Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #213000 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-08-19 20:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-08-20 16:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 54 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-08-19 20:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2019-08-19 20:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-19 22:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-19 22:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Christopher Marlow <debian@cwm030.com> - 2019-08-19 23:10 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-19 23:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-20 13:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 14:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 16:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 17:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 17:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 18:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-20 19:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 19:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-21 16:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-21 16:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-21 17:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 19:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-20 19:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 20:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-20 20:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-20 21:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-21 19:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-21 21:10 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-21 21:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-21 22:10 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-21 23:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-21 23:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-08-21 22:10 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-21 22:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2019-08-20 23:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-21 19:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2019-08-23 10:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 22:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 21:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2019-08-21 20:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 19:30 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 19:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 21:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-08-20 22:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-20 23:20 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-21 17:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-21 18:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-20 20:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Dan Clery <dan@savevsgeek.com> - 2019-08-20 21:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 21:40 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-08-20 22:10 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-20 20:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-21 19:00 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-21 20:50 +0200
Re: Solution to "pathetic email complaints" mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 16:20 +0200
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxgTE-5XG-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213041 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:45:52PM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:22:23PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:58:05PM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:24:42AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:57:40PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:31:57AM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > > > > > So it boils down to "MTA needs care on a regular basis" and "some > > > > blacklist can add your MTA for no good reason". First one is universal > > > > (applies to any Internet-facing service), second one can be beat with a > > > > creative use of hosting. Also, https://mxtoolbox.com. A non-free > > > > service, but a useful one. > > > > > > > > > > Can we be more vague? This is how conspiracy theories spawn. > > > > What's so vague about "you've got into some blacklist, and they require > > some monetary compensation to whitelist you"? These things happen. > > Said blacklist does not affect your ability to receive mail, but can > > affect sending it. > > I was referring to "add your MTA for no good reason". > That is vague and really not true. I'll leave you to your option. Not that I agree with it. > > > > > In the old days losing an email was considered unacceptible; > > > > > > > > It still is, you just have to consider a corporate communications as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > these days, there is so much junk that false positives are expected > > > > > and routine. > > > > > > > > That haven't changed much in the last 15 years. > > > > > > How is that to be expected? This all sounds like hear-say but > > > did this actually happened? > > > > Either you filter spam, and accept a certain amount of collateral damage > > (i.e. some legitimate mail goes into spam), or you accept anything and > > your users are drown in spam and viri (viruses? whatever). Or you try to > > find a reasonable in-between and accept that occasional spam letter once > > in a while. Surely you agree that it's been this way for a long time. > > > > Sure, I understand this. > However as a person I depend on e-mail and I really never had any of > these issues. Consider yourself lucky. IMO all it takes is a single online purchase by a single user of yours. > I look at how these heuristic based filter work and it is easy to > maintain a form of communication where the likelihood of blocked > is low. > Pretty much don't do anything marketers do. Agreed. > Do not use binary content. Disagreed. Sending a binary attachment here and there is useful, so is receiving it. A size of said attachment should not exceed a reasonable limit of course. > Do not use HTML Tell it to Thunderbird users. Or that toy Android MUA (K-9 or whatever it called). Or, that poor soul who uses outlook.com instead of e-mail. > No links either In this maillist they tend to do it. Occasionally. > Avoid explicit words. That's the can of worms that I refuse to open. The reason being the constantly shifting definition of "explicit", and its dependency on a current political situation. > I could go on. No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? > > > > I somehow doubt that Debian project membership requires to be an expert > > > > in any MTA, or to have any system administration skills for that matter. > > > > In another words, of course it's not normal, but is something that's to > > > > be expected. > > > > > > Well, yes, > > > I block random domains. But doing so is not random. > > > I first try to contact the e-mail owner and the admin. But if they do > > > no stop sending spam they are banned (usually forever). > > > I also block constantcontact and mailchimp, because they are basically > > > commercial spamming services and anyone can add anyone on any mailing list. ... > > Sorry I wasn't clear in my text. > I absolutely understand We are talking about getting your e-mail out and > accepted. I was basically describing the thought process of the > receiving side, why you could be ending up being blocked. And > how it is mainly your responsibility if you end up in trouble (not > only as an e-mail admin, applies to life in general). > > > > So, a Debian contributor Alice sends a private e-mail to a Debian > > contributor Bob. Both Alice and Bob use arbitrary e-mail servers, most > > likely beyond their control. E-mail bounces, Alice does not get any > > meaningful diagnostics, Bob does not get a e-mail. It can happen. > > > > It can happen, you could win the lottery :) > Could, Would, if and but. All vague forms of arguing. I do not know the specifics of the cases Michael mentioned. Hence the vague guessing. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxhmG-68j-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213042 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:16:58PM +0300, Reco wrote: [...] > > I could go on. > > No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? > > In most cases I use spamassassin. However my main defense line is spamhaus and spamcop. On spamcop I use also their service to submit complains. This is really nice, they will send a notification to the admin mailbox. And it often really works. with the two DNSBL I pretty much filter 90% of all spam. Spamassassin almost gets the rest and a few hit the actual mailboxes. With spamassassin it is very important for your users to understand the difference between unwanted mail a unsolicited mass spam when they submit for training the system. In some cases I block complete regions (geoip blocking). This obviously works only for "local" mailservers. But if you business doesn't have international clients, dropping ru, tw, hk, br lowers the traffic by 80%. -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxi93-6Fw-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213044 |
On Tue 20 Aug 2019 at 14:43:08 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:16:58PM +0300, Reco wrote: > [...] > > > I could go on. > > > > No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? > > > > > In most cases I use spamassassin. > However my main defense line is spamhaus and spamcop. > On spamcop I use also their service to submit complains. This is > really nice, they will send a notification to the admin mailbox. > And it often really works. > with the two DNSBL I pretty much filter 90% of all spam. > Spamassassin almost gets the rest and a few hit the actual mailboxes. > With spamassassin it is very important for your users to understand > the difference between unwanted mail a unsolicited mass spam when > they submit for training the system. > > In some cases I block complete regions (geoip blocking). This > obviously works only for "local" mailservers. > But if you business doesn't have international clients, dropping > ru, tw, hk, br lowers the traffic by 80%. You are entitled to *receive* whatever mail you want. But geoip blocking? This is the antithesis of communication. "I plug my ears if the someone from Russia or Hong Kong wants to talk with me". It's relatively easy to do; I hope you do not expect a pat on the back. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxCr7-2RY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213050 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:38:13PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Tue 20 Aug 2019 at 14:43:08 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > [...] > > > > In some cases I block complete regions (geoip blocking). This > > obviously works only for "local" mailservers. > > But if you business doesn't have international clients, dropping > > ru, tw, hk, br lowers the traffic by 80%. > > You are entitled to *receive* whatever mail you want. But geoip > blocking? This is the antithesis of communication. "I plug my > ears if the someone from Russia or Hong Kong wants to talk with > me". It's relatively easy to do; I hope you do not expect a pat > on the back. Please ease up! I do not advocate this in general and I made the limited use very clear. If a local plumber with 5 employees uses this just for his business no freedom of speech or anti communication threads are at stake. You could probably block also 90% of the US and it would still work as expected. I educated them about limitations. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxE9z-427-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213079 |
On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 13:19:32 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:38:13PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Tue 20 Aug 2019 at 14:43:08 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > In some cases I block complete regions (geoip blocking). This > > > obviously works only for "local" mailservers. > > > But if you business doesn't have international clients, dropping > > > ru, tw, hk, br lowers the traffic by 80%. > > > > You are entitled to *receive* whatever mail you want. But geoip > > blocking? This is the antithesis of communication. "I plug my > > ears if the someone from Russia or Hong Kong wants to talk with > > me". It's relatively easy to do; I hope you do not expect a pat > > on the back. > > Please ease up! I do not advocate this in general and I made > the limited use very clear. If a local plumber with 5 employees > uses this just for his business no freedom of speech or anti > communication threads are at stake. > You could probably block also 90% of the US and it would still > work as expected. > I educated them about limitations. Ease up? Perhaps. The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? What a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily goes about deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam fighting. The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a static address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been turned into a toy communication system. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxECB-4cO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213085 |
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:07:36 +0100 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, > Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the > destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? What > a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily goes about > deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam fighting. > > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. > Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a > static address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - > Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been > turned into a toy communication system. > Are you saying that we all have a duty to accept spam and viruses from every bot and spammer on the planet? -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxF5E-4DR-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213086 |
On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 20:33:12 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:07:36 +0100 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, > > Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the > > destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? What > > a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily goes about > > deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam fighting. > > > > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. > > Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a > > static address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - > > Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been > > turned into a toy communication system. > > > > Are you saying that we all have a duty to accept spam and viruses from > every bot and spammer on the planet? "a duty"? Don't be silly. Address the point. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxGl4-5n2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213088 |
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:09:20 +0100 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 20:33:12 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:07:36 +0100 > > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > > > > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, > > > Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the > > > destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? > > > What a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily > > > goes about deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam > > > fighting. > > > > > > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic > > > addresses. Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? > > > Easy; don't have a static address. Want to be homeless and send > > > or receive a letter - Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a > > > solution which has been turned into a toy communication system. > > > > > > > Are you saying that we all have a duty to accept spam and viruses > > from every bot and spammer on the planet? > > "a duty"? Don't be silly. Address the point. > I thought that was the point. In your opinion, are we allowed to decide what kinds of email we accept? -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxGuJ-5qx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213092 |
On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 22:23:20 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:09:20 +0100 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 20:33:12 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:07:36 +0100 > > > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > > > > > > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, > > > > Royal Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the > > > > destination for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? > > > > What a world we would live in then! But the email world gaily > > > > goes about deciding who sends or gets email in the name of spam > > > > fighting. > > > > > > > > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic > > > > addresses. Want to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? > > > > Easy; don't have a static address. Want to be homeless and send > > > > or receive a letter - Royal Mail will not stop you. Email is a > > > > solution which has been turned into a toy communication system. > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that we all have a duty to accept spam and viruses > > > from every bot and spammer on the planet? > > > > "a duty"? Don't be silly. Address the point. > > > > I thought that was the point. In your opinion, are we allowed to decide > what kinds of email we accept? Not when you are dealing with my mail, you are not. Keep your hands off it. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxF5E-4DR-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213085 |
On 2019-08-21 20:07, Brian wrote: > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. > Want > to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a static > address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - Royal Mail > will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been turned into a toy > communication system. there's a guy on youtube says he got letters delivered by Royal Mail to: for example the layby on the A4 200 yards up from such and such junction -- Key ID 4BFEBB31
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxFfk-4Hl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213085 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mi, 21 aug 19, 20:07:36, Brian wrote: > On Wed 21 Aug 2019 at 13:19:32 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > Please ease up! I do not advocate this in general and I made > > the limited use very clear. If a local plumber with 5 employees > > uses this just for his business no freedom of speech or anti > > communication threads are at stake. > > You could probably block also 90% of the US and it would still > > work as expected. > > I educated them about limitations. > > Ease up? Perhaps. > > The "in general" is interesting and informative. Suppose the USPS, Royal > Mail or Deutsche Post etc decided the point of origin or the destination > for a mail was a criterion in their delivery policy? What a world we > would live in then! But the email world gaily goes about deciding who > sends or gets email in the name of spam fighting. The comparison is not quite applicable in my opinion. Considering the situation it's closer to instructing the person responsible for picking up the mail to discard unopened any letter from $COUNTRY, with the implied risk of missing the big opportunity to find a new supplier of super-duper pipes that still come at half price, even after paying import taxes. > The epitomy of this is the discrimination against dynamic addresses. Want > to be a mail second class citizen on the Net? Easy; don't have a static > address. Want to be homeless and send or receive a letter - Royal Mail > will not stop you. Email is a solution which has been turned into a toy > communication system. In principle I agree with you. On the other hand e-mail is also so much easier to abuse (read: minimal cost). Something like Internet Mail 2000[1] might help, though being almost the exact opposite of the usual send-receive (mental) model will probably result in it never being adopted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxkaR-7W3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213042 |
> No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? > > > I installed postgrey, my spam went from maybe 10 a day (that were caught by spammassain) to maybe 1 or 2 a month. -- Money not found. (A)pply for Bankruptcy, (R)efinance, (F)lee?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxmcG-JI-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213060 |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:43:26AM +1000, elvis wrote: >I installed postgrey, my spam went from maybe 10 a day (that were caught by spammassain) to maybe 1 or 2 a month. Very little of my spam was blocked by postgrey, but it did break some legitimate messages from providers not big enough to land in the default whitelist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxCAP-2VJ-51@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213060 |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:43:26AM +1000, elvis wrote: > > > No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? > > > > > > > I installed postgrey, my spam went from maybe 10 a day (that were caught by spammassain) to maybe 1 or 2 a month. > postgrey has some severe issues. Some services use these "verify by email" messages. And they use multiple out MX hosts. Some of your users will notice that these verifications will be delayed for hours sometimes days. Since most spam is piped through legit MX hosts, it almost does nothing to cut spam. -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-23 10:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yycEi-HN-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213080 |
On 22/8/19 3:25 am, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:43:26AM +1000, elvis wrote: >>> No need to. I have a single question - do you use SpamAssassin or Rspamd? >>> >>> >>> >> I installed postgrey, my spam went from maybe 10 a day (that were caught by spammassain) to maybe 1 or 2 a month. >> > postgrey has some severe issues. > Some services use these "verify by email" messages. And they use multiple > out MX hosts. Some of your users will notice that these verifications > will be delayed for hours sometimes days. > Since most spam is piped through legit MX hosts, it almost does nothing > to cut spam. > In 2014 I had 5385 spam messages go into my Spamassassain folder. In 2019 I have had 5 lol yep obviously doesn't work and does nothing to cut spam, have you even tried it? Yes it is annoying to have to wait 20 mins for the odd verification email, but I can always whitelist it if I am inpatient. -- You're never alone on a project. There's you and the future-you trying to figure out what you did just now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxisp-6MZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213041 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:45:52PM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: >I was referring to "add your MTA for no good reason". >That is vague and really not true. Why do you think that? Your ability to find out why a specific domain got on a blacklist is pretty close to zero. You may be able to look at every single email being send from the domain, you might be able to verify that there's nothing bad there (no spambots, etc), but you can't find out what message got the domain on the blacklist. You can't even validate that the message which caused the block passed the SPF checks and was actually sent from infrastructure controlled by the domain in question. Once upon a time you could actually get that kind of information but those days are long gone. >However as a person I depend on e-mail and I really never had any of >these issues. How would you know? Honest question. Unless you get a reply to every mail you send, you can't actually know whether every mail was recieved. >I look at how these heuristic based filter work and it is easy to >maintain a form of communication where the likelihood of blocked >is low. >Pretty much don't do anything marketers do. >Do not use binary content. >Do not use HTML >No links either >Avoid explicit words. >I could go on. So if you do that and end up on a blacklist, what's your next step? >> So, a Debian contributor Alice sends a private e-mail to a Debian >> contributor Bob. Both Alice and Bob use arbitrary e-mail servers, most >> likely beyond their control. E-mail bounces, Alice does not get any >> meaningful diagnostics, Bob does not get a e-mail. It can happen. >> > >It can happen, you could win the lottery :) >Could, Would, if and but. All vague forms of arguing. It does happen, whether you want to accept it or not. Either your assessment of the odds are wrong or I want to find out where you play the lottery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxCU9-32K-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213053 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:51:22PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:45:52PM -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > I was referring to "add your MTA for no good reason". > > That is vague and really not true. > > Why do you think that? Your ability to find out why a specific domain got on > a blacklist is pretty close to zero. You may be able to look at every single > email being send from the domain, you might be able to verify that there's > nothing bad there (no spambots, etc), but you can't find out what message > got the domain on the blacklist. You can't even validate that the message > which caused the block passed the SPF checks and was actually sent from > infrastructure controlled by the domain in question. Once upon a time you > could actually get that kind of information but those days are long gone. > The most common blacklist I check on a regular basis via rblcheck (deb package exists). But with the rest I agree. And my "not true" was based on "no good reason". Nobody just puts you on a blacklist to f**k with you. You really must piss some people of or hit a lot of honeypots (spamhaus) to end up on these lists. > > However as a person I depend on e-mail and I really never had any of > > these issues. > > How would you know? Honest question. Unless you get a reply to every mail > you send, you can't actually know whether every mail was recieved. > As I said, my communication is centered around e-mail. If one side goes quiet I'll notice. I had on case when Johnson and Johnson made some changes to their mail services and my domain got blocked. You pick up the phone then. > > I look at how these heuristic based filter work and it is easy to > > maintain a form of communication where the likelihood of blocked > > is low. > > Pretty much don't do anything marketers do. > > Do not use binary content. > > Do not use HTML > > No links either > > Avoid explicit words. > > I could go on. > > So if you do that and end up on a blacklist, what's your next step? > > > > So, a Debian contributor Alice sends a private e-mail to a Debian > > > contributor Bob. Both Alice and Bob use arbitrary e-mail servers, most > > > likely beyond their control. E-mail bounces, Alice does not get any > > > meaningful diagnostics, Bob does not get a e-mail. It can happen. > > > > > > > It can happen, you could win the lottery :) > > Could, Would, if and but. All vague forms of arguing. > > It does happen, whether you want to accept it or not. Either your assessment > of the odds are wrong or I want to find out where you play the lottery. > Sorry, I did not want to argue with you or upset you. I know it can happen and you are right it is more likely than winning the jackpot. I wanted to make sure to actually base this on real facts. I am just opposed to "bad things are gonna happen, if you don't watch your back, BOOOOO!" To make this discussion mor meaningful you possibly could provide some numbers, how many times this actually did happen (at least to you). I am aware that these issues exists. I just want some more proof that this is significant in numbers. I know about the cases when aol blocked almost all mailinglists and smaller hosts. Or google try to muscle smaller/independend mailhost away. But now the dust basically has settled. And email will be stronger when we have more small/independend mailhosts. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxhPH-6yD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213035 |
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:58:05 -0400 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: ... > I also block constantcontact and mailchimp, because they are basically > commercial spamming services and anyone can add anyone on any mailing list. See, this just illustrates the problem with aggresive blocking. Those policies may work for you, but I'm involved with a small, legitimate organization that uses Constant Contact to communicate with our subscribers. Some (including me!) may feel that they are getting too much email, but we make good faith efforts to only subscribe those who want to be subscribed, and we certainly honor unsubscribe requests. Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-21 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxDnc-3th-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213047 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 03:12:59PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:58:05 -0400 > Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > ... > > > I also block constantcontact and mailchimp, because they are basically > > commercial spamming services and anyone can add anyone on any mailing list. > > See, this just illustrates the problem with aggresive blocking. Those > policies may work for you, but I'm involved with a small, legitimate > organization that uses Constant Contact to communicate with our > subscribers. Some (including me!) may feel that they are getting too > much email, but we make good faith efforts to only subscribe those who > want to be subscribed, and we certainly honor unsubscribe requests. > > Celejar > Sorry, that your message will not reach me. I am not saying that these companies itself are bad, but their business will never work (for me). They are mass markters. And this also based on lack of accountability. I ended up on their mailing list many times without agreeing to this. Well and now I am old and anti-marketing and my wife has a label for me : reverse snob. And my wife is always right! So they just rubbed me one time too much the wrong way. And here they are not welcome anymore. And for you, how about setting up majordomo and a decent mailserver and taking responsibility for that? I mean like real accountability. You can be a hero. :) -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-08-20 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yxg7g-5qJ-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #213034 |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Reco wrote: >So it boils down to "MTA needs care on a regular basis" and "some >blacklist can add your MTA for no good reason". First one is universal >(applies to any Internet-facing service), second one can be beat with a >creative use of hosting. Also, https://mxtoolbox.com. A non-free >service, but a useful one. Way to oversimplify, and "creative use of hosting" basically means "hope and pray". It's also not actually true that there's hosting magic which makes you immune to blacklist stupidity unless your hosting is gmail or something equally too large to block. >With all it's disadvantages, SMTP is one of the few examples of >successful federated (i.e. - non-centralized) form of Internet >communications. The other ones are slowly dying IRC and dead XMPP. >So I disagree. They can put all the fancy additions (like SPF, DMARC and >DANE) to it, but SMTP has a strong chance to outlive a current >generation. We can agree to disagree. I think like the regular old telephone, people will suddenly realize that as a communication tool the noise is outweighing the signal and drop it. In my experience with the younger generation, they already don't consider email a primary means of communication except within a closed environment like a school. In business the trend is increasingly toward outsourcing email to a large cloud provider (e.g., MS/outlook) so a future in which businesses mainly communicate between a small number of very large providers is not all that remote. >I somehow doubt that Debian project membership requires to be an expert >in any MTA, or to have any system administration skills for that matter. >In another words, of course it's not normal, but is something that's to >be expected. So which is it? A small email domain isn't a big deal to manage or it is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web