Spam.

I would certainly like to have something like this.
I take great pains to insure that my home box doesn't get used as a relay
(open or otherwise).

could you send me the postfix and other configs for me to examine?

Technomage

On Wednesday 02 October 2002 07:39 am, you wrote:
> At least the encryption part is already taken care of.
> see:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt
>
> I block more spam by rejecting bad HELO and rejecting
> on non-existant domains on the RHS of email addresses than
> from all the RBL lists I use.
>
> I am *still* amazed at the sheer number of whacked configurations
> for mail servers I see based on rejects in my logs.
>
> If anyone is interested I can share snippets of my Postfix
> configs and samples of the kinds of rejects I get.
>
> I have been holding off on SpamAssassin until I rebuild my
> mail server with NetBSD.
>
> The whole spam thing is out of control on both sides
> and I wish I could think of a sane way to deal with it.
>
> Anonymous email is still available.
> Use Anonymous Remailers and chain.
> Mixmaster makes this pretty painless and there are tools like mailcrypt for
> Emacs for getting it all going.
> There are also Windows clients for the Remailer system so no one gets left
> out. The Remailer Ops ( which I was one of back in the day ) have tools in
> place to try to prevent spam and other abuses. Sooner or
> later spammers will figure out how to circumvent them but it hasn't
> happened yet.
>
> HTH.
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:08:33AM -0400, George Toft wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
>
> [snipped]
>
> > The problem is in the content of the e-mail. This is much like the
> > highway. We pay our licensing fee to the state (fee to the ISP), and we
> > load up our car and drive (send e-mail). How can you tell that the
> > person in the car committed some crime (violated AUP)? You can't, until
> > someone else complains. Make the roads toll-roads, like California's
> > private highways (require SSL), and all you've done is slow down the
> > system.
>
> [snipped]
>
> > George
> >
> > Bill Nash wrote:
> > > So of late, more and more has been hitting my inbox. Being the creative
> > > and sometimes not nice person I am, I started thinking about ways to
> > > legitimately cut down on spam, while making spammers scream in pain.
> > > Doing some role reversal, I started
> > > thinking about some of what keeps spammers in business:
> > >

> > >         - Difficult to block for various reasons
> > >         - Anonymity
> > >         - Open relays

>
> [snipped]
>
> > > First off, why aren't mail servers talking to each other over encrypted
> > > streams? Everyone is talking about encrypting mail to each other, and
> > > exchanging keys, so why not do it with the mail servers themselves as
> > > an additional step of security?
>
> [snipped]
>
> > > Some interesting ripple effects of this, however. What happens to free
> > > email suppliers like yahoo and hotmail? Conventional ISPs have a
> > > billing record to tie user accounts to. Hotmail has an IP address,
> > > which we all know isn't the most reliable thing. Yes, this kinda
> > > removes the anonymity aspect of email, but (oh god, here comes a can of
> > > worms) what's the point of anonymous email? I see the Caller ID/Call
> > > Blocking argument applying here.
> > >
> > > Alright, this is getting long, so. Hm. Where's my beer?
> > >
> > > - billn

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6