Luckily, the cable manufacturer followed the black - brown - red - yellow - green - blue - violet colour numbering convention, so I didn't have to probe around with the ohmmeter too much
In the days of the dinosaurs, when I was in 6th grade, we learned the mnemonic "BLack Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly" which reduces to black - brown - red - orange - yellow - green - blue - violet - grey - white.
They probably don't teach that particular bit of doggerel any more...
You acuse others of misleading statements... but I was actually at defcon9, and was in the audience during Dmitry's presentation. I think you were not.
Elcomsoft did not sell an exploit tool. They sold a companion product for a flawed piece of commercial software. (Just like the companies that sell antiviruses for windows.) This product allowed users to exercise their legal rights under Russian law.
Dmitry did not "announce the exploit at defcon". He gave a presentation detailing weaknesses in a commercial product. These weaknesses were already well known to exist, since Elcomsoft's extant commercial products took advantage of them, thus there was no "announcement".
I personally saw no distribution of either the (russian-legal) Elcomsoft product or of any mythical "polished, for-profit exploit", although I admit that I left early. I do not know of any person who proveably received any software from Dmitry, and everyone I know who was present did not receive any software at that presentation.
"The nuclear wessels?...at... Alameeda?" Poor guys were totally baffled.
--Charlie
As fisheries are wiped out, fishermen go deeper.
on
New Deep Ocean Creatures
·
· Score: 5, Informative
For example, the formerly plentiful Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfishes (known in the restaurant trade as "Chilean Sea Bass" despite being amazingly ugly deep-sea dwellers) are well on their way to being fished to extinction.
Like many large fish, they have a long reproductive cycle, and thus are easily driven to extinction by modern fishing methods. Not that the fishing industry as a whole isn't fishing pretty much everything to commercial extinction, but they can do it a lot faster to species that take a long time to become reproductive adults.
"In the USA it is known as a Long-nosed Chimaera while in Europe they use the common name Cyrano Chimaera, named after the fictional French character Cyrano de Bergerac, who had a very long nose"
Savien Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-1655) is not a fictional character.
I emailed this nitpick in to the website, with a few details of de Bergerac's biography. Perhaps it will be fixed anon.
I use my grandfather's old razor, with the "bombardier doors" on the top and double-edged generic razor blades from the supermarket. It's well over half a century old now.
A clean shave with no razor bumps. All these double- and triple-bladed razors give me razor bumps, and electric razors are too bulky and require a power source.
In a pinch, the blades can be resharpened on a drinking glass (unless you are clumsy, in which case you'll need the glass to contain your arterial bleeding).
The only thing better might be one of the old Thorens clockwork razors. Or a Stahly windup, maybe, but they don't look like much of an improvement over the unpowered gillette.
I reject all mail from unresolvable domains. You can't talk to us if you are not in the global DNS.
I don't accept incoming mail with a RFC822 target address that does not specify a valid user in my domain, and I don't accept outgoing mail from IP addresses outside my domain. If I did either of these things, I'd be an open relay.
I don't accept outgoing mail with a RFC822 source address that does not specify a valid user in my domain. If I did, my users could spoof their addresses and become spammers.
If a message is not sent either to or from one of my known users, all that happens (on my server) is that a line gets written to my SMTP error log, which is analyzed hourly to create a web page of mail use statistics. Nothing gets queued anywhere, because the message is rejected before the body gets transmitted.
I have no idea how to do all this in qmail. But if qmail can't handle it, you can use sendmail or postfix. Postfix has a secure design (like qmail) if you don't like old-fashioned code monoliths like sendmail. I use sendmail.
I agree that blocking high-level domains is a bad practice. But I block China and Korea anyway on two of my mailservers, because that reduces the spam burden and the users of those servers have no legitimate reason to email anyone in Asia.
Blocking.com.br is pretty nasty. Lots of places block taiwan and korea, but I hadn't heard of anyone blocking all commercial sites in brazil before.
But this is what I mean about your problems sounding dodgy; in the first message you said YOUR domain was blacklisted, not your parent domain (and I have found the domain you mentioned in at least one blacklist).
There are other things in your posts that don't make sense to me.
I'll repeat my question: Who is sourcing the spam, and who is their ISP? You referred to "their DSL" - are you the service provider to the DSL-based spammer or not? If you are, that's why you are being blacklisted; it's because you aren't doing any outgoing spam detection (that's AOL's problem).
Perhaps we mean two different things when we say "bounce"... how can a "triple-bounce" happen in a properly configured mailserver? Double bounces are the limit here, then they go to postmaster. Postmaster doesn't bounce.
Your step 2 shouldn't happen, though. SMTP mailers don't bounce Email from the spammer machine to a different machine. Open relays are a special case, the mail will be bounced to the relay itself and not to the system that relayed through it. That's why ORs get blacklisted, because they obscure message sources.
When hotmail rejects a message, it bounces to the IP address that sourced the message. Mailers do not use the human address information.
Here, look at this mail header info from a spam I intercepted at my site:
-------- Return-Path: targeted@3dmail.com Received: from cornwall.net (pleisosaur.cyb.org [195.89.138.131])
by pobox.xxxx.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22310
for medievalist@xxxx.org; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 05:18:05 -0500 From: targeted@3dmail.com Received: from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:21:35 GMT Message-Id: Subject: The Ultimate Internet Marketing Tool -------
OK, look specifically at the line "received: from" at the top. That line was generated on MY mail system and cannot be entirely spoofed (unless my mailserver is cracked and owned). Ignore any following "received: " lines - they will be fake, and were put there to fool old mail analysis programs that assume that the last listed receiver is the source mail hub.
I can't stress this enough - only ONE thing in that ONE line is trustworthy information, because it was generated by your mailserver. The rest can be entirely faked and is not used in the bounce process anyway.
The key piece of information is the IP address listed in brackets. That is the IP that was on the packets that carried this message in. SMTP communications require a valid TCP pipe, so that IP must be real or the TCP handshake breaks and the mailer never even gets called.
When we reverse lookup that IP address, we find that 195.89.138.131 belongs to the Cambridgeshire County Council in Great Britain -- not to 3Dmail.com or cornwall.net; both of those addresses were supplied by the spammer and are fake. CCC was probably cracked, possibly by a back-door installing worm like Code Red or Nimda.
Your network is listed here as a spam generator. You should ask these people why they listed you; you'll probably have to use a hotmail account or similar to do it, but you should ask them to provide you with a copy of the spam they claim to have received. Tell them you want to track down and crucify any spammers on your network, that should get them to co-operate!
Once Tonnhaus (or somebody else) gives you a complete message with all headers, reverse lookup the source IP (with Eamnesia if you don't have DNS tools) and you can start tracking down any spammers you may be harboring.
Sorry about the late reply; I was off-line for a few days due to illness in the family.
Are you saying that these emails are sourced from outside your domain, or that your customers are sending them? It's still not clear to me. Who is the ISP of this person that "buys a spam program and clicks on run"?
If spam emails are bouncing into *your* queues, it sounds like your domain is the source of the spam. (That's the only way the situation you describe could happen to my mailservers.) What are the source IP addresses of the spam messages? Ignore any host names and look only at the raw message data from the queues. Are your users the spammers?
If your domain is 10 years old that would normally make it *less* likely to be on any spam lists, because you should theoretically be a known entity.
However, you are registered with a.br domain to an IP in LACNIC's Class-A block, which seems a bit dodgy.
Real postmasters are quite easily able to tell the difference between forged addresses and real SMTP relays; so, if you are commonly blacklisted you are probably a spammer. If you just get lots of mail from angry end-users, you have an enemy and you need to find and neutralise that enemy.
But in answer to your question (ignoring all the trollish inconsistencies in your post) you need to put as many humans as necessary on reading your postmaster mail. That's a cost of doing business for you... just like the post office has to handle all that mail addressed to the North Pole every Christmas. It's there, deal with it.
If you can't handle the Email, you need to close up shop and get a new domain name and IP address.
Sorry, but that's how the system is currently set up, and until the big ISPs get serious about policing their networks that's the way it will remain.
Thermite on the Hindendburg's skin is chemically similar to Aluminum Perchlorate.
So are maalox and kaopectate.
And anyway, while both AlP and AP (ammonium perchlorate) have been frequently used in rocketry, AlP is not present in all solids. The high radar signature of aluminium is undesirable in many applications (even though the heat and impulse characteristics are very good).
Although it might be useful to compare the dopant used on the Hindenburg to thermite - there are similarities that are relevant to the discussion of the Hindenburg disaster, such as the burn color and temperature -- the only reason to compare solid rocket fuel to Hindenburg dopants is for the emotional hook. No scientific purpose is served, it's just a bid to attract attention. Everything is similar to everything else at some level, after all.
Most solid rocket fuels are butyl rubber composites containing potassium permanganate as an oxidizer. The skin of the Hindenburg has more in common with an Echo balloon or a beer canthan with solid rocket fuel!
Speaking as a former rocket scientist, I wish people would stop repeating that urban legend. Yes, the Hindenburg's outer skin was doped with a highly flammable compound containing aluminum. But it was NOT particularly similar to solid rocket fuel!
I've handled a LOT of solid propellant. I used to light my charcoal grille with MX/HGG fuel, no lie. But the dopant used on the Hindenburg was as much like solid rocket fuel as fish are like birds.
Just encode your e-mail address on web pages & don't sign up to any dubious mailing lists.
Many of us must maintain contact addresses in the global whois database - so that people can contact us when something is broken.
Look at it this way: you can stop crank calls by unlisting your phone numbers. But you can't unlist the hospital, the ambulance service, the fire department, etc.
We're not all end-users. Some of us are the plumbers.
plate armor probably seemed impregnable in practical terms, until the longbow came along. Yeah, okay, a stinking peasant could hamstring a warhorse and beat the knight to death with a rock while he lay helpless on the ground, but these possibilities were probably ignored with the same superstitious enthusiasm that sysadmins ignore the rarer kinds of attacks on their systems.
Unsuprisingly, I can't pass this one up....
OK, first up, the longbow predates the use of plate armor by quite a bit. And there were composite bows (horn/bone/wood/sinew laminates, don't confusecomposite with compound aka pulley-type bows) in military use that were capable of penetrating plate long before the English/Welsh longbow became the terror of Crecy and Agincourt. The Parthian horse-archers used composite bows against the armies of the Greek city-states in ancient times!
Second, the knightly class certainly did not ignore the possibility of being brought down by the peasantry. Feudal European military castes preferred to capture their opponents alive whenever possible, because of the practice of ransoming captured enemies for enormous sums. The knighthood would claim that they only wanted to fight their equals for reasons of honor, but more practically they stood a better chance of surviving a defeat by a "gentle-man" than by a peasant levy armed with a hammer or spear (who would be unlikely to gain any significant fraction of a ransom). It's a classic risk/benefit analysis: don't start bar-fights with little guys, you have little to gain and much to lose!
Note: I don't disagree with your point, but rather with the example you used to illustrate it. Defense in depth is better than Maginot lines, combined arms are better than reliance on a single weapon, and the history of conflict is an infinite loop of thesis/counter-thesis/synthesis.
Huh, I wish I'd read the parent post before I made my own reply to you. I'll see if I can find Dimont's book, but I suspect I will strongly disagree with him, especially since (as I noted in the other post) the Inquisition did engage in mass condemnations and executions. Sounds like he's not a very good researcher.
I completely agree with you that religion is not to blame for the existence of murdering zealots - even the Thuggee in India do not disprove that theory!
This deserves repeating: I used to be kind of ashamed of some of the people in the church I grew up in: good people, but narrow-minded and a bit bigoted. Then I started reading Slashdot, and I recognized that same narrow-minded bigotry in people with all manner of ideologies. Well said!
Omigod, I made a "me too" post. I hate "me too" posts! Let's see if I can come up with something worthwhile to add... uhm, as a co-religionist, you have a better chance of enlightening those narrow-minded people in your church than any outsider has. So maybe being ashamed of them is a good thing. Not very deep but it's the best I could come up with at the moment, sorry.
And atheistic ideologies are responsible for more butchery than probably all world religions combined. How many people did Hitler and Stalin kill, of their own people? Pol-Pot in Cambodia?
Hitler and Pol Pot combined killed fewer people than the Catholic church. However, you are completely misinterpreting my post; I maintain that human societies frequently produce butchers of men, and because christianity has been very successful in penetrating societies on a global basis a correspondingly high level of butchery can be attributed to Christians. Pointing out that non-christians can also be evil will not excuse the sins of the faithful.
At least during the Inquisition, the church had enough fear of God to look into each case individually.
Incorrect. In 1314 the Inquisition burned DeMolay and about a hundred Knights Templar (on trumped up charges, most likely for financial reasons) and the process was practically an assembly line of condemnation, that certainly did not include looking "into each case individually". That one I know off the top of my head, but I am sure there were many, many more instances if you care to research the subject.
Mass execution of men by formula is an abomination reserved exclusively for the 20th century. (Quote stolen from a historian whose name I can't remember off the top of my head.)
It certainly wasn't any reputable historian since that is an entirely false statement. I suggest you read Bartolome de las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, written in 1542. At least read the preface all the way through, it's only a single page long. You can find on-line copy at the link given, or go to any good library. De Casas was a Jesuit priest who described first-hand the atrocities committed by Christians in the New World. Everyone should read this book, but especially christians and "white" americans.
What, don't like your brand of atheism being compared with Stalin's?
Since I'm not an atheist, this doesn't really apply to me, I'm afraid!
Maybe I don't like my Christianity compared with the so-called "religion" of those fighting to keep slaves and murdering abortion doctors.
You're still misreading what I said. I am not "comparing" your religion to theirs, I am pointing out that murderers and slavers share your religion. There is no comparison here; it is a tenet of mainstream christianity that anyone who truly believes in JC and claims him as their saviour, honestly attempting to repent of their sins as they know them, is a christian! You don't get to pick who is and isn't a "real" christian, that's the sort of hypocrisy and pride that Jesus repeatedly condemned -- see John 8:7 and Acts 10:43, for example.
If you want a comparison, try these: There are christian terrorists, and muslim terrorists, and even atheist terrorists - just like there are good people who follow all these philosophies. Therefore: since there are more christians than rastafarians, any individual criminal is far more likely to be christian than rasta. But: this does not mean any individual rasta you meet is less likely to be a criminal than a random individual christian.
Mohammed labeled Jews, Christians, and Moslems the "Peoples of the Book" and all others as "Infidels".
In many passages of the Koran, it's made quite clear that it's OK to fuck over Infidels, but NOT the People of the Book. You can only jihad on a People of the Book if they are actively working to stamp out Islam itself.
Obviously, Islamists pervert this (not because they call Americans Infidels - we are a secular nation so we get no protection from the Koran) but since they call for jihad against Israel, which is not attacking Islam-the-religion but rather Palestinians-the-race.
Islamist terrorists are about as close to mainstream Islam as George Bush is to Mahatma Ghandi. In just one example, Islam condemns the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon because there were innocent Christians on board the plane (the Pentagon is a legit military target, of course). And it condemns the attack on WTC because there were innocents in the towers as well as on the plane. But Islamist fundies think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war and religion!
OTOH, if American fundamentalists get their way, we will declare war on Islam itself (listen to Franklin Graham sometime) and then every Muslim in the world will be religiously required to do everything they can to pound sand up our collective asses. Which might be our President's fondest wet dream, because A) we would win, eventually, and be the undisputed rulers of a blasted, radioactive but thoroughly non-Islamic planet and B) he would then be eligible for Christian fundie heaven, where "there is no marriage, or giving in marriage" (ref: Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 KJV).
I mean imagine if a serious movie was released in the US where the heroes have to save the world by killing Jesus or something. And Christian fundamentalists had a history of blowing shit up.
Rather than just a history of murdering abortionists, lynching jews, or for that matter fighting for the right to keep slaves?
Of course, the reason Christians have been responsible for more butchery than any other religion is simply that Christianity has been more successful than any other religion. Islam is number two (with a bullet!).
I was specifically thinking of the FEATURE(local_procmail) line in sendmail.mc (as shipped by the major distributions -- for example Red Hat has FEATURE(local_procmail,`',`procmail -t -Y -a $h -d $u') in their 7.x releases). I guess I sort of assumed that would be the logical place to write in maildir support.
I think most software distributions that contain sendmail binarys also include procmail. Eric Allman personally recommends it and links to it from sendmail.org (he also gives at least one procmail "recipe" on the same site). So I would consider them pretty strongly related, myself, even though you are right that the sources are separately developed, distributed, and maintained. I didn't mean to overstate the connection, apologies for the sloppy composition.
An interesting thing you could do with maildirs is put each mail message in a/PMAIL subdirectory of a users' home directory, and then publish the homes with samba. That would let end-users run Pegasus Email for Windows in native mode without having any Novell stuff or resorting to POP3. You'd need to name the messages [messageid].CNM to pull it off, so they looked like they'd been delivered by the old Charon mail gateway.
Sendmail could care less if you use mbox, maildir, or some proprietary format. MTAs don't care. Writing to disk is the LDA's job.
Good point, since sendmail ships with procmail these days. I don't know of anyone using the the old/bin/mail with sendmail any more.
But you will recall I said "If I wanted maildirs instead of mbox, and I didn't feel competent to hack them into my sendmail.mc, I'd run Courier".
I'm pretty sure that you have to modify sendmail.mc or sendmail.cf to get a procmail configuration that uses maildir format instead of mbox. It's not something you'd want to do in users' individual.procmailrc files; I would think it would be best addressed at the procmail/sendmail interface which comes from sendmail.mc (or sendmail.cf if you like pain). Feel free to post the relevant configuration bits and prove me wrong!:)
Slashdot Mirror
They probably don't teach that particular bit of doggerel any more...
Amanda is busy backing up to my big 9-inch.
Wait, are we talking about a chick here? Never mind. How embarrassing!
/.
...at... Alameeda?" Poor guys were totally baffled.
You acuse others of misleading statements... but I was actually at defcon9, and was in the audience during Dmitry's presentation. I think you were not.
Elcomsoft did not sell an exploit tool. They sold a companion product for a flawed piece of commercial software. (Just like the companies that sell antiviruses for windows.) This product allowed users to exercise their legal rights under Russian law.
Dmitry did not "announce the exploit at defcon". He gave a presentation detailing weaknesses in a commercial product. These weaknesses were already well known to exist, since Elcomsoft's extant commercial products took advantage of them, thus there was no "announcement".
I personally saw no distribution of either the (russian-legal) Elcomsoft product or of any mythical "polished, for-profit exploit", although I admit that I left early. I do not know of any person who proveably received any software from Dmitry, and everyone I know who was present did not receive any software at that presentation.
"The nuclear wessels?
--Charlie
For example, the formerly plentiful Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfishes (known in the restaurant trade as "Chilean Sea Bass" despite being amazingly ugly deep-sea dwellers) are well on their way to being fished to extinction.
Like many large fish, they have a long reproductive cycle, and thus are easily driven to extinction by modern fishing methods. Not that the fishing industry as a whole isn't fishing pretty much everything to commercial extinction, but they can do it a lot faster to species that take a long time to become reproductive adults.
In the Pacific Spookfish caption it says:
"In the USA it is known as a Long-nosed Chimaera while in Europe they use the common name Cyrano Chimaera, named after the fictional French character Cyrano de Bergerac, who had a very long nose"
Savien Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-1655) is not a fictional character.
I emailed this nitpick in to the website, with a few details of de Bergerac's biography. Perhaps it will be fixed anon.
I use my grandfather's old razor, with the "bombardier doors" on the top and double-edged generic razor blades from the supermarket. It's well over half a century old now.
A clean shave with no razor bumps. All these double- and triple-bladed razors give me razor bumps, and electric razors are too bulky and require a power source.
In a pinch, the blades can be resharpened on a drinking glass (unless you are clumsy, in which case you'll need the glass to contain your arterial bleeding).
The only thing better might be one of the old Thorens clockwork razors. Or a Stahly windup, maybe, but they don't look like much of an improvement over the unpowered gillette.
I reject all mail from unresolvable domains. You can't talk to us if you are not in the global DNS.
I don't accept incoming mail with a RFC822 target address that does not specify a valid user in my domain, and I don't accept outgoing mail from IP addresses outside my domain. If I did either of these things, I'd be an open relay.
I don't accept outgoing mail with a RFC822 source address that does not specify a valid user in my domain. If I did, my users could spoof their addresses and become spammers.
If a message is not sent either to or from one of my known users, all that happens (on my server) is that a line gets written to my SMTP error log, which is analyzed hourly to create a web page of mail use statistics. Nothing gets queued anywhere, because the message is rejected before the body gets transmitted.
I have no idea how to do all this in qmail. But if qmail can't handle it, you can use sendmail or postfix. Postfix has a secure design (like qmail) if you don't like old-fashioned code monoliths like sendmail. I use sendmail.
I agree that blocking high-level domains is a bad practice. But I block China and Korea anyway on two of my mailservers, because that reduces the spam burden and the users of those servers have no legitimate reason to email anyone in Asia.
Blocking .com.br is pretty nasty. Lots of places block taiwan and korea, but I hadn't heard of anyone blocking all commercial sites in brazil before.
But this is what I mean about your problems sounding dodgy; in the first message you said YOUR domain was blacklisted, not your parent domain (and I have found the domain you mentioned in at least one blacklist).
There are other things in your posts that don't make sense to me.
I'll repeat my question: Who is sourcing the spam, and who is their ISP? You referred to "their DSL" - are you the service provider to the DSL-based spammer or not? If you are, that's why you are being blacklisted; it's because you aren't doing any outgoing spam detection (that's AOL's problem).
Perhaps we mean two different things when we say "bounce"... how can a "triple-bounce" happen in a properly configured mailserver? Double bounces are the limit here, then they go to postmaster. Postmaster doesn't bounce.
Your step 2 shouldn't happen, though. SMTP mailers don't bounce Email from the spammer machine to a different machine. Open relays are a special case, the mail will be bounced to the relay itself and not to the system that relayed through it. That's why ORs get blacklisted, because they obscure message sources.
When hotmail rejects a message, it bounces to the IP address that sourced the message. Mailers do not use the human address information.
Here, look at this mail header info from a spam I intercepted at my site:
--------
Return-Path: targeted@3dmail.com
Received: from cornwall.net (pleisosaur.cyb.org [195.89.138.131])
by pobox.xxxx.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA22310
for medievalist@xxxx.org; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 05:18:05 -0500
From: targeted@3dmail.com
Received: from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:21:35 GMT
Message-Id:
Subject: The Ultimate Internet Marketing Tool
-------
OK, look specifically at the line "received: from" at the top. That line was generated on MY mail system and cannot be entirely spoofed (unless my mailserver is cracked and owned). Ignore any following "received: " lines - they will be fake, and were put there to fool old mail analysis programs that assume that the last listed receiver is the source mail hub.
I can't stress this enough - only ONE thing in that ONE line is trustworthy information, because it was generated by your mailserver. The rest can be entirely faked and is not used in the bounce process anyway.
The key piece of information is the IP address listed in brackets. That is the IP that was on the packets that carried this message in. SMTP communications require a valid TCP pipe, so that IP must be real or the TCP handshake breaks and the mailer never even gets called.
When we reverse lookup that IP address, we find that 195.89.138.131 belongs to the Cambridgeshire County Council in Great Britain -- not to 3Dmail.com or cornwall.net; both of those addresses were supplied by the spammer and are fake. CCC was probably cracked, possibly by a back-door installing worm like Code Red or Nimda.
Your network is listed here as a spam generator. You should ask these people why they listed you; you'll probably have to use a hotmail account or similar to do it, but you should ask them to provide you with a copy of the spam they claim to have received. Tell them you want to track down and crucify any spammers on your network, that should get them to co-operate!
Once Tonnhaus (or somebody else) gives you a complete message with all headers, reverse lookup the source IP (with Eamnesia if you don't have DNS tools) and you can start tracking down any spammers you may be harboring.
Sorry about the late reply; I was off-line for a few days due to illness in the family.
Are you saying that these emails are sourced from outside your domain, or that your customers are sending them? It's still not clear to me. Who is the ISP of this person that "buys a spam program and clicks on run"?
If spam emails are bouncing into *your* queues, it sounds like your domain is the source of the spam. (That's the only way the situation you describe could happen to my mailservers.) What are the source IP addresses of the spam messages? Ignore any host names and look only at the raw message data from the queues. Are your users the spammers?
Your post makes no sense.
.br domain to an IP in LACNIC's Class-A block, which seems a bit dodgy.
If your domain is 10 years old that would normally make it *less* likely to be on any spam lists, because you should theoretically be a known entity.
However, you are registered with a
Real postmasters are quite easily able to tell the difference between forged addresses and real SMTP relays; so, if you are commonly blacklisted you are probably a spammer. If you just get lots of mail from angry end-users, you have an enemy and you need to find and neutralise that enemy.
But in answer to your question (ignoring all the trollish inconsistencies in your post) you need to put as many humans as necessary on reading your postmaster mail. That's a cost of doing business for you... just like the post office has to handle all that mail addressed to the North Pole every Christmas. It's there, deal with it.
If you can't handle the Email, you need to close up shop and get a new domain name and IP address.
Sorry, but that's how the system is currently set up, and until the big ISPs get serious about policing their networks that's the way it will remain.
No, unfortunately modern fuel cells are not that much better.
But yes, Ballard's had PEM cells running at least that long.
Speaking as a former rocket scientist, I wish people would stop repeating that urban legend. Yes, the Hindenburg's outer skin was doped with a highly flammable compound containing aluminum. But it was NOT particularly similar to solid rocket fuel!
I've handled a LOT of solid propellant. I used to light my charcoal grille with MX/HGG fuel, no lie. But the dopant used on the Hindenburg was as much like solid rocket fuel as fish are like birds.
Ah, I see, you are recommending a challenge/response system. You're right, that's reasonably easy to implement; I will certainly consider it.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Thanks for the tip, phr1. I will look into changing my registrar!
No, I can't. I don't get to choose the format of whois, I believe it's already defined in an RFC.
But apparently at least one registrar has a partial solution to the problem: see phr1's post. I'll have to look into it.
Look at it this way: you can stop crank calls by unlisting your phone numbers. But you can't unlist the hospital, the ambulance service, the fire department, etc.
We're not all end-users. Some of us are the plumbers.
OK, first up, the longbow predates the use of plate armor by quite a bit. And there were composite bows (horn/bone/wood/sinew laminates, don't confuse composite with compound aka pulley-type bows) in military use that were capable of penetrating plate long before the English/Welsh longbow became the terror of Crecy and Agincourt. The Parthian horse-archers used composite bows against the armies of the Greek city-states in ancient times!
Second, the knightly class certainly did not ignore the possibility of being brought down by the peasantry. Feudal European military castes preferred to capture their opponents alive whenever possible, because of the practice of ransoming captured enemies for enormous sums. The knighthood would claim that they only wanted to fight their equals for reasons of honor, but more practically they stood a better chance of surviving a defeat by a "gentle-man" than by a peasant levy armed with a hammer or spear (who would be unlikely to gain any significant fraction of a ransom). It's a classic risk/benefit analysis: don't start bar-fights with little guys, you have little to gain and much to lose!
Note: I don't disagree with your point, but rather with the example you used to illustrate it. Defense in depth is better than Maginot lines, combined arms are better than reliance on a single weapon, and the history of conflict is an infinite loop of thesis/counter-thesis/synthesis.
Huh, I wish I'd read the parent post before I made my own reply to you. I'll see if I can find Dimont's book, but I suspect I will strongly disagree with him, especially since (as I noted in the other post) the Inquisition did engage in mass condemnations and executions. Sounds like he's not a very good researcher.
I completely agree with you that religion is not to blame for the existence of murdering zealots - even the Thuggee in India do not disprove that theory!
This deserves repeating: I used to be kind of ashamed of some of the people in the church I grew up in: good people, but narrow-minded and a bit bigoted. Then I started reading Slashdot, and I recognized that same narrow-minded bigotry in people with all manner of ideologies. Well said!
Omigod, I made a "me too" post. I hate "me too" posts! Let's see if I can come up with something worthwhile to add... uhm, as a co-religionist, you have a better chance of enlightening those narrow-minded people in your church than any outsider has. So maybe being ashamed of them is a good thing. Not very deep but it's the best I could come up with at the moment, sorry.
It certainly wasn't any reputable historian since that is an entirely false statement. I suggest you read Bartolome de las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, written in 1542. At least read the preface all the way through, it's only a single page long. You can find on-line copy at the link given, or go to any good library. De Casas was a Jesuit priest who described first-hand the atrocities committed by Christians in the New World. Everyone should read this book, but especially christians and "white" americans.Since I'm not an atheist, this doesn't really apply to me, I'm afraid!You're still misreading what I said. I am not "comparing" your religion to theirs, I am pointing out that murderers and slavers share your religion. There is no comparison here; it is a tenet of mainstream christianity that anyone who truly believes in JC and claims him as their saviour, honestly attempting to repent of their sins as they know them, is a christian! You don't get to pick who is and isn't a "real" christian, that's the sort of hypocrisy and pride that Jesus repeatedly condemned -- see John 8:7 and Acts 10:43, for example.
If you want a comparison, try these: There are christian terrorists, and muslim terrorists, and even atheist terrorists - just like there are good people who follow all these philosophies. Therefore: since there are more christians than rastafarians, any individual criminal is far more likely to be christian than rasta. But: this does not mean any individual rasta you meet is less likely to be a criminal than a random individual christian.
Mohammed labeled Jews, Christians, and Moslems the "Peoples of the Book" and all others as "Infidels".
In many passages of the Koran, it's made quite clear that it's OK to fuck over Infidels, but NOT the People of the Book. You can only jihad on a People of the Book if they are actively working to stamp out Islam itself.
Obviously, Islamists pervert this (not because they call Americans Infidels - we are a secular nation so we get no protection from the Koran) but since they call for jihad against Israel, which is not attacking Islam-the-religion but rather Palestinians-the-race.
Islamist terrorists are about as close to mainstream Islam as George Bush is to Mahatma Ghandi. In just one example, Islam condemns the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon because there were innocent Christians on board the plane (the Pentagon is a legit military target, of course). And it condemns the attack on WTC because there were innocents in the towers as well as on the plane. But Islamist fundies think 9/11 was a legitimate act of war and religion!
OTOH, if American fundamentalists get their way, we will declare war on Islam itself (listen to Franklin Graham sometime) and then every Muslim in the world will be religiously required to do everything they can to pound sand up our collective asses. Which might be our President's fondest wet dream, because A) we would win, eventually, and be the undisputed rulers of a blasted, radioactive but thoroughly non-Islamic planet and B) he would then be eligible for Christian fundie heaven, where "there is no marriage, or giving in marriage" (ref: Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 KJV).
Of course, the reason Christians have been responsible for more butchery than any other religion is simply that Christianity has been more successful than any other religion. Islam is number two (with a bullet!).
I was specifically thinking of the FEATURE(local_procmail) line in sendmail.mc (as shipped by the major distributions -- for example Red Hat has FEATURE(local_procmail,`',`procmail -t -Y -a $h -d $u') in their 7.x releases). I guess I sort of assumed that would be the logical place to write in maildir support.
/PMAIL subdirectory of a users' home directory, and then publish the homes with samba. That would let end-users run Pegasus Email for Windows in native mode without having any Novell stuff or resorting to POP3. You'd need to name the messages [messageid].CNM to pull it off, so they looked like they'd been delivered by the old Charon mail gateway.
I think most software distributions that contain sendmail binarys also include procmail. Eric Allman personally recommends it and links to it from sendmail.org (he also gives at least one procmail "recipe" on the same site). So I would consider them pretty strongly related, myself, even though you are right that the sources are separately developed, distributed, and maintained. I didn't mean to overstate the connection, apologies for the sloppy composition.
An interesting thing you could do with maildirs is put each mail message in a
Thank you for the excellent and informative post!
But you will recall I said "If I wanted maildirs instead of mbox, and I didn't feel competent to hack them into my sendmail.mc, I'd run Courier".
I'm pretty sure that you have to modify sendmail.mc or sendmail.cf to get a procmail configuration that uses maildir format instead of mbox. It's not something you'd want to do in users' individual .procmailrc files; I would think it would be best addressed at the procmail/sendmail interface which comes from sendmail.mc (or sendmail.cf if you like pain). Feel free to post the relevant configuration bits and prove me wrong! :)