headers
Thomas Cameron | 28 Nov 2005 18:42

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:30 -0600, Cliff Cyphers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 09:45:38PM -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 21:10 +0000, Carl Perry wrote:
> > 
> > > Have you used this on PUBLIC MAILING LISTS before?  Not corporate mail
> > > servers, not personal mail servers, but PUBLIC MAILING LISTS?
> > 
> > Forget about it Carl.  Never mind that it is an incredibly effective
> > combination used by countless server admins (yes, including those of
> > mailing lists).  Never mind that I have volunteered my time to educate
> > you.  You obviously know better than all those other admins out there.
> >
> 
> And never mind that many have pointed out that your numbers for delayed mail
> are just bogus.  In fact with postgrey the author has a list of mail servers
> that are mal-configured so that they are automatically on a whitelist and
> don't go through the greylist process.  
> 
> Come on, know what you are talking about before making all these claims.  And
> actually, greylisting would help you out the most by the spamming of the
> admin accounts.  It would provide you with the optimal solution with next to no
> overhead (admin).

The ironic thing about this, Cliff, is that he asked for a solution and
it was offered.  But because he didn't like the fact that his
ubergeekness was being questioned, he's stiffened his back and will
likely never use greylisting "on principle."

So I'll sit here with essentially no spam in my Inbox (averaging less
than one per month), fat dumb and happy, and he'll continue to be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Carl Perry | 28 Nov 2005 18:56
Favicon

Update on the Archives

So, here's the plan for the mailing list archive revival.  Some have
pointed out that Mailman does archiving, and this is technically true.
The problem is the archiving is very basic.  The mailman archives are
only broken out by month, and then indexed by date, thread, and subject.
While this sounds all nice and good there are very important things
missing.  The missing items of interest to me are integrated search, and
address obfuscation.

Some will say that you can just use ht://dig for search capabilites, and
again they would be technically correct.  However, they would have also
misread the the "itegrated" part of the requirement.

The address obfuscation is the biggie.  Last time I put the mailman
archives online, there was an outroar since all the email addresses were
visible in plaintext.  My solution to this was to implement mharc - a
better (but old) archiving system.  This did obfuscate email addresses,
but in the headers only.  The other problem was all the links still had
cleartext addresses in them.  The outroar continued, but not as severe.

mharc had other issues, mainly that it needed mailman to exist within
it's install tree without symlinks outside it's chroot to operate
properly.  This didn't allow me to use the distro provided mailman
install, which increased the admin time, yadda, yadda, yadda.

With the HD crash on the server, and a fresh OS re-install it seemed
stupid to maintain the old archive system that didn't really fulfill the
requirements anyway.  So, I've continued the search and finally found a
worthwhile solution.

In the mean time, I didn't link to the mailman archives because SPAM was
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Carl Perry | 28 Nov 2005 19:03
Favicon

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

I'm so glad I donate my time and energy to put up with shit like this.
Thank you so much.

For the record, I am looking into greylisting - but since no one would
give me details or experiences on implementations with Postfix, I have
to go rediscover the wheel and test this all out with simulated loads
and the like.  Thanks for the help.

Finally, I'd like to point out that (as usual) no one read the
requirements.  For example, last week someone asked for Hard Drive OGG
players recommendations.  I said there was only one I was aware of in
current production in the use.  Everyone else sent in links to FLASH
BASED players.  This thread is no different.  I asked for mailing-list
anti-spam recomendations, and I get back "I use (blank) on my personal
server" and "I use (blank) for small corporate installations", neither
of which were mailing-list solutions.  So again, thanks for the help.

BTW: You get my nomination for System Administrator in the upcoming
elections.

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:42 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:30 -0600, Cliff Cyphers wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 09:45:38PM -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 21:10 +0000, Carl Perry wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Have you used this on PUBLIC MAILING LISTS before?  Not corporate mail
> > > > servers, not personal mail servers, but PUBLIC MAILING LISTS?
> > > 
> > > Forget about it Carl.  Never mind that it is an incredibly effective
> > > combination used by countless server admins (yes, including those of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Thomas Cameron | 28 Nov 2005 19:14

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 18:03 +0000, Carl Perry wrote:
> I'm so glad I donate my time and energy to put up with shit like this.
> Thank you so much.

You made your bed, Carl.  Don't complain now about the horsehair sheets.

> For the record, I am looking into greylisting - but since no one would
> give me details or experiences on implementations with Postfix, I have
> to go rediscover the wheel and test this all out with simulated loads
> and the like.  Thanks for the help.

Are you fscking kidding me?  You are completely discounting the fact
that I volunteered to help.  If the archives were working, I'd show you
the exact message.  So don't play the martyr, it won't sell.  Several
people offered up specific solutions and you have ignored them.

> Finally, I'd like to point out that (as usual) no one read the
> requirements.  For example, last week someone asked for Hard Drive OGG
> players recommendations.  I said there was only one I was aware of in
> current production in the use.  Everyone else sent in links to FLASH
> BASED players.  This thread is no different.  I asked for mailing-list
> anti-spam recomendations, and I get back "I use (blank) on my personal
> server" and "I use (blank) for small corporate installations", neither
> of which were mailing-list solutions.  So again, thanks for the help.

ROFLMAO - this is just a joke.  SMTP is SMTP, whether it is handling an
e-mail list or not.  You've invented an artificial obstacle and now you
are claiming that you are the poor, victimized tragic figure.  Bull.  If
you are too damned stiff-necked to take advice, it's on you, buddy, not
anyone else.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jim Parkhurst | 28 Nov 2005 19:49
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

Ain't volunteering "F.U.N."?	8-)	That's why *I* do it ... and why
*I* blacklist those who do not read the question to provide an answer.
Sounds like you have identified good volunteer nominee to be SYSADMIN
(and give you a vacation for your significant help). I would second the
nomination if only to watch the fireworks(!) I wonder if he is ready?

>>> caperry@... 11/28/2005 12:03 >>>
I'm so glad I donate my time and energy to put up with shit like this.
Thank you so much.

For the record, I am looking into greylisting - but since no one would
give me details or experiences on implementations with Postfix, I have
to go rediscover the wheel and test this all out with simulated loads
and the like.  Thanks for the help.

Finally, I'd like to point out that (as usual) no one read the
requirements.  For example, last week someone asked for Hard Drive OGG
players recommendations.  I said there was only one I was aware of in
current production in the use.  Everyone else sent in links to FLASH
BASED players.  This thread is no different.  I asked for mailing-list
anti-spam recomendations, and I get back "I use (blank) on my personal
server" and "I use (blank) for small corporate installations", neither
of which were mailing-list solutions.  So again, thanks for the help.

BTW: You get my nomination for System Administrator in the upcoming
elections.

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:42 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:30 -0600, Cliff Cyphers wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 09:45:38PM -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Newton Hammet | 28 Nov 2005 20:09

PEACE: Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)


Various amounts of good technical stuff but also a lot
of mutual pissed offness against each other from two people
I respect both personally and professionally.

Thomas and Carl,

I am asking you both to take it down a thousand, but also
to add that I find the technicals points you both are making
are very worthwhile and interesting.

If Thomas wants to be Sysadmin, I will 2nd that nomination,
both now and when the time comes for voting.

I have a feeling that between the two of you the SPAM situation
WRT to alg's various mailing lists is going to improve greatly.

My own experience with omitting spam is an ongoing conversation
with my ISP (Prismnet, formerly io.com), occasional additions
to my personal blacklist and whitelist, and several tweeks of
spamassassin rule set values per the spamassassin filtering as
provided by Prismnet.

Over the past two weeks I have had zero SPAM.  I don't know if
it is just a fluke, or if the last time I sent a piece of obvious
SPAM to the sysadmins of Prismnet that had a zero spamassassin
spam score that goaded them to some kind of upgrade/adjustments
to spamassassin or some filtering added at another level.

I have spamassassin configured to drop SPAM candidates in my
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Newton Hammet | 28 Nov 2005 20:15

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)


> Ain't volunteering "F.U.N."?	8-)	That's why *I* do it ... and why
> *I* blacklist those who do not read the question to provide an answer.
> Sounds like you have identified good volunteer nominee to be SYSADMIN
> (and give you a vacation for your significant help). I would second the
> nomination if only to watch the fireworks(!) I wonder if he is ready?

Newton's 1st Law of Volunteering:  For every good deed there is an equal
and opposite punishment and insult.

Newton's 2nd Law of Volunteering:  Volunteers at rest will remain at rest,
unless notified by an outside party that the buffet line is open.

Newton's 3rd Law of Volunteering:  The total amount of good will both
before and after a volunteer effort is conserved.

Collary of the 1st and 3rd law: No good deed goes unpunished.

Regards,
Newton

===========
public key: (find at http://www.pgp.net)
pub 4096R/136FC036 2004-02-09 Newton Hammet
finger print: 0x93cae808136fc036

_______________________________________________
ALG Mailing List http://austinlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/alg
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Barr | 28 Nov 2005 20:33

Ipodder review: thanks, Bill E


Thanks to Bill Eastman for suggesting this story:

http://applications.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/16/1953202

_______________________________________________
ALG Mailing List http://austinlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/alg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jim Parkhurst | 28 Nov 2005 20:47
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

Then there is Corollary #2 of Laws #1 and #3 - No punishment goes
undeeded.

Corollary #1 of the first law - The amount of punishment and insult is
negatively inverse to the level of good that a deed was supposed to be.

Corollary #1 to Law #2 - Only if Sushi is involved.

>>> newton@... 11/28/2005 13:15 >>>

> Ain't volunteering "F.U.N."?	8-)	That's why *I* do it ... and
why
> *I* blacklist those who do not read the question to provide an
answer.
> Sounds like you have identified good volunteer nominee to be
SYSADMIN
> (and give you a vacation for your significant help). I would second
the
> nomination if only to watch the fireworks(!) I wonder if he is
ready?

Newton's 1st Law of Volunteering:  For every good deed there is an
equal
and opposite punishment and insult.

Newton's 2nd Law of Volunteering:  Volunteers at rest will remain at
rest,
unless notified by an outside party that the buffet line is open.

Newton's 3rd Law of Volunteering:  The total amount of good will both
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cliff Cyphers | 28 Nov 2005 23:04

Re: greylisting (was: Anti-SPAM changes to austinlug.org)

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:03:12PM +0000, Carl Perry wrote:
> I'm so glad I donate my time and energy to put up with shit like this.
> Thank you so much.
> 
> For the record, I am looking into greylisting - but since no one would
> give me details or experiences on implementations with Postfix, I have
> to go rediscover the wheel and test this all out with simulated loads
> and the like.  Thanks for the help.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to point out that (as usual) no one read the
> requirements.  For example, last week someone asked for Hard Drive OGG
> players recommendations.  I said there was only one I was aware of in
> current production in the use.  Everyone else sent in links to FLASH
> BASED players.  This thread is no different.  I asked for mailing-list
> anti-spam recomendations, and I get back "I use (blank) on my personal
> server" and "I use (blank) for small corporate installations", neither
> of which were mailing-list solutions.  So again, thanks for the help.
>

I've used greylisting w/ sendmail and postfix.  Both don't add any noticeable
load to the system.  And since it catches most of spam it really reduces the
total load on the system, since less spam makes it to filters (spamassassin,
etc..).

Postfix + postgrey is a no brainer.  And if you have any questions if you
want to try it out send em out.

For an example, here's a section from /etc/postgrey/whitelist_clients:

# greylisting.org: Southwest Airlines (unique sender, no retry)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane