email verification

Hi,

My client is looking for the following email solution (or something like
it):


We want to check each email being sent by some people to go via a "legal
expert" person to check and see if anything the person has written in the
email is dangerous to the company. What this "legal expert" should be doing
is just accepting or denying an email by reading it and clicking on "accept
/ deny" or so. The company is only 20 people big of which about 14 people
need to be checked (if possible).

This may seem extraordinary to you, but we want to look into it anyway.
Having one person avoiding legal battles may be cheaper than running the
actual legal battles ;-)




Thanks a lot,
Rogier Schoenmakers

Re: email verification

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Rogier
Schoenmakers" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My client is looking for the following email solution (or
> something like it):

Your "client"? What are they hiring you for if you can't do
something as simple as this?

>
>
> We want to check each email being sent by some people to go via
> a "legal expert" person to check and see if anything the person
> has written in the email is dangerous to the company. What this
> "legal expert" should be doing is just accepting or denying an
> email by reading it and clicking on "accept / deny" or so. The
> company is only 20 people big of which about 14 people need to
> be checked (if possible).
>
> This may seem extraordinary to you, but we want to look into
> it anyway. Having one person avoiding legal battles may be
> cheaper than running the actual legal battles ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot, Rogier Schoenmakers
>
>
>

Once again: Why are they hiring you if you don't even know enough
to describe the mail setup at this alleged company's offices?

If you are going to claim to be a professional representing
someone, then you need to provide links that establish your
credentials.

Too many trolls, spammers, and crackers try to use us here,
hiding behind stupid stories and false IDs.

[Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his
many aliases, nor any responses to them. Before this
jerk's posts (and any responses to them) reach my
newsreader, the Subjects are replaced by XXXXXXX.]

AC

--
http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/

Re: email verification

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-15645-1120826489-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Usenet Beavis writes:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Rogier
> Schoenmakers" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My client is looking for the following email solution (or
>> something like it):
>
> Your "client"? What are they hiring you for if you can't do
> something as simple as this?

Ok, Beavis, if you say this is so simple then you shouldn't have any
problems explaining exactly how you would go about putting something like
this in place.

>> This may seem extraordinary to you, but we want to look into
>> it anyway. Having one person avoiding legal battles may be
>> cheaper than running the actual legal battles ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot, Rogier Schoenmakers
>>
>>
>>
>
> Once again: Why are they hiring you if you don't even know enough
> to describe the mail setup at this alleged company's offices?

Once again, Beavis: why are you still refusing to answer your official FAQ
questions?

> If you are going to claim to be a professional representing
> someone, then you need to provide links that establish your
> credentials.

Ok, Beavis, would you mind posting links that establish _your_ credentials
as a big E-mail expert?

> Too many trolls, spammers, and crackers try to use us here,
> hiding behind stupid stories and false IDs.

Beavis, if you want to rent a PO box, I'll be more than glad to send you a
gift order of one large box of industrial-strength tin foil.

> [Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his
> many aliases, nor any responses to them. Before this
> jerk's posts (and any responses to them) reach my
> newsreader, the Subjects are replaced by XXXXXXX.]

THE BEAVIS BULL
(sung to the theme song from "The Brady Bunch")

This is a story,
Of a kook named Beavis,
Who was spewing all his nonsense all day long,
Everyone knew it's full of bull,
There's no doubt,
It's 100% all wrong.

This is a story,
Of endless laughter,
At all the nonsense our pet Beavis ever spewed.
He's as nutty as they come,
On alt.kooks,
But he won't read this post.

And when one day our pet Beavis blew his cookies,
With his biggest kookfart known up to now.
Then the truth, has finally dawned on everyone,
That our Beavis is full of bullshit all the time.

The Beavis bull,
The Beavis bull,
That's the way
We all laugh
At all his bull.





--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-15645-1120826489-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

iD8DBQBCznR5x9p3GYHlUOIRAju5AJ0RLIP7cJhk0bIjxTZS2zPC0gtLlwCc CHi0
bkJwDgRHQNpBKHZ7pz56GJg=
=dMgM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-15645-1120826489-0002--

Re: email verification

Rogier Schoenmakers
owner of ITSIreland
for D & K Partnership, a division of Devona Ireland Ltd.

Naturally enough nobody is going to use a descriptive email address in a
newsgroup...

The current mail setup I'm not really worried about since we're pretty
flexible if we find a solution. If you tell me: use exchange and bla, that
fine, if you say use Domino, we'll consider that and if you're thinking: I
develop this application for you, I'd consider that also.

better?

Re: email verification

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Rogier
Schoenmakers" wrote:

> Rogier Schoenmakers owner of ITSIreland for D & K Partnership,
> a division of Devona Ireland Ltd.
>
> Naturally enough nobody is going to use a descriptive email
> address in a newsgroup...
>
> The current mail setup I'm not really worried about since
> we're pretty flexible if we find a solution. If you tell
> me: use exchange and bla, that fine, if you say use Domino,
> we'll consider that and if you're thinking: I develop this
> application for you, I'd consider that also.
>
> better?
>
>

Sort of. For the moment. You don't need anything for this
but that old workhorse, procmail. This is a matter of simple
scripting.

Procmail can filter incoming and/or outgoing mail and operates
independently of any MTA (SMPT server), accepting mail from
it or sending mail to it. A _very_ useful utility with a
straightforward syntax for the filter scripts clearly defined in
the man pages.

In the Unix world it is referred to as an MDA (Mail Delivery
Agent).

There are any number of possible variations on the following
theme:

Any mail sent by the employees on the list would be routed to
a mailbox belonging to the legal department. They'd look through
it, perhaps do some editing, and put a particular string at
the bottom of each mail and send it off.

Procmail would read the string and decide whether to return
it to the sender or mail it to the original addressee.

Custom headers of the X-whatever variety could be appended
to the mails at any point in this process. (For this you
would need formail, which is a part of the standard procmail
package.)

Following me?

I know procmail pretty well (as do thousands of others, pro
and amateur), and I know that it is available for Windows,
but I do not know Windows. Procmail has its origins in
Unix, and I run Linux which is a free Unix clone.

http://www.procmail.org/
ftp.procmail.org

This job is so simple that I recommend you just find
someone who knws procmail and windows, and they'll
fix you right up.

[Note: I don't read the posts of "Sam" or any of his
many aliases, nor any responses to them. Before this
jerk's posts (and any responses to them) reach my
newsreader, the Subjects are replaced by XXXXXXX.]

Hope this helps,

AC

Re: email verification

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-16295-1120841641-0001
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

Usenet Beavis writes:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Rogier
> Schoenmakers" wrote:
>
>> The current mail setup I'm not really worried about since
>> we're pretty flexible if we find a solution. If you tell
>> me: use exchange and bla, that fine, if you say use Domino,
>> we'll consider that and if you're thinking: I develop this
>> application for you, I'd consider that also.
>>
>> better?
>
> Sort of. For the moment. You don't need anything for this

For what, Beavis?

> but that old workhorse, procmail. This is a matter of simple
> scripting.

Don't tell me we're about to see another demonstration of Beavis's procmail
skills.

> Procmail can filter incoming and/or outgoing mail and operates
> independently of any MTA (SMPT server), accepting mail from
> it or sending mail to it. A _very_ useful utility with a
> straightforward syntax

It's only looks straightforward if you're on crack.

> There are any number of possible variations on the following
> theme:
>
> Any mail sent by the employees on the list would be routed to
> a mailbox belonging to the legal department. They'd look through
> it, perhaps do some editing, and put a particular string at
> the bottom of each mail and send it off.

Ok, Beavis: the legal department uses Outlook or Mozilla to â€=9Clook th=
rough
itâ€=9D. The only thing they can do is either forward it, to some speci=
fic
address, or reply to it.

The reply will go to the sender's original address. Therefore, Beavis, do
you understand that in this cockamamie scheme of yours you'll also need to
replace the sender's address with one that goes to a local script? Don't
strain your brain on this one. If you can't figure it out, ask Bigfoot for
help.

> Procmail would read the string and decide whether to return
> it to the sender or mail it to the original addressee.

Beavis, the procmail guru, is yet to show a single line of code. It's easy
for you to flap your gums, Beavis, but it's something else for you to
actually implement the drivel you think is a good idea.

> Custom headers of the X-whatever variety could be appended
> to the mails at any point in this process. (For this you
> would need formail, which is a part of the standard procmail
> package.)
>
> Following me?

Sort of.

> I know procmail pretty well

Really?

> (as do thousands of others, pro
> and amateur), and I know that it is available for Windows,
> but I do not know Windows. Procmail has its origins in
> Unix, and I run Linux which is a free Unix clone.

You are also a pissant on a modem dialup, who has no clue about configuring
and maintaining an enterprise-level mail plant.

> [Note: it's not my fault that I'm a complete dumbass. I was dropped
> on my head as a child. See http://angel.1jh.com/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.sh=
tml
> for more information]
>
> Hope this helps,

It does, Beavis.


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-16295-1120841641-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

iD8DBQBCzq+px9p3GYHlUOIRArk4AJ9GAEfQr/RulGVNJ5FaKZHLofsEXwCe O/8H
QyyI/QKuJo6S9w6yufhMbZw=
=OMBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-16295-1120841641-0001--

Re: email verification

In article ,
"Rogier Schoenmakers" wrote:

> We want to check each email being sent by some people to go via a "legal
> expert" person to check and see if anything the person has written in the
> email is dangerous to the company. What this "legal expert" should be doing
> is just accepting or denying an email by reading it and clicking on "accept
> / deny" or so. The company is only 20 people big of which about 14 people
> need to be checked (if possible).

I've got to update/delete links on this page, but see:
http://www.emailman.com/security/content.html

Perhaps such a solution?

-Andrew

--
Andrew Starr
eMailman(r): http://www.emailman.com
NewsReaders(sm): http://www.newsreaders.com
Both of the above now have forums (newsreader or web access)!

Re: email verification

"Andrew Starr" wrote in message
news:atsnntp1204-41B1AC.18070008072005@news.newsguy.com...
> In article ,
> "Rogier Schoenmakers" wrote:
>
>> We want to check each email being sent by some people to go via a "legal
>> expert" person to check and see if anything the person has written in the
>> email is dangerous to the company. What this "legal expert" should be
>> doing
>> is just accepting or denying an email by reading it and clicking on
>> "accept
>> / deny" or so. The company is only 20 people big of which about 14 people
>> need to be checked (if possible).
>
> I've got to update/delete links on this page, but see:
> http://www.emailman.com/security/content.html
>
> Perhaps such a solution?
>
yikes! A lot there, not sure if it is there what I'm looking for. I'll have
a look and let you know if there's something I can use.
Thanks eitherway!

Rogier.

Re: email verification

> Sort of. For the moment. You don't need anything for this
> but that old workhorse, procmail. This is a matter of simple
> scripting.
>
> Procmail can filter incoming and/or outgoing mail and operates
> independently of any MTA (SMPT server), accepting mail from
> it or sending mail to it. A _very_ useful utility with a
> straightforward syntax for the filter scripts clearly defined in
> the man pages.
>
> In the Unix world it is referred to as an MDA (Mail Delivery
> Agent).
>
> There are any number of possible variations on the following
> theme:
>
> Any mail sent by the employees on the list would be routed to
> a mailbox belonging to the legal department. They'd look through
> it, perhaps do some editing, and put a particular string at
> the bottom of each mail and send it off.

> Procmail would read the string and decide whether to return
> it to the sender or mail it to the original addressee.

Don't know anything about procmail, but can we do this:
1. change the reply address to the address the message was initially
intended to so the legal department can reply to the message without any
unnecessary hassle
2. add a header that tells procmail it has seen the email before
3. forward the email to the legal department
4. the legal department replies
5. Procmail receives the email and knows it has seen it before: accept or
deny it: return to initial sender or allow email to leave

Step 4 and 5 is where I see problems but again I don't know procmail:
A. How is procmail supposed to know that the legal department denies the
email to go out? Formail??? I don't know formail ;-)
B. Do we add a header at the legal department (again how?)
C. Do we need the legal department to type is D in the subject to deny it or
so (I don't particularly like this because it trusts the legal people's
discipline a bit too much, but enlighten me ;-)

A lot of potential. Any further ideas to complete your system?

Cheers,
Rogier.