Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:06:49


In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Evan Clark







So it is assumed but wouldn't it be pretty easy to write a routing which
de-mangles your mangelement?


Unless your ISP rejects the *** before you get it, in which case you
wouldn't know.

--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

... "In nature there's no blemish but the mind; none can be called deform'd but the unkind" Twelfth N, Act iii, Sc.4
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Alan Wrigl » Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:21:45

In message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >







If the spam doesn't get generated in the first place you don't need to
can it. Therefore there are two separate issues.



What the hell do you think a blacklist is if it's not a form of
filtering? Spam is sent to you; it gets stopped by a blacklist. I call
that a filter.



I snipped absolutely nothing. Your post to which I was referring
contained just one (dismissive-sounding) line:

"Get a decent email provider who throws away all the *** for you"



I don't have time. But the use of the word "all" in the line I quoted
above is significant. Or perhaps you didn't actually mean "all" but
only used the word for heightened effect.


If that rule was applied to everything then there would be an awful
lot less *** on Usenet. Luckily I don't normally comment on things I
have no experience of - I fail to see the point. Spamhaus Zen lets
through about 40-50 emails a day that my own filters have to deal
with. Therefore it does not "throw away all the crap".

I don't have time to argue with you. I've made my point and I'm not
posting to this thread again.

Alan

--
RISC OS - you know it makes cents

 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Rob Kendri » Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:35:02


<snip the ranting>


Woah, you have no idea how ISPs or RBLs work, do you? Most RBLs work on
net blocks, not individual IPs. Keeping your IP clean doesn't help you.

<snip the ranting>

The rest of your posting confuses some things with meaningless
complications in some parts and shows hideous over simplification in
others.

Alan knows what he's talking about when he talks about email and spam
filtering: he's not said a single thing yet that I as somebody who has
run large mail infrastructures for ISPs in the past wouldn't back.

B.
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by new » Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:52:48

In article <qxsCj.3055$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Rob Kendrick


^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^






His posting was a bit late in the evening.. Perhaps he was 'tired and
emotional'?

--
Barry A.
To reply by email:- barry d o t allen a t talktalk d o t net
Replace the d o t and a t by the usual.
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Evan Clar » Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:48:18

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,






Maybe, but why would a spammer bother when there are billions of easier
targets? Anyway, as I've repeatedly said, all it needs is for someone to
have my address on a compromised machine from where it can be harvested
with ease. All I'm doing is reducing the chances for *one* means of
escape.



If you mean by blatant spam blocking, then I'm quite happy with that.

Evan.
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:41:06

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Alan Wrigley






[Snip]



No, that is not how it works. The mail's arrival is denied, if you like.
You don't get it so there's nothing to 'filter' locally. If you want to
think of it as a filter, it is filtered out at a stage before arrival at
your ISP, usually by the ISP's receiving server. It doesn't get anywhere
near your mailbox or even onto your ISP's system.

[Snip]





Hmmm.


No. I did not mean 'all the spam' which is why I wrote 'all the crap' by
which I meant all the spam from known spammers. Sorry not to be clearer.

I would have understood where your misunderstanding lay if you had
replied to that message and not a subsequent one!


Note the smiley.


Then maybe that service isn't as good as others. 40. Blimey.

[Snip]

Not an argument, just a lively discussion. :-)

--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

... "Wisely and slow; they stumble who run fast" Rom & Jul, Act ii, Sc.3
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:53:06

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Barry Allen




[Snip]


No, just trying to lighten the lives of apparently a few miserable picky
bastards.

Contrary to popular belief not everyone has a nine-to-five lifestyle.

But you just all carry on with your read-between-the-lines assumptions as
usual for these NGs.

--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

... "Good name, in man or woman, is the immediate jewel of their souls" Othello, Act iii, Sc.3
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:08:57

In article <qxsCj.3055$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Rob Kendrick




'twas not a rant, but it soon will be if some of you fellows don't
lighten up a little. ;-)



Yes, I do, thanks. (Whoa! I think you meant.)


Ah! _MOST_ Not all then. Just the ones you know about.


Contrariwise. Some certainly do work to IP level. That's the whole point
of them working well.


Um. Yes it can. Apparently. It _can_ apply to individual IPs which is why
they have a 'remove IP address' on some services for those times you have
found your IP address on such a list thanks to inadvertantly aquiring a
bot. Then you have to stay off by not allowing your system to become a
bot (again).


What things?


Thanks for the vague critique.

To help understanding one has to be simple. I believe in KISS. I'm sorry
if some of it was too complex for you to understand, that was not my
intention.


--
* Stop paying BT so much: www.timil.com/usenet.php
* Want a genuine but spam-proof Usenet address? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
or email me: postmaster at invalid dot org dot uk
* ( XXXX@XXXXX.COM is deleted unread - please use my valid address above)

... "I can no other answer make, but, thanks, and thanks" Twelfth N, Act iii, Sc.3
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Jeremy Nic » Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:30:20


I don't think Alan said the user would filter it locally, though did he?


YES. So it /is/ a filter.



--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Vince » Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:58:02

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,





I think this is where some of the confusion lies. I think that's
twice now where I've seen you associate filtering with what's done
locally (eg by the likes of antispam) - but filtering can equally be
done *remotely* and that is what a system using blacklists is doing;
it's filtering out items that come from a blacklisted source.

[...]



(Noting that Spamhaus is the one you mentioned in another post)

Maybe it's because he gets more sent to him in the first place than
you, perhaps? If Alan gets (say) ten times the amount sent to him as
you, then using a system comparable to yours, ten times the amount of
spam will get through. Or maybe he gets more sent from freshly 0wn3d
machines, whose IP blocks haven't yet made it into the blacklist(s).

What you shouldn't be doing is dismissing any given system based on
the actual number of spams that get through, unless you know the
actual number that are filtered out by that system.

--
VinceH
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Jeremy Nic » Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:36:40


Muddying the waters more, AntiSpam can also talk to blacklist services eg
Spamhaus whendeciding what to do with a mail. Although the filtering is
still being done locally on the user's machine, it's using information from
remote servers to make that decision.

(I think some people think AntiSpam is unsophisticated. It's been developed
a lot over the years it's been available.)

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:29:05

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >









I think we're being pedantic. If the server is asked to receive mail,
looks up the IP address and rejects the email without receipt, it has
never looked at the email to be able to filter it. But I see what you
mean; sorry. Filtering email usually implies receiving it and examining
its content against a set of filters. Of course, if these tech-heads are
running their own email servers....

--
Want better than BT? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php

... "Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight! For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night." Rom & Jul, Act i. Sc.5
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Tim Hil » Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:30:38

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,







Okay, thanks for this alternate use of the word 'filter' !!! ;-))

[Snip]


Indeed.

--
Want better than BT? www.timil.com/usenet.php
Want a genuine but spam-proof address for Usenet? Visit www.invalid.org.uk
The originating email address of this message is invalid: www.timil.com/ask.php

... "Alas, poor world, what treasure hast thou lost!" Venus & Adonis
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Vince » Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:18:14

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




There's nothing "alternate" about it. A system which allows something
through, and rejects/blocks/deletes something else, according to
whether or not it matches the defined criteria for being let through
is a filtering system.

It doesn't matter if that's being done by examining the headers (per
the other post of yours I've just read), it doesn't matter if it's
based on the (blacklisted) source of the item and it doesn't matter
one iota if the system you use is to employ Granny to read your mail
first and delete what she thinks you don't want to see.

Though Granny might employ some personal bias about what she thinks
you *should* see as well, which is censorship, because Grannies are
evil. ;)



So why did you?

"Then maybe that service isn't as good as others. 40. Blimey."

--
VinceH
 
 
 

Non-bot-harvestable address (was: None Bot harvestable address)

Post by Jeremy Nic » Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:30:49


No, you're imposing a too narrow-minded idea of what constitutes a filter.


But what it has done is looked at the sender's(?)IP address and filtered the
mail on that basis.

Antispam, as far as I know (though I'm guessing here), presumably fetches a
mail's headers then extracts the sender's IP address from them, and looks it
up and makes a decision. It's still a filter process.


No it doesn't "usually" mean that. It could mean that, but it needn't. You
have too limited an idea of what filtering is.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.