Lock failure on "spamc.lock"

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Mike <MikeV05@privacy.net> (was: Lock failure on "spamc.lock")

On 27 Feb 2005 16:38:15 -0600, Mike wrote:



You have the X-No-Archive: yes header and are using a common
first name as an alias.

There's nothing in your headers that would allow anyone to trace
you.

What are you hiding from and why?

Are you just a nutcase or a spammer or a troll?

Your headers:

Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink .net
!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu
!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscene!no via!novia!novia
!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail
From: Mike
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Lock failure on "spamc.lock"
Date: 27 Feb 2005 16:38:15 -0600
Lines: 40
Message-ID:
X-no-archive: yes
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
Xref: news.earthlink.net comp.mail.misc:71371
X-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:43:47 PST
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)


endquote

Fuck off.

AC

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.00) (was Re: Mike <MikeV05@p

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-32067-1109548999-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Beavis writes:

> On 27 Feb 2005 16:38:15 -0600, Mike wrote:
>
>
>
> You have the X-No-Archive: yes header and are using a common
> first name as an alias.
>
> There's nothing in your headers that would allow anyone to trace
> you.
>
> What are you hiding from and why?

It's time for another edition of the Beavis FAQ.

FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.00)

This is a canonical list of questions that Beavis never answers. This FAQ is
posted on a semi-regular schedule, as circumstances warrant.

For more information on Beavis, see:

http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml

Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silent
on the subjects enumerated below. His response, if any, usually consists of
replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-reading
software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's
making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. For more information
see question #9 below.

============================================================ ================

1) If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do
all these bounces everyone reports getting (for spam with their return
address was forged onto) come from?

2) If your Challenge-Response filter is so great, why do you still munge
when posting to Usenet?

3) Do you still believe that rsh is the best solution for remote access?
(http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6)

4) What is your evidence that everyone who disagrees with you, and thinks
that you're a moron, is a spammer?

5) How many different individuals do you believe really post to
comp.mail.misc? What is the evidence for your paranoid belief that everyone,
except you, who posts here is some unknown arch-nemesis of yours?

6) How many times, or how often, do you believe is necessary to announce
that you do not read someone's posts? What is your reason for making these
regularly-scheduled proclamations? Who do you believe is so interested in
keeping track of your Usenet-reading habits?

7) When was the last time you saw Bigfoot (http://tinyurl.com/23r3f)?

8) If your C-R system employs a spam filter so that it won't challenge spam,
then why does any of the mail that passes the filter, and is thusly presumed
not to be spam, need to be challenged?

9) You claim that the software you use to read Usenet magically identifies
any post that makes fun of you. In http://tinyurl.com/3swes you explain
that "What I get in my newsreader is a mock post with fake headers and no
body, except for the first parts of the Subject and From headers."

Since your headers indicate that you use slrn and, as far as anyone knows,
the stock slrn doesn't work that way, is this interesting patch to slrn
available for download anywhere?



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-32067-1109548999-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

iD8DBQBCIl/Hx9p3GYHlUOIRAofgAJsF/VY2C9iIGtMbQ4Kw6DAsuKCiRwCf aFjD
LgmiV+iB9Ef9rKD93EZgtVw=
=39qB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-32067-1109548999-0002--

Re: Mike <MikeV05@privacy.net> (was: Lock failure on "spamc.lock")

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:27:17 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

>What are you hiding from and why?
>
>Are you just a nutcase or a spammer or a troll?

Beavis (aka zzzzzz@xxx.yyy; ), are you losing your mind? He's
obviously just another "Sam" trying to trick you into posting something
stupid so he can mock you some more. And you fell for it.

Steve "Sam" Baker

Re: Mike <MikeV05@privacy.net> (was: Lock failure on "spamc.lock")

*** Message-ID:

*** Body Deleted by Newsfilter (procmail v3.22): troll-score 61

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

Any score over 50 and the body doesn't make it to my newsreader.

Good. Another idiot to killfile. Two in one day.


AC

Re: Lock failure on "spamc.lock"

On 27 Feb 2005 Mike (MikeV05@privacy.net) wrote:
>
> :0fw: spamc.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamc
>
> I then get in my procmail log
>
> procmail: Lock failure on "spamc.lock"
>
> If I remove spamc.lock then I get
>
> procmail: Couldn't determine implicit lockfile from "spamc"
> procmail: Lock failure on ".lock"
>
> What do I need to do to correct this apparent lock problem with procmail?

Remove the 2nd colon in the :0 line! I discuss this in my
Procmail Quick Start in this section:



Here is the relevant part:

# If you pipe messages through spamc instead of spamassassin, do not use
# a lockfile. Instead, comment out the previous spamassassin recipe and
# uncomment this spamc recipe. And make sure you do not use an implicit
# or explicit lockfile, i.e., no second colon (:) on the :0 line!
## :0 E fw
## | $HOME/SAusr/local/bin/spamc


Hope this helps,
Nancy

--
Infinite Ink:
Procmail Quick Start:
IMAP Service Providers:
All About Pine:

Re: Lock failure on "spamc.lock"

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Mike <MikeV05@privacy.net> (was: Lock failure on "spamc.lock")

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)