waterproof, and noone
> knows what you will do next. not even you.

You accusing someone of being mentally defective is analogous to Michael
Jackson accusing someone of being ugly.

>>>>>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>>>>>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes I am
>>>>
>>>> I knew it!
>>>
>>> I am sure that I don't have some French in me.
>>
>> Then why did you just say that you did?
>
> the yes I am was an answer to "Are you sure that you don't have some french
> in you", but the snipping got a bit out of hand :)

Well, one misunderstanding cleared up, another bunch to go.

See how quickly all this confusion can be cleared up if only you calm down
and pay attention to your mental superiors?

>>>> Ok, would you mind posting a message ID of someone on alt.smokers.pipes
>>>> who have risen to your defense, as well as the IRC logs, of the same?
>>>
>>> you could drop by if you'd like ... it saves me from weeding trough the
>>> log. but if you really really like, I could put it online for a sec
>>
>> Go ahead. This should be fun.
>
> http://ascona.dynu.com/sam

You should've paid attention to your mental superiors again. The first
couple of suggestions were on the right track, but then, it looks like the
drugs (or the tobacco) kicked in and instead of following up on the first,
and the correct, train of thought, the other mental giant made a random
guess, and you immediately pounced on it without giving it even another
second's thought.

It doesn't look like those mental giants are employed, or have generally
finished elementary school, with good grades.

I wouldn't even think of holding up these rocket scientists as experts on
any subject.

>>>>>>>> See those words "if I didn't know this already"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, look at them again. Keep looking at them until you figur eit
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>> in that case I would be staring at my computer screen for the rest of my
>>>>> life,
>>>>
>>>> Well, better late then never.
>>> || || || || || || || || || ||
>>> that'll be never, \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
>>>>> because IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS, DUMBASS
>>
>> Nice ASCII art.
>
> thanks :blush:

I have a better one:

.:\:/:.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / Theo \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\

>>>>>> To you, they apparently mean something different than
>>>>>> they mean to everyone else.
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> you seem to be mistaking yourself for everyone else ... dumbass
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious who you think I'm mistaking myself for, Popeye.
>>>
>>> LEARN TO READ! YOU ARE MISTAKING YOURSELF FOR EVERYONE ELSE! whoops caps
>>> again ...
>>
>> That's not true. I certainly am not mistaking myself for you, for
>> example. I don't smoke, for starters.
>
> you don't have the guts. wuss

I don't want to end up coughing my lungs out, one chunk at a time.

>>> you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point
>>
>> In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who's paying attention to
>> you, around here. Everyone has written you off as another kookbag,
>> already.
>
> but if people ignore me totally, I don't care as much as when people act
> like they do, but don't

Can you rephrase, or at least diagram that sentence?

>>>> Do you have a name, or a phone number, or anything else that can be used
>>>> to positively identify the mysterious person I'm supposedly mistaking
>>>> myself?
>>>
>>> any name, any phone number is correct. because you seem to be mistaking
>>> yourself for EVERYBODY ELSE
>>
>> That can't be right. Go ahead, dial a phone number at random. Chance are
>> that it won't be me on the other end of the line.
>
> that's why I used the word 'mistaking'. I never said you are everybody else,
> I said you acted like you are...

You can't be right. Given the wide variety of people and behaviors out
there, it is logically impossible for any single person to act like every
other person on earth.

>>> it's only you I'm annoyed about. I don't li ke people trying to change
>>> facts to 'so-called-facts' just to be right...
>>
>> Ok, what facts did I change?
>
> the whole french-business, the whole lokking up to alan-thing etc etc

What specific facts did I change?

>> I am superior to you in at least one way: I have not surrendered my self
>> control to a mind-altering substance. That should count for something,
>> shouldn't it?
>
> what are you talking about?

I'll wait until you're in the hospital, on a ventilator. Then I'll explain
it to you.

>>>> By the way, I certainly never held an occasional spelling or a
>>>> grammatica l error against you.
>>>
>>> I don't do that stuff to you neither.
>>
>> Well you did, sort of, in message
>><41fc3dbc$0$28994$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, but that's OK, you're a pipe
>> smoker, after all.
>
> I can't find myself holding a spelling or grammatical error against you in
> that post. I only pointed some vocabulary-errors, but that was only because
> you don't seem to know what your words mean

They were not vocabulary errors.

>>>> But I note that you really get very sensitive, sometimes, in pointing
>>>> out a typo that I occasionally make.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about
>>
>> You probably forgot already. See what smoking does to your brain.
>
> I really have no idea about complaining about spelling errors.. google isn't
> being much of a help neither

In that post you wrote:

"look who's talking"

This was in response to:

# Every time you blabber, you just show how uneducate you are, and how
# little you know.

You were clearly making an issue out of a simple typo, a slip of the key.

If you had something that was consistently riddled with spelling and
grammatical errors, then perhaps making a point of that would be justified.

But for something minor like that you're only admitting that your own
position is on very shaky grounds, if that's the best you could come up
with.

>>>> Can I ask why you do that, Popeye?
>>>
>>> why what?
>>
>> Make a big deal out of an occasional typo, Popeye.
>
> I don't

You do, see above.

>>>>>> Would you like to share with us exactly what you're smoking?
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing illegal.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?
>>>
>>> a pipe, dumbass.
>>
>> What's in the pipe, Popeye?
>
> Dunhill EMP.

That's your story, and your sticking by it?

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-19826-1107217512-0008
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBB/sxox9p3GYHlUOIRApSRAJ9clS5M22r+ddqTu0GHxpNjQCMSGQCd Er7/
irBUJitJS/GlRnIA3QC57v0=
=yno7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-19826-1107217512-0008--

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 01.02.2005 23:17:23 von Fred Viles

sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in
news:ctdpn8$2df$1@reader1.panix.com:

> In article ,
> Fred Viles wrote:
>...
>> The fact that it quantitatively does less damage
>>doesn't negate any of the arguments usually made against C/R
>>systems.
>
> "Less effective" is an argument against is, but "less damage"
> isn't in its favor?

That's right. The relevant argument against C/R systems is that
*any* misdirected challenges are collateral spam and inherently
bad. The argument is *not* that the misdirected challenges are bad
only if they exceed some threshold quantity, so saying that one
system generates fewer than another does not negate the argument.

> I'd argue the other way, as a third party I
> don't care about less effective, I do care about less damage.

Only if "less" equates to "acceptably small", I think. That ties
in to the "doesn't scale" argument.

>>Hence, if you accept that C/R systems are abusive at all,
>
> C/R per se needn't be.

Maybe, but I can't see any way to construct a non-abusive system,
nor have I seen one described (so far).

> Sending "challenges" to forged third parties is abusive,

Agreed. So if a non-abusive C/R system is possible, it must have
some mechanism for reliably detecting forged sender addresses.
AFAIK this is a technical impossibility, so I'd love to know how
you think it can be done.

> and the abuse is done by whoever connects to
> Panix in order to dump their garbage into my mailbox.
>
> The fact that most implementations of C/R are abusive does not
> imply that the concept of C/R is abusive, or that all
> implementations of it must be abusive.

True, existing implementations are just data points They can
support an argument but not prove it. But that fact does not in
turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.

FWIW, I think a system that issues challenges via SMTP-time 5xx
rejections is a non-starter simply because it won't work (deliver a
usefull challenge) with a significant fraction of legitimate
senders. Not all MTAs include the text from the 5xx rejection in
their DSNs, and when they do many users will not notice it. If it
were not for my belief that it is useless, I would agree that such
a C/R system is no more abusive to innocent third parties than
rejecting for other policy reasons (like DNSBLs or DATA-time
spam/malware checking, both of which I do).

- Fred

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 02.02.2005 01:35:05 von Steve Baker

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:17:23 -0600, Fred Viles
wrote:

>But that fact does not in
>turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
>technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
>way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.

Wouldn't something like Domain Keys make sending challenges
non-abusive when things check out? Whether that would ultimately be
useful is a different issue.

Steve Baker

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 02.02.2005 17:05:17 von sethb

In article ,
Fred Viles wrote:
>sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote in
>news:ctdpn8$2df$1@reader1.panix.com:
>> In article ,
>> Fred Viles wrote:

>>> The fact that it quantitatively does less damage
>>>doesn't negate any of the arguments usually made against C/R
>>>systems.
>>
>> "Less effective" is an argument against is, but "less damage"
>> isn't in its favor?
>
>That's right. The relevant argument against C/R systems is that
>*any* misdirected challenges are collateral spam and inherently
>bad.

True. But *fewer* misdirected challenges are less bad than *more*
misdirected challenges.

Also, misdirected challenges *not sent by me* arent *abuse by me*.

If your machine connects to mine and sends misdirected challenges when
mine does something acceptable (such as reply "550" to your attempt to
send), that's your abuse, not mine.

> The argument is *not* that the misdirected challenges are bad
>only if they exceed some threshold quantity, so saying that one
>system generates fewer than another does not negate the argument.

But saying that *my* system doesn't *send* any does. The fact that
*your* system sends some based on what it gets from mine is *your*
abuse, not mine.

>> I'd argue the other way, as a third party I
>> don't care about less effective, I do care about less damage.
>Only if "less" equates to "acceptably small", I think. That ties
>in to the "doesn't scale" argument.

I mean, as the recipient, the less, the better.

>>>Hence, if you accept that C/R systems are abusive at all,
>> C/R per se needn't be.
>Maybe, but I can't see any way to construct a non-abusive system,
>nor have I seen one described (so far).

Yes, you have. Using the 550 text to send the challenge is
non-abusive.

>> Sending "challenges" to forged third parties is abusive,
>
>Agreed. So if a non-abusive C/R system is possible, it must have
>some mechanism for reliably detecting forged sender addresses.

Or, it must avoid _sending_ challenges.

>AFAIK this is a technical impossibility, so I'd love to know how
>you think it can be done.

Don't _send_ any challenges. Use 55x responses instead. If you open
the connection to me, my response isn't abuse.

>> and the abuse is done by whoever connects to
>> Panix in order to dump their garbage into my mailbox.
>>
>> The fact that most implementations of C/R are abusive does not
>> imply that the concept of C/R is abusive, or that all
>> implementations of it must be abusive.
>
>True, existing implementations are just data points They can
>support an argument but not prove it. But that fact does not in
>turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
>technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
>way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.

See above. Some exist.

>FWIW, I think a system that issues challenges via SMTP-time 5xx
>rejections is a non-starter simply because it won't work (deliver a
>usefull challenge) with a significant fraction of legitimate
>senders.

It's non-abusive. The fact that it isn't as _effective_ as you want
isn't my problem. There are people using such systems; perhaps they
don't feel a need to communicate with people who can't use non-b0rken
software.

> Not all MTAs include the text from the 5xx rejection in
>their DSNs, and when they do many users will not notice it.

Or people who don't read responses.

> If it were not for my belief that it is useless, I would agree that
>such a C/R system is no more abusive to innocent third parties than
>rejecting for other policy reasons (like DNSBLs or DATA-time
>spam/malware checking, both of which I do).

You may find it useless for your purposes; that's a judgment call I
can't make. But that doesn't make it abusive or broken.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 00:30:07 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>>>
>>> I've yet to see such an earth-shattering event take place.
>>
>> that's because I haven't been wrong yet when you are involved
>
> Your English comprehension is still somewhat lacking. The reason it would
> be an earth-shattering event is because it almost never happens, like an
> earthquake, and not because it happens all the time.
>
> See?

I see.

>> it's scary, because it means you're mentally not 100% waterproof, and
>> noone knows what you will do next. not even you.
>
> You accusing someone of being mentally defective is analogous to Michael
> Jackson accusing someone of being ugly.

roflmao

>>>>>>> Are you sure that you don't have some French in you? Perhaps you're
>>>>>>> partially descend from the French. That would explain a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes I am
>>>>>
>>>>> I knew it!
>>>>
>>>> I am sure that I don't have some French in me.
>>>
>>> Then why did you just say that you did?
>>
>> the yes I am was an answer to "Are you sure that you don't have some
>> french in you", but the snipping got a bit out of hand :)
>
> Well, one misunderstanding cleared up, another bunch to go.
>
> See how quickly all this confusion can be cleared up if only you calm down

yea .. it has more to do with staying up a bit too late though. sometimes I
loose a bit concentration when it gets later in the evening.

> It doesn't look like those mental giants are employed, or have generally
> finished elementary school, with good grades.

kilted is employed, I think, and I think mark is retired... but that's not
the point, I think...

> I wouldn't even think of holding up these rocket scientists as experts on
> any subject.

not like I care...

>>> Nice ASCII art.
>>
>> thanks :blush:
>
> I have a better one:
>
>
> .:\:/:.
> +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
> | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
> | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
> | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
> | Thank you, | ( (_) )
> | Management | /`-vvv-'\
> +-------------------+ / Theo \
> | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
> | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
> @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
> \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
> \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\

ahh how cute .. did you make it especially for me? or did you just take one
off the net and put my name in it?

(never mind, some googling mad it clear :) )

>> you don't have the guts. wuss
>
> I don't want to end up coughing my lungs out, one chunk at a time.

wuss :)

>>>> you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point
>>>
>>> In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who's paying attention to
>>> you, around here. Everyone has written you off as another kookbag,
>>> already.
>>
>> but if people ignore me totally, I don't care as much as when people act
>> like they do, but don't
>
> Can you rephrase, or at least diagram that sentence?

people who ignore me=ok
people who don't ignore me=ok
people who ignore me while they act like the don't ignore me=not ok

> You can't be right. Given the wide variety of people and behaviors out
> there, it is logically impossible for any single person to act like every
> other person on earth.

true. but you said something about 'everybody else ...', while it was just
you 'who ...'

>>>> it's only you I'm annoyed about. I don't li ke people trying to change
>>>> facts to 'so-called-facts' just to be right...
>>>
>>> Ok, what facts did I change?
>>
>> the whole french-business, the whole lokking up to alan-thing etc etc
>
> What specific facts did I change?

just turning my words around. like, I never said that I look up to alan. you
said I do, but all I said was that he needed some respect.

>>> I am superior to you in at least one way: I have not surrendered my self
>>> control to a mind-altering substance. That should count for something,
>>> shouldn't it?
>>
>> what are you talking about?
>
> I'll wait until you're in the hospital, on a ventilator. Then I'll explain
> it to you.

ok, I know now.. pipesmoking _is_ the safest form of nicotine-usage there is
though... so that shouldn't be too much of a problem :)

>> I really have no idea about complaining about spelling errors.. google isn't
>> being much of a help neither
>
> In that post you wrote:
>
> "look who's talking"
>
> This was in response to:
>
> # Every time you blabber, you just show how uneducate you are, and how
> # little you know.
>
> You were clearly making an issue out of a simple typo, a slip of the key.

no, sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was referring to the "not knowing
very much"-part

>>> Make a big deal out of an occasional typo, Popeye.
>>
>> I don't
>
> You do, see above.

I think that's cleared up now?

>>>>>>> Would you like to share with us exactly what you're smoking?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nothing illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say that it was. So what exactly do you smoke?
>>>>
>>>> a pipe, dumbass.
>>>
>>> What's in the pipe, Popeye?
>>
>> Dunhill EMP.
>
> That's your story, and your sticking by it?

I was smoking EMP back then, yes.

Greetings

Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 01:12:06 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 01:29:09 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-19257-1107475926-0008
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>>>>>> you don't pay any attention to what I say anyway. what's the point
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one who's paying attention to
>>>>> you, around here. Everyone has written you off as another kookbag,
>>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>> but if people ignore me totally, I don't care as much as when people act
>>>> like they do, but don't
>>>
>>> Can you rephrase, or at least diagram that sentence?
>>
>> people who ignore me=ok
>> people who don't ignore me=ok
>> people who ignore me while they act like the don't ignore me=not ok
>
> Well, all available evidence points that others do ignore you, so your
> theory doesn't hold up.

nah, you were just pretending to not ignore me, while at the same time, it
seemed as you did ... I could've been wrong though

>>> You can't be right. Given the wide variety of people and behaviors out
>>> there, it is logically impossible for any single person to act like every
>>> other person on earth.
>>
>> true. but you said something about 'everybody else ...', while it was just
>> you 'who ...'
>
> No, it's you who mentioned something about everyone else. It's in the
> portion of the exchange that led up to this point, which you edited out.

I think we both edited it oud :P ...

>> just turning my words around. like, I never said that I look up to alan. you
>
> You were fawning all over him.

fawning?

>> said I do, but all I said was that he needed some respect.
>
> Beavis does not need any respect.
>
> Right now, he's pissing and moaning in comp.unix.questions because someone
> made an unexcusable offense of posting a question using his first name only:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.unix.questions/msg/ a68702750370bacd
>
> The longer you defend this certified kookbag, the more ridiculous you only
> look, yourself.

if I can believe you, I already look incredibly ridiculous anyway, so I
can't see why not go a bit further and try and defend the 'kookbag'...

> The only reason why sometimes he posts something sensible is the same reason
> why a broken clock gives the right time, twice a day.

only if it's a 12-segmented analogue clock. besides, some broken clocks only
show the right time once a day, depending on how exactly they are broken ;)

>>>>> I am superior to you in at least one way: I have not surrendered my self
>>>>> control to a mind-altering substance. That should count for something,
>>>>> shouldn't it?
>>>>
>>>> what are you talking about?
>>>
>>> I'll wait until you're in the hospital, on a ventilator. Then I'll explain
>>> it to you.
>>
>> ok, I know now.. pipesmoking _is_ the safest form of nicotine-usage there is
>> though... so that shouldn't be too much of a problem :)
>
> It's not the nicotine that cooks your lungs.

i didn't say it did... but (besides patches) pipe-smoking is the safest way
to get a dose of nicotine .. because almost every other way of getting your
(my) dose of nicotine is much worse for your body...

Theo

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 02:16:06 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 02:52:57 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
>
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>>>> just turning my words around. like, I never said that I look up to alan. you
>>>
>>> You were fawning all over him.
>>
>> fawning?
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faw n&x=13&y=13
>
> 1 : to show affection -- used especially of a dog

ah ok. I was never fawning over him...

>>>> said I do, but all I said was that he needed some respect.
>>>
>>> Beavis does not need any respect.
>>>
>>> Right now, he's pissing and moaning in comp.unix.questions because someone
>>> made an unexcusable offense of posting a question using his first name only:
>>>
>>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.unix.questions/msg/ a68702750370bacd
>>>
>>> The longer you defend this certified kookbag, the more ridiculous you only
>>> look, yourself.
>>
>> if I can believe you, I already look incredibly ridiculous anyway, so I
>> can't see why not go a bit further and try and defend the 'kookbag'...
>
> The long road to recovery starts with a single step.

you sound like an anti-smoking commercial ...

>> i didn't say it did... but (besides patches) pipe-smoking is the safest way
>> to get a dose of nicotine .. because almost every other way of getting your
>> (my) dose of nicotine is much worse for your body...
>
> Ok, so in twenty years you won't have to have your entire lung removed.
> Just the half of it, and you can use the other half for another ten years,
> before it has to be cut out.

and by then I will be long dead due to a high-speed car accident or
something ...

Theo

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 03:51:42 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 11:12:38 von kd6lvw

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Steve Baker wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:17:23 -0600, Fred Viles
> wrote:
> >But that fact does not in
> >turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
> >technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
> >way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.
>
> Wouldn't something like Domain Keys make sending challenges
> non-abusive when things check out? Whether that would ultimately be
> useful is a different issue.

Using "domain keys," you already know that the sender really was the sender.
What purpose wound the challenge be for in that case? Either the message is
known to be spam and discarded (or other action) or it is not spam (as
determined by one's filter) and should be delivered. [In the case it's "missed
spam," it should still be delivered in order to inform the filter maintainer
that the filter needs adjustment.]

That will not do anything to eliminate "authenticated spam." Nor will that
prevent spam from hijacked accounts (mailboxes). All it will do is reject (at
best) messages which have the sender faked. Not all spammers do that.

Dk doesn't change the primary flaw of C/R behind a spam filter:

If one knows that the message is NOT spam per one's filter, why does
it need to be challenged in the first place?

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 04.02.2005 19:52:04 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>> you sound like an anti-smoking commercial ...
>
> And, what's wrong with anti-smoking commercials?

they work on smokers' nerves .. and I don't see the point. let people who
want to smoke smoke, and everybody will be happy. except the anti-smokers,
but they don't deserve to be happy.

> You don't expect to live past 50? How sad.

have you ever driven outside the US?

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 05.02.2005 03:26:16 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 05.02.2005 08:02:36 von DevilsPGD

In message "D. Stussy"
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Steve Baker wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:17:23 -0600, Fred Viles
>> wrote:
>> >But that fact does not in
>> >turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
>> >technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
>> >way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.
>>
>> Wouldn't something like Domain Keys make sending challenges
>> non-abusive when things check out? Whether that would ultimately be
>> useful is a different issue.
>
>Using "domain keys," you already know that the sender really was the sender.
>What purpose wound the challenge be for in that case? Either the message is
>known to be spam and discarded (or other action) or it is not spam (as
>determined by one's filter) and should be delivered. [In the case it's "missed
>spam," it should still be delivered in order to inform the filter maintainer
>that the filter needs adjustment.]
>
>That will not do anything to eliminate "authenticated spam." Nor will that
>prevent spam from hijacked accounts (mailboxes). All it will do is reject (at
>best) messages which have the sender faked. Not all spammers do that.
>
>Dk doesn't change the primary flaw of C/R behind a spam filter:
>
> If one knows that the message is NOT spam per one's filter, why does
> it need to be challenged in the first place?

The purpose of C/R is not to identify spam vs non-spam, but rather, to
identify whether or not the sender is human.

--
I know what "Cheese" is, and I know what "Whiz" is...

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc (5xx is not the solution)

am 05.02.2005 08:43:44 von Jari Aalto

* Wed 2005-02-02 sethb AT panix.com (Seth Breidbart) comp.mail.misc
| >That's right. The relevant argument against C/R systems is that
| >*any* misdirected challenges are collateral spam and inherently
| >bad.
|
| True. But *fewer* misdirected challenges are less bad than *more*
| misdirected challenges.

But it's still a snowball effect. I agree with D. Stussy who said in
this thread 2005-01-24 earlier:

The problem is that ANY C/R message is spam amplification. ONE
is too many. The fact that some spam slips through means ADJUST
THE FILTER. It is not a license to spam others via C-R.

The C-R systems, if there is any use for them - should be banned from
users and only limited to help desk or other critical applications, where
the correct delivery of the message is of high priority.

| If your machine connects to mine and sends misdirected challenges when
| mine does something acceptable (such as reply "550" to your attempt to
| send), that's your abuse, not mine.

A side track. I would argue that using 55x, though perfectly legal in
every essence of the RFCs, is becoming the spam itself.

Replacing the "bounces" with "MTA 5xx" does not make the Internet work
better. I don't know for others, but I have configured my MTA to
"drop" and not send 5xx at all. This is against RFCs, but the RFCs did
not foresee the present Internet and it's problems.

For spam, virus, misdirected C-R, I see no other sensible action that:

accept and drop the message

| >>>Hence, if you accept that C/R systems are abusive at all,
| >> C/R per se needn't be.
| >Maybe, but I can't see any way to construct a non-abusive system,
| >nor have I seen one described (so far).
|
| Yes, you have. Using the 550 text to send the challenge is
| non-abusive.
| ...
| Don't _send_ any challenges. Use 55x responses instead. If you open
| the connection to me, my response isn't abuse.

I would say, tha in practice "5xx" makes it no better. The DSN can
return to innocent third party as well. The problem is the "MAIL FROM"
to which not even MTA can do no verifications other than ident (as
can't a C-R system). Ident/VRFY is usually no longer allowed in most well
protected MTAs

Jari

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 05.02.2005 16:00:43 von Theo Vermeulen

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 06.02.2005 01:47:37 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 06.02.2005 02:03:38 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>>>> except the anti-smokers,
>>>> but they don't deserve to be happy.
>>>
>>> And who exactly died, and made you king?
>>
>> look, people who take away basic rights of people don't deserve shit
>
> Getting others to breathe poison is not a basic right.

well, if you enjoy stressed out personalities, I understand how you don't
like smoking. but take me for instance, I dmoke in my bedroom and in open
air, so nobody get's bothered by it. and most pipesmokers, when asked not to
smoke, will put their pipe aside. pipesmokers are good people

>>>>> You don't expect to live past 50? How sad.
>>>>
>>>> have you ever driven outside the US?
>>>
>>> No. So what?
>>
>> ahh, well, that would explain why you think it's sad ...
>
> Yes. Over here many people drive, who are older than 50.

here as well, which makes it so dangerous :) no really, in comparision to
europe, american people drive as dangerous like puppies look mean

Theo

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 06.02.2005 02:46:52 von Sam

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 06.02.2005 22:22:39 von kd6lvw

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message "D. Stussy"
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Steve Baker wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:17:23 -0600, Fred Viles
> >> wrote:
> >> >But that fact does not in
> >> >turn support an argument that a non-abusive C/R system is
> >> >technically possible. If you want to make that argument, the best
> >> >way to support it would be to actually describe an example system.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't something like Domain Keys make sending challenges
> >> non-abusive when things check out? Whether that would ultimately be
> >> useful is a different issue.
> >
> >Using "domain keys," you already know that the sender really was the sender.
> >What purpose wound the challenge be for in that case? Either the message is
> >known to be spam and discarded (or other action) or it is not spam (as
> >determined by one's filter) and should be delivered. [In the case it's "missed
> >spam," it should still be delivered in order to inform the filter maintainer
> >that the filter needs adjustment.]
> >
> >That will not do anything to eliminate "authenticated spam." Nor will that
> >prevent spam from hijacked accounts (mailboxes). All it will do is reject (at
> >best) messages which have the sender faked. Not all spammers do that.
> >
> >Dk doesn't change the primary flaw of C/R behind a spam filter:
> >
> > If one knows that the message is NOT spam per one's filter, why does
> > it need to be challenged in the first place?
>
> The purpose of C/R is not to identify spam vs non-spam, but rather, to
> identify whether or not the sender is human.

And you concluded that how? NO ONE has ever made such a statement previously.
Regardless, I bet that there are auto-responders that can process some
challenges correctly - and any one of those will disprove your conclusion.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 07.02.2005 06:41:45 von Theo Vermeulen

Sam wrote:
> Theo Vermeulen writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Theo Vermeulen writes:

>> well, if you enjoy stressed out personalities, I understand how you don't
>> like smoking. but take me for instance, I dmoke in my bedroom and in open
>> air, so nobody get's bothered by it. and most pipesmokers, when asked not to
>> smoke, will put their pipe aside. pipesmokers are good people
>
> That's fine. Provided that in open air you keep enough distance from other
> people.

yup

>>>>>>> You don't expect to live past 50? How sad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have you ever driven outside the US?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. So what?
>>>>
>>>> ahh, well, that would explain why you think it's sad ...
>>>
>>> Yes. Over here many people drive, who are older than 50.
>>
>> here as well, which makes it so dangerous :) no really, in comparision to
>> europe, american people drive as dangerous like puppies look mean
>
> Facts disagree with your worldview. Insurance rates don't lie. Insurance
> companies would go out of business unless their rates correspond to the
> actual risk.
>
> The fact that the highest premium -- at least in the US -- are paid by
> drivers under the age of 25, is sufficient proof that drivers in this age
> category are the most dangerous drivers, and cause the most wrecks.
>
> On the other hand, rates for older people are low, reflecting the low
> accident rate in that age group.

although the rates here are higher for <25yo, they are not responsable for
the most deadly accidents. that might just be one of the main differences
between the US and europe. in europe, people don't drive like pussies, and
the whole thing gets more dangerous.

oh, and mind the smiley in "here as well, which makes it so dangerous _:)_"

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 15:23:19 von Frank Slootweg

[Very late response due to extended absence. Feel free to ignore/
respond.]

On January 26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> >> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation request to a
> >> (possibly or probably) forged sender.
> >
> > I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many cases the
> >sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN email message because
> >it *cannot* "verify its input" (see below).
>
> How can "many cases" be as bad as "every time"?

As other posters have pointed out, we are not judging misdirected
challenges by their quantity. *Any* misdirected challenge is abuse, i.e.
"many cases" is indeed as bad as "every time".

> >> I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
> >> do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
> >> that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
> >> verify its input.
> >
> > With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the sender in
> >the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life systems, such checks
> >are often not possible.
>
> If it's forged, at least the sending MTA knows who to blame.

No it (often) doesn't. See below.

> > For example my primary MSP (== my ISP) believes (read: *has to*
> >believe) whatever I (read: my MUA) put in the MAIL FROM: command. It has
> >to believe it, otherwise I couldn't use it for sending mail from my
> >*other* email addresses (and I *have* to use my MSP's/ISP's MTA because
> >they have closed outgoing port 25 (don't go there, it's not debatable)).
> >They have no way of knowing *who* (i.e. which email-address/mailbox) is
> >actually issuing the MAIL FROM: command. The only thing which my MSP/ISP
> >knows is that the *subscription* of a person named Frank Slootweg is
> >used, not if Frank Slootweg himself is using it. So what is the MSP to
> >do? Send the DSN to my mailbox? I'm sure that my wife won't like that if
> >her mail fails and I get the DSN (and possibly/probably a copy of the
> >failed private mail). As has been discussed in these groups (or at least
> >in cmm), what goes for my MSP/ISP goes for many other similar MSPs/ISPs
> >and also for 'pure' MSPs like Yahoo! Mail, etc..
> >
> > So let's face it, as has been discussed in these groups several times
> >before, there *is no* clearly defined concept of 'sender', so let's not
> >pretend there is, and let's not pretend that MTA should (or even must)
> >"verify their input"/'sender', because (often) they *can't*.
>
> It can, if necessary, send the DSN to the MAIL FROM address, with a
> header line like "Frank Slootweg was logged in and used this address
> as the MAIL FROM for a message that got rejected. If he isn't
> entitled to do that, please notify ."
>
> It knows who to blame, the recipient knows when to blame, the
> combination causes the blame to land when and where appropriate.

Please read my (above quoted) response. I am not "logged in" and the
MTA does not know *me* (by name), so I *can not* give such information
in the DSN. Do not confuse what my *MSP/ISP* *could* *theoretically*
know/determine with what the *MTA* *does* actually know. AFAIK, the MTA
only knows that a 'legal' (i.e. one of the ISP's customers') computer
has connected to it. Nothing more.

*Theoretically*, the MTA could use my IP to find out whose
subscription is used and use the contact information of that
subscription, but that would give the stated problems, i.e. referring to
my name when it's really my wife who is using the MTA.

> >> Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
> >> will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
> >> through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
> >> generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
> >> causing spam to be sent in the first case?
> >
> > No, because in the first case you have no other option (i.e. you can
> >not deliver the message and dropping it would plainly be wrong).
> >
> > In the second case you could, and IMO you should, just deliver the
> >message and let the recipient handle it. Yes, that might not be fair on
> >the recipient, but it isn't fair on the forged sender either.
>
> The recipient either is me or pays me (or is someone I'm doing a favor
> for); as such, his wishes have priority over those of some unknown MTA
> trying to get email that is probably unwanted into his mailbox.

We have heard these arguments from C-R proponents (I know you are not
a C-R proponent). We don't buy them, or at least I don't. Spam is spam,
whatever the 'justification', and misdirected challenges are spam.

> > As someone put it, by (challenge) rejecting (or bouncing) it, you
> >basically *delegate* the responsibility for *your* spam filtering to
> >an *unknown* party, and you *will* have to accept *their*
> >decisions. I.e. if your misdirected challenge gets to me and I
> >respond to it, you can't complain, because you have, on beforehand,
> >put your fate in my hands.
>
> My challenge goes to the sending MTA. If it misfires, then I can
> block it. It an entire ISP loses out, then their MTA should do a
> better job of not sending DSNs to forged MAIL FROM addresses.

"do a better job": Not always doable. See above.

> > Bottom line: C-R is stupid and abusive, whether by bouncing or by
> >55x rejecting.
>
> Again, how is it more abusive than "55x no such user"?

See above.

> Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 16:06:36 von Frank Slootweg

[Very late response due to extended absence.]

On January 22, Fred Viles wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote in news:41f163fb$0
> $91950$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> >...
> >> The problem (as I see it) is that when you jump every thread
> >> where
> >> someone mentions rejecting mail at SMTP time to "debunk" it, you
> >> flatly state that one should not reject mail for policy reasons.
> >
> > I never have stated that. If you think otherwise: cite
>
> OK. This very thread is a good example. Quoting from your *first*
> entry in this thread:
>
> Frank Slootweg wrote in news:41ed0818$0
> $51058$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl:
>
> > axlq wrote:
> >...
> >> * It's good to reject suspected spam with a bypass method in the
> >> rejection; but that must be done by the MTA, not a user's
> >> delivery agent.
> >
> > No, it isn't ("good to reject suspected spam with a bypass
> > method in the rejection; This fallacy has been debunked
> > many times in this group. ...
>
> Re-read what axlq actually wrote (which you quoted). Re-read what
> you wrote in your reply. Compare to how I described it above.
>
> axlq went on to say:
>
> >> Only clueless twits think C-R is a solution.
>
> which you snipped. On review, do you still think you were correct
> to conclude that axlq was saying that it's good to reject
> *legitimate* mail at SMTP time, as a C/R technique?

No, I don't think so and said so in my earlier response/apology
, which you apparently
missed:

Me> So you guys were talking about rejecting suspected spam while I was
Me> (thinking :-) I was) talking about (challenge-) rejecting legitimate
Me> mail. No wonder we didn't agree! :-)

But *my* point was that you wrote:

You> The problem (as I see it) is that when you jump every thread where
You> someone mentions rejecting mail at SMTP time to "debunk" it, you flatly
You> state that one should not reject mail for policy reasons.

To which I responded:

Me> I never have stated that. If you think otherwise: cite (i.e. Google
Me> Groups URL).

I.e. I have never "flatly state[d] that one should not reject [any]
mail for policy reasons". If you didn't imply the "[any]" bit, then
*that* is the reason for this bit of confusion/'disagreement'.

Bottom line: I agree that there are valid reasons for rejecting *some*
mail (like "no such user"), but do not consider *challenge-rejecting
legitimate* mail to be an acceptable/accepted policy.

I hope this solves (part of the) confusion.

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 16:20:54 von Frank Slootweg

[Very late response due to extended absence.]

On January 26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
[much deleted]
["he" = AC]
> You'll note he doesn't actually _use_ his system.

I have seen others saying similar things and wonder why they/you say
that, because I have proof that he *does* use his system (i.e. it sent
me a challenge (when I did some tests)). So does he *no longer* use it,
or not always use it, or other?

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 20:04:20 von sethb

In article <42384157$0$39453$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>On January 26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> In article <41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> >> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> >> A 55x reject is never as bad as _sending_ a confirmation request to a
>> >> (possibly or probably) forged sender.
>> > I think it *is* as bad, considering that, as I said, in many cases the
>> >sending MTA has no other option than to send a DSN email message because
>> >it *cannot* "verify its input" (see below).
>> How can "many cases" be as bad as "every time"?
> As other posters have pointed out, we are not judging misdirected
>challenges by their quantity. *Any* misdirected challenge is abuse, i.e.
>"many cases" is indeed as bad as "every time".

Each of "many cases" is as bad as each of "every time", agreed. But
there are more of the latter, so in total, they're worse.

>> >> I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
>> >> do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
>> >> that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
>> >> verify its input.
>> > With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the sender in
>> >the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life systems, such checks
>> >are often not possible.
>> If it's forged, at least the sending MTA knows who to blame.
> No it (often) doesn't. See below.

The MTA shouldn't accept mail from unknowns; that's being some sort of
open relay (or at least failure of logging).

>> It can, if necessary, send the DSN to the MAIL FROM address, with a
>> header line like "Frank Slootweg was logged in and used this address
>> as the MAIL FROM for a message that got rejected. If he isn't
>> entitled to do that, please notify ."
>>
>> It knows who to blame, the recipient knows when to blame, the
>> combination causes the blame to land when and where appropriate.
>
> Please read my (above quoted) response. I am not "logged in" and the
>MTA does not know *me* (by name),

Why does the MTA accept the message? Either someone is logged in, or
the IP address is local, or something like that. In any of those
cases, it ought to be able to determine who is responsible for the
message.

> so I *can not* give such information
>in the DSN. Do not confuse what my *MSP/ISP* *could* *theoretically*
>know/determine with what the *MTA* *does* actually know. AFAIK, the MTA
>only knows that a 'legal' (i.e. one of the ISP's customers') computer
>has connected to it. Nothing more.

Then the problem is on the MSP/ISP's side.

> *Theoretically*, the MTA could use my IP to find out whose
>subscription is used and use the contact information of that
>subscription, but that would give the stated problems, i.e. referring to
>my name when it's really my wife who is using the MTA.

That's between you and your wife. I would consider your MTA sending
you a message because of your wife's email message much less abusive
than Alan Connor's MTA sending you a message because of a virus.

>> >> Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
>> >> will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
>> >> through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
>> >> generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
>> >> causing spam to be sent in the first case?
>> > No, because in the first case you have no other option (i.e. you can
>> >not deliver the message and dropping it would plainly be wrong).
>> > In the second case you could, and IMO you should, just deliver the
>> >message and let the recipient handle it. Yes, that might not be fair on
>> >the recipient, but it isn't fair on the forged sender either.
>> The recipient either is me or pays me (or is someone I'm doing a favor
>> for); as such, his wishes have priority over those of some unknown MTA
>> trying to get email that is probably unwanted into his mailbox.
> We have heard these arguments from C-R proponents (I know you are not
>a C-R proponent). We don't buy them, or at least I don't. Spam is spam,
>whatever the 'justification', and misdirected challenges are spam.

But I'm not the one misdirecting the challenge. I'm giving it to the
MTA that connected to me. If that MTA misdirects it, that isn't my
problem or my fault.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 20:05:33 von sethb

In article <42384ed6$0$22498$dbd45001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Frank Slootweg wrote:
>[Very late response due to extended absence.]
>
>On January 26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
>[much deleted]
>["he" = AC]
>> You'll note he doesn't actually _use_ his system.
>
> I have seen others saying similar things and wonder why they/you say
>that, because I have proof that he *does* use his system (i.e. it sent
>me a challenge (when I did some tests)). So does he *no longer* use it,
>or not always use it, or other?

My understanding is that Earthlink told him to cut it out after
getting complaints about misdirected challenges.

Seth

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 16.03.2005 20:22:17 von dch

Seth Breidbart opined with great erudition:

>
> The MTA shouldn't accept mail from unknowns; that's being some
> sort of open relay (or at least failure of logging).
>
The problem - perhaps Postfix specific - is that an "unknown"
will sometimes resolve to a host but is inconsistent. Here's an
example:

$ host 12.149.37.200
Name: 250owa1.lincolnedu.com
Address: 12.149.37.200

but:

$ host 250owa1.lincolnedu.com
250owa1.lincolnedu.com A 12.149.37.7

Postfix will reject this if reject_unknown_client is configured.
Too many false positives.
--
Displayed Email Address is a SPAM TRAP
Kill Spam at the Source: http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.htm
Today's Spam Trap Adds: http://www.TQMcube.com/BlockedToday
RBLDNSD HowTo: http://www.TQMcube.com/rbldnsd.htm

Re: Welcome to Comp Mail Misc

am 17.03.2005 11:00:44 von Frank Slootweg

Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <42384157$0$39453$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >On January 26, Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >> In article <41f00a71$0$18647$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> >Seth Breidbart wrote:
> >> >> In article <41ef88a6$0$91943$18b6e80@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >> >> Frank Slootweg wrote:
[deleted]
> >> >> I'm putting the burden on the MTA that tried to transfer it to me to
> >> >> do more work to get it to me, presumably by telling its user how to do
> >> >> that. It isn't my fault if that MTA sends spam because it doesn't
> >> >> verify its input.
> >> > With "verify its input" I assume you mean verifying that the sender in
> >> >the MAIL FROM: isn't forged. In todays real-life systems, such checks
> >> >are often not possible.
> >> If it's forged, at least the sending MTA knows who to blame.
> > No it (often) doesn't. See below.
>
> The MTA shouldn't accept mail from unknowns; that's being some sort of
> open relay (or at least failure of logging).
>
> >> It can, if necessary, send the DSN to the MAIL FROM address, with a
> >> header line like "Frank Slootweg was logged in and used this address
> >> as the MAIL FROM for a message that got rejected. If he isn't
> >> entitled to do that, please notify ."
> >>
> >> It knows who to blame, the recipient knows when to blame, the
> >> combination causes the blame to land when and where appropriate.
> >
> > Please read my (above quoted) response. I am not "logged in" and the
> >MTA does not know *me* (by name),
>
> Why does the MTA accept the message? Either someone is logged in, or
> the IP address is local, or something like that. In any of those
> cases, it ought to be able to determine who is responsible for the
> message.

In my (example) case, the IP address is indeed "local", i.e. the IP
address of one of the ISP's customers. "ought to" is (in my opinion) an
opinion, not a requirement. As I explained (quoted below), the MSP/ISP
theoretically could determine "who is responsible", but the fact is that
they don't and, AFAIK, there is no RFC (etc.) which says that they have
to.

So it all boils down to opinion, yours 'versus' mine. I think 'your'
MTA should not challenge-reject mail. You think that 'my' MTA/MSP/ISP
should do more to verify the input to the MTA. We are both entitled to
our opinion, but they are just that, opinions.

> > so I *can not* give such information
> >in the DSN. Do not confuse what my *MSP/ISP* *could* *theoretically*
> >know/determine with what the *MTA* *does* actually know. AFAIK, the MTA
> >only knows that a 'legal' (i.e. one of the ISP's customers') computer
> >has connected to it. Nothing more.
>
> Then the problem is on the MSP/ISP's side.

In your opinion. The MSP/ISP currently doesn't (read: *can't*) know
which MAIL FROM addresses are valid (i.e. not forged) and frankly I
don't *want* them to know, because it's none of their business, which
other (incoming) MSPs I use, let alone with which addresses. So until
the authentication problem is solved - probably shortly after that hot
place freezes over -, the "problem on the MSP/ISP's side" *can not* be
solved.

> > *Theoretically*, the MTA could use my IP to find out whose
> >subscription is used and use the contact information of that
> >subscription, but that would give the stated problems, i.e. referring to
> >my name when it's really my wife who is using the MTA.
>
> That's between you and your wife. I would consider your MTA sending
> you a message because of your wife's email message much less abusive
> than Alan Connor's MTA sending you a message because of a virus.

Which only goes to show that you don't know my wife! :-)

> >> >> Consider the case where I reply "55x no such user"; the sending MTA
> >> >> will do the exact same thing as where I reply "55x To get mail
> >> >> through, scratch your left ear with your right hand" (modulo
> >> >> generating a slightly different message). Does that make me guilty of
> >> >> causing spam to be sent in the first case?
> >> > No, because in the first case you have no other option (i.e. you can
> >> >not deliver the message and dropping it would plainly be wrong).
> >> > In the second case you could, and IMO you should, just deliver the
> >> >message and let the recipient handle it. Yes, that might not be fair on
> >> >the recipient, but it isn't fair on the forged sender either.
> >> The recipient either is me or pays me (or is someone I'm doing a favor
> >> for); as such, his wishes have priority over those of some unknown MTA
> >> trying to get email that is probably unwanted into his mailbox.
> > We have heard these arguments from C-R proponents (I know you are not
> >a C-R proponent). We don't buy them, or at least I don't. Spam is spam,
> >whatever the 'justification', and misdirected challenges are spam.
>
> But I'm not the one misdirecting the challenge. I'm giving it to the
> MTA that connected to me. If that MTA misdirects it, that isn't my
> problem or my fault.

Let's agree to 'disagree' on that one. Thanks (once more) for sharing
your views. I really appreciate them.

> Seth