ashampoo / pctools

anyone uses these firewalls?
What do you think about they?

Some persons suggest to me also the firewall of Comodo.

Re: ashampoo / pctools

DanieleNA wrote:

> anyone uses these firewalls?


Beside that these are no firewalls, many people seem to use them.

> What do you think about they?


About this crappy software products, or the people who are so stupid to
actually use them.

> Some persons suggest to me also the firewall of Comodo.

Which is no firewall either. And no competent people either.


At any rate, why is your From: mail address invalid?

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Il 28/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
Sebastian G. ha detto :
> At any rate, why is your From: mail address invalid?

".invalid" is only to avoid a little of spam.

Re: ashampoo / pctools

In article ,
danielna@vene.ws.invalid says...
> Il 28/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
> Sebastian G. ha detto :
> > At any rate, why is your From: mail address invalid?
>
> ".invalid" is only to avoid a little of spam.

I have two accounts that I post with, have to 20+ years on Usenet, while
I almost always post using a nym and munged email address because of the
spam concern, my other identity uses a full email address. In all that
time I've never seen spam from using that email address in Usenet. Don't
get me wrong, and I'm not about to stop using a munged address, but I
don't see where Usenet is being farmed for email addresses as a norm.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: ashampoo / pctools

DanieleNA wrote:

> Il 28/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
> Sebastian G. ha detto :
>> At any rate, why is your From: mail address invalid?
>
> ".invalid" is only to avoid a little of spam.

..invalid is an RFC violation. Beside that, since your posting contains the
valid address in the Reply-To: header, your measure is absolutely useless.

If you want to avoid spam, use a spam filter.

If you want to avoid spam by not communication at all, use a mail address
from a free mail provider and configure to delete every incoming mail. The
validity of the mail box is only required to avoid bounces, no one ever
demands you to actually read any mail that is being sent there.

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Sebastian G. wrote:
> .invalid is an RFC violation.

No. And repeating that will not make it more true.

Sebastian, I know that people are not agreeing on this point. So please
don't argue this way, or we'll have senseless and useless discussions
again and again.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Volker Birk wrote:

> Sebastian G. wrote:
>> .invalid is an RFC violation.
>
> No. And repeating that will not make it more true.


Maybe you missed the context: Specifying a mail address in the From: header
with the domain .invalid is an RFC violation, since the RFC (both Email and
Usenet) requires you to provide a valid mailbox (whereas a valid mailbox is
defined as a mailbox that can receive mail). Of course .invalid by itself is
perfectly valid (as a pseudo-TLD).

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Sebastian G. wrote:
> Volker Birk wrote:
>> Sebastian G. wrote:
>>> .invalid is an RFC violation.
>> No. And repeating that will not make it more true.
> Maybe you missed the context: Specifying a mail address in the From: header
> with the domain .invalid is an RFC violation, since the RFC (both Email and
> Usenet) requires you to provide a valid mailbox (whereas a valid mailbox is
> defined as a mailbox that can receive mail). Of course .invalid by itself is
> perfectly valid (as a pseudo-TLD).

And that's the point people don't agree.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Jim Higgins wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:54:00 +0200, "Sebastian G."
> wrote:
>
>> DanieleNA wrote:
>>
>>> Il 28/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
>>> Sebastian G. ha detto :
>>>> At any rate, why is your From: mail address invalid?
>>> ".invalid" is only to avoid a little of spam.
>> .invalid is an RFC violation.
>
> See RFC 2606.


Maybe this was written a bit misleading, but we're rather talking about RFC
1036 and RFC 2822. You are required to provide a valid mailbox in the From
header, thus something that can receive mail. A .invalid address surely won't.

> If you don't want email, especially spam, the best solution is to use
> a valid, but nonresolvable TLD like .invalid.


Again, please see above. Let's say I forward such a posting wthout
encpasulation, and the receive then wants to reply to it. He won't see the
Reply-To: header, only the address in the From: header. He replies, and then
receives an error because the .invalid mailbox is not valid. And who caused
it? The guy who put the invalid address there in first place!

No, the best and only valid solution is to provide a valid mailbox that you
never read (and, for avoiding bounces due to filling up, regularly deletes
all incoming mail).

Re: ashampoo / pctools

In article <5m74cbFc0f8mU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
> No, the best and only valid solution is to provide a valid mailbox that you
> never read (and, for avoiding bounces due to filling up, regularly deletes
> all incoming mail).

While using .invalid or .void or .lan does not currently resolve to ANY
TLD, it's actually a good idea because the mail systems won't be
impacted, the spam won't spread, the users that have some clue know to
look for the real address in the sig, and it's been used for enough
years that anyone aware of Usenet knows about it.

There are exceptions everything - if the Usenet providers thought this
was a problem they would not allow postings without valid information.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Il 29/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
Sebastian G. ha detto :
> DanieleNA wrote:
>> ".invalid" is only to avoid a little of spam.
>
> .invalid is an RFC violation.

I see also address like danielnaNoSpam@vene.ws
Is valid to insert NoSpam ?

> If you want to avoid spam by not communication at all, use a mail address
> from a free mail provider and configure to delete every incoming mail. The
> validity of the mail box is only required to avoid bounces, no one ever
> demands you to actually read any mail that is being sent there.

or a temporary email in From field ? with the right email in ReplyTo:

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Il 29/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
Sebastian G. ha detto :
> Of course .invalid by itself is perfectly valid (as a pseudo-TLD).

sorry ... what is TLD ?

Re: ashampoo / pctools

DanieleNA wrote:
> Il 29/09/2007, su comp.security.firewalls "Re: ashampoo / pctools",
> Sebastian G. ha detto :
>> Of course .invalid by itself is perfectly valid (as a pseudo-TLD).
>
> sorry ... what is TLD ?

Top Level Domain

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Bavarian Seppl wrote:

> Maybe this was written a bit misleading, but we're rather talking about RFC
> 1036 and RFC 2822. You are required to provide a valid mailbox in the From
> header, thus something that can receive mail.

No, once more you're disseminating nonsense. There are methods of
communication that don't require any reply per email like the
participation in a Usenet discussion. You yourself already mentioned
that there's no need to agree in being contacted individually. That's
why it's not only legitimate but reasonable to avoid a working reply
address instead of inducing unnecessary traffic to a dummy mailbox
that merely eliminates it anyway. And the only correct way to do so is
to use one of the official standard patterns for invalid domain names.
That's unequivocal and avoids system load.

RFC 2606 states

|There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for
|creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or
|future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private
|testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS
|related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.

and

|".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
|names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
|glance are invalid.

which clearly describes the intended purpose of the ".invalid" TLD.

> No, the best and only valid solution is to provide a valid mailbox that you
> never read (and, for avoiding bounces due to filling up, regularly deletes
> all incoming mail).

Your disguised rubbish bin fools honest Usenet contributors that may
be interested in contacting you per mail. Do you feel well misleading
them and wasting their valuable time?

Rudy

Re: ashampoo / pctools

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
, Leythos wrote:

>In article <5m74cbFc0f8mU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
>> No, the best and only valid solution is to provide a valid mailbox
>> that you never read (and, for avoiding bounces due to filling up,
>> regularly deletes all incoming mail).

Why should I waste disk-space and bandwidth just so some idiot can
collect 0.04 pfennig for a "valid" address that can be sold to spammers.
Thanks to address harvesters, trying to respond to a Usenet posting by
mail is useless today. While RFC0977 (and it's replacement RFC3977)
are standards, RFC1036 is not, as shown by the index listing.

0977 Network News Transfer Protocol. B. Kantor, P. Lapsley. February
1986. (Format: TXT=55062 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3977) (Status:
PROPOSED STANDARD)

1036 Standard for interchange of USENET messages. M.R. Horton, R.
Adams. December 1987. (Format: TXT=46891 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0850)
(Status: UNKNOWN)

3977 Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP). C. Feather. October 2006.
(Format: TXT=247440 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0977) (Updates RFC2980)
(Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

Sebastian may want to read RFC2026, and discover the meaning of that
term "Status". Not all RFCs are standards. In fact:

[compton ~]$zcat rfcs/rfc-index.txt.09.28.07.gz | sed 's/^$/\%/' | tr -d
'\n' | tr '%' '\n' | grep '^[0-9]' | tr -s ' ' | grep -v 'Not Issued' |
sed 's/.*Status: //' | tr -d '\)' | sort | uniq -c | column
144 BEST CURRENT PRACTICE 1538 INFORMATIONAL
134 DRAFT STANDARD 1605 PROPOSED STANDARD
285 EXPERIMENTAL 87 STANDARD
206 HISTORIC 909 UNKNOWN
[compton ~]$

There are nearly 1600 more documents working through the draft stage,
and as such are "a work in progress" and otherwise meaningless, but they
show where things are headed. The ones the Sebastian should be looking
at are in the Usenet Article Standard Update (usefor) section:

"Netnews Article Format", Charles Lindsey, 9-Jan-07,


"Netnews Architecture and Protocols", Russ Allbery, Charles Lindsey,
3-Jul-07,

Read the second one - where there is this wonderful statement as the
third paragraph in the section "3.3. Duties of a Posting Agent":

Contrary to [RFC2822], which implies that the mailbox or mailboxes in
the From header field should be that of the poster or posters, a
poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to use his own mailbox
MAY use any mailbox ending in the top level domain ".invalid"
[RFC2606].

>While using .invalid or .void or .lan does not currently resolve to ANY
>TLD, it's actually a good idea because the mail systems won't be
>impacted, the spam won't spread, the users that have some clue know to
>look for the real address in the sig, and it's been used for enough
>years that anyone aware of Usenet knows about it.

Actually, it was included in ``Address Munging FAQ: "Spam-Blocking" Your
Email Address'' (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/munging-address/)
from the late 1990s.

>There are exceptions everything - if the Usenet providers thought this
>was a problem they would not allow postings without valid information.

and we wouldn't have eleventy zillion clueless web-users posting from
places like groups.google.com or anomynizers. Imagine that.

Old guy

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: ashampoo / pctools

Leythos wrote:
> I don't see where Usenet is being farmed for email addresses as a norm.

Trust me, there's lots of it about. Either that or they dump all yours
on me. Sigh.

Chris