headers
Julie Barkly, irepsonline 'Netpreneur' | 2 Jun 2004 03:31

Please accept my apology!

To all concerned,

Today, I have received written and verbal reprimands from my autoresponder company, Aweber.  In my
ignorance and innocence, I forwarded a letter provided by Moneyhome.com.  The intentions were
pure-at-heart.  I genuinely thought I was taping into what would be a viable arena of viewers interested in
what I had to present.

After having my autoresponder shut down today, it has been my sad discovery that my signature links (which
contained ads about the businesses I am affiliated with), isn't allowed by the majority of these News Groups.

I want only to make ammends for my misguided message and want you to know I am sorry.  I truly hope I have not
caused much inconvenience for the recipients of that email.

I ask to be forgiven for my actions and genuinely feel terrible about what resulted.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Julie Barkley

---
MAF Anti-Spam ID: 20040527130128C1n4RsV8
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julie Barkly, irepsonline 'Netpreneur' | 2 Jun 2004 06:32

Please accept my apology!

To all concerned,

Today, I have received written and verbal reprimands from my autoresponder company, Aweber.  In my
ignorance and innocence, I forwarded a letter provided by Moneyhome.com.  The intentions were
pure-at-heart.  I genuinely thought I was taping into what would be a viable arena of viewers interested in
what I had to present.

After having my autoresponder shut down today, it has been my sad discovery that my signature links (which
contained ads about the businesses I am affiliated with), isn't allowed by the majority of these News Groups.

I want only to make ammends for my misguided message and want you to know I am sorry.  I truly hope I have not
caused much inconvenience for the recipients of that email.

I ask to be forgiven for my actions and genuinely feel terrible about what resulted.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Julie Barkley

---
MAF Anti-Spam ID: 20040527130128C1n4RsV8
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Skybird Le | 2 Jun 2004 11:53
Favicon

about "Netscape PKCS#11 test suites"

Hi, everyone,

    I have downloaded "Netscape PKCS #11 Utility Package 1.0.6" and it can
be used on platform of windows and linux, but now I want to test my PKCS#11
module on MAC OS X. Is there MAC OS version of this package ? Will you
please tell me the URL for me to download it or email it to me.
    I know that NSS of mozilla contains the "PKCS#11 test suites", so I
downloaded the nss-3.9 tarball and built it on MAC OS X successfully. But
the "make nss_build_all" command does not build and link the pk11test.c, I
can not get the executable file of PKCS#11 test suite. I tried to build the
pk11test.c refer to the Makefile, but there were many errors. How to build
it on MAC OS X ?
    Help me please!

                                    Skybird Le
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tomas Svoboda | 2 Jun 2004 15:41
Picon

Could we use PKI encryption to identify non-spam ?

Hi everybody!
Let me suggest an idea that could help to separate spam from non-spam:

If I receive a message encrypted with PKI (=encrypted using MY public 
key) - that means that very probably I have sent email to that person 
during the validity time of that key (1-2 years maybe). Because public 
keys usually don't get exchanged by mechanisms other than email I would 
consider it almost certain that the encrypted message does not come from 
a spammer.

What I am suggesting is a whitelisting tool: Those who satisfy the 
condition are considered non-spam. It says nothing about the others.

In the Mozilla implementation this would lead to adding a simple 
optional rule to the junk mail filter:
"Let messages encrypted with my valid public key bypass junk mail filter."
[checkbox]

This is not any magic solution to the spam problem - just a small 
partial helper.

Regards
Tomas Svoboda

P.S.
About one month ago I have suggested the same for digitally signed 
messages. Now however it struck me that whitelisting should work even 
better for encrypted emails.
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Lefevre | 2 Jun 2004 17:51

Re: Could we use PKI encryption to identify non-spam ?

On 2004-06-02, Tomas Svoboda <svoboda <at> infima.cz> wrote:
> Hi everybody!
> Let me suggest an idea that could help to separate spam from non-spam:
>
> If I receive a message encrypted with PKI (=encrypted using MY public 
> key) - that means that very probably I have sent email to that person 
> during the validity time of that key (1-2 years maybe). Because public 
> keys usually don't get exchanged by mechanisms other than email I would 
> consider it almost certain that the encrypted message does not come from 
> a spammer.
>
> What I am suggesting is a whitelisting tool: Those who satisfy the 
> condition are considered non-spam. It says nothing about the others.
[snip]

I don't know much about encryption, but the trouble with this kind of tool
is that the whitelist "says nothing" at the main time it would be useful.

Generally, emails from people you know (particularly those that are
competant enough to use PKI) will have no problem getting past filters.
The kind of requested email that gets caught by filters is stuff from
mailing lists, newsletters from companies, receipts from online purchases,
and maybe a few forwarded jokes from technically clueless friends - i.e.
legitimate bulk email. Unless you can somehow convince the senders of that
kind of thing to send it encrypted with the recipient's key, PKI
whitelisting is going to whitelist stuff that would pass anyway, and "say
nothing" about the emails that spam filters have problems with.

--

-- 
Michael
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Imovel apartamento casa | 9 Jun 2004 15:47

apartamento casa vitória

Temos vários imóveis a venda em Vitória-es (Espírito Santo)
Casas , apartamentos , imóveis na planta....
www.imoveisvitoria.com.br
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
chip tuning | 9 Jun 2004 16:45

chip tuning

            Quer economizar ganhando Potência? Temos chip de conversão gasolina para álcool
trazendo uma boa economia mensal.

 Para conversão a álcool veja exemplo de

Economia:

Veiculo: Fiat palio 1.0 8v ano 98 com 78.000 km

Media feita com 1.500 km rodados entre cidade e estrada

Gasolina:1500km consumo (10km/l)=150lts x r$1.85 = r$ 277,50

Álcool: 1500km consumo (7,5km/l) = 200lts x r$ 0,70 = r$ 140,00

Diferença (economia no bolso!)        =       r$ 137,50

Preço especial apenas para as 100 primeiras vendas.

http://chipvix.vilabol.uol.com.br/index.html
conversão gnv gasolina alcool gás natural potencia turbo aspirados carros
automoveis "chip tuning" chip tuning

5
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
RS | 9 Jun 2004 18:13

fewer virus, etc. attacks with Mozilla ?

Is it fair to say that Mozilla is not yet the target of the many viruses,
etc. that are the plague of OE and IE users ?

Thanks for any knowledgeable insights !

-RS-
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
chip tuning | 10 Jun 2004 14:06

chip tuning

            Quer economizar ganhando Potência? Temos chip de conversão gasolina para álcool
trazendo uma boa economia mensal.

 Para conversão a álcool veja exemplo de

Economia:

Veiculo: Fiat palio 1.0 8v ano 98 com 78.000 km

Media feita com 1.500 km rodados entre cidade e estrada

Gasolina:1500km consumo (10km/l)=150lts x r$1.85 = r$ 277,50

Álcool: 1500km consumo (7,5km/l) = 200lts x r$ 0,70 = r$ 140,00

Diferença (economia no bolso!)        =       r$ 137,50

Preço especial apenas para as 100 primeiras vendas.

http://www.tmq.net/chipvix/index.html
conversão gnv gasolina alcool gás natural potencia turbo aspirados carros
automoveis "chip tuning" chip tuning

S
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David | 11 Jun 2004 02:01

Re: fewer virus, etc. attacks with Mozilla ?

RS escribió:
> Is it fair to say that Mozilla is not yet the target of the many viruses,
> etc. that are the plague of OE and IE users ?
> 
> Thanks for any knowledgeable insights !
> 
> -RS-
> 
> 
Yes, Mozilla is targeted by substantially less viruses and spyware since 
it does not support ActiveX. Most IE security holes are caused by 
ActiveX. Also, note that Mozilla does not have as many security problems 
as Microsoft. Code bloat is substantially worse in IE causing security 
holes.
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane