On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: No doubles here. The occasional spam message (which is weird because this address is only used for this list !) but other than that, no weirdness. --f

David V. Corbin wrote: Are you sure you're not subscribed to cctalk and cctech? Moderation happens, on average, three times a day, and that produces a burst of messages. And a general plea to all: if the thread changes direction, please change the frigging Subject! Moderation takes a lot more time when threads shift from on to off-topic. The moderation load is 5500 posts per month, and you benefit from it, even when you subscribe to the "nominally unmoderated" cctalk. -- Paul

On Wednesday 16 June 2004 15:44, Bert Thomas wrote: Are you subscribed to both cctalk and cctech? You shouldn't be. Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

<CUT> Yes, but they are sorted by mail rules and all the ones from the tech list go into a separate folder.. the dupes are all in the talk list Charles 'Thunder' Blackburn Quake3 Co-Lead http://www.tsncentral.com The Leader in the E-Sports Revolution --- A: Top Posters Q: What's the most annoying thing in a mailing list?

You do realize that's a complete duplication dont you? Anything posted on the tech list automatically shows up on the talk list.... Jay --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Paul Williams wrote: Hey Paul. I believe David is getting multiple (i.e. greater than 2) bursts of the same messages. This is my case. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

Hi you wanted to know about dupe posts, i'm in the uk EST + 5 This is the first one received about 14:47 Return-path: &lt;otc(a)srv01.comcage.com&gt; Envelope-to: charlesb(a)otcgaming.net Delivery-date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:47:09 -0400 Received: from otc by srv01.comcage.com with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BbJhv-0006xE-RF for charlesb(a)otcgaming.net; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:47:05 -0400 Received: from [209.145.140.36] (helo=huey.classiccmp.org) by srv01.comcage.com with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1BbJhq-0006wx-2t for charlesb(a)otcgaming.net; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:46:58 -0400 Received: from huey.classiccmp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5IE0Ghi026464; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:00:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org) Received: from floodgap.com (nobody(a)netblock-66-159-214-137.dslextreme.com [66.159.214.137]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5IE09hc026458 for &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt;rg>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:00:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spectre(a)floodgap.com) Received: (from spectre@localhost) by floodgap.com (8.9.1/2004.05.05) id HAA14108 for cctalk(a)classiccmp.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:01:08 -0700 From: Cameron Kaiser &lt;spectre(a)floodgap.com&gt; Message-Id: &lt;200406181401.HAA14108(a)floodgap.com&gt; To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: The Future of Commodore (fwd from cbm-hackers) X-BeenThere: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk.classiccmp.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>, <mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk> List-Post: <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org> List-Help: <mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>, <mailto:cctalk-request@classiccmp.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on srv01.comcage.com X-yoursite-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-From: otc(a)srv01.comcage.com This is the 2nd one received @ 16:49 Return-path: &lt;otc(a)srv01.comcage.com&gt; Envelope-to: charlesb(a)otcgaming.net Delivery-date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:49:09 -0400 Received: from otc by srv01.comcage.com with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BbLc4-0000Lu-5W for charlesb(a)otcgaming.net; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:49:08 -0400 Received: from [209.145.140.36] (helo=huey.classiccmp.org) by srv01.comcage.com with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1BbLc3-0000Lh-DD for charlesb(a)otcgaming.net; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:49:07 -0400 Received: from huey.classiccmp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5IFxghe027289; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:59:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cctech-bounces(a)classiccmp.org) Received: from floodgap.com (nobody(a)netblock-66-159-214-137.dslextreme.com [66.159.214.137]) by huey.classiccmp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5IE09hc026458 for &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt;rg>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:00:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spectre(a)floodgap.com) Received: (from spectre@localhost) by floodgap.com (8.9.1/2004.05.05) id HAA14108 for cctalk(a)classiccmp.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:01:08 -0700 From: Cameron Kaiser &lt;spectre(a)floodgap.com&gt; Message-Id: &lt;200406181401.HAA14108(a)floodgap.com&gt; To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:58:21 -0500 Cc: Subject: The Future of Commodore (fwd from cbm-hackers) X-BeenThere: cctech(a)classiccmp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" &lt;cctech(a)classiccmp.org&gt; List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech.classiccmp.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech>, <mailto:cctech-request@classiccmp.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech> List-Post: <mailto:cctech@classiccmp.org> List-Help: <mailto:cctech-request@classiccmp.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech>, <mailto:cctech-request@classiccmp.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: cctech-bounces(a)classiccmp.org X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on srv01.comcage.com X-yoursite-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-From: otc(a)srv01.comcage.com I've just got back from work so that's why it's taken this long :D Charles 'Thunder' Blackburn Quake3 Co-Lead http://www.tsncentral.com The Leader in the E-Sports Revolution --- A: Top Posters Q: What's the most annoying thing in a mailing list? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Williams" &lt;paul(a)frixxon.co.uk&gt; To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: Re: Duplicate Posts - Burst Posts...

charlesb(a)otcgaming.net wrote: Thank you. In fact the entire list thanks you, as that's where you sent them :-) One of those was sent to cctalk, and one was sent to cctech, so there is no mystery here, sorry! The second one, to cctech, was delayed because all posts to cctech have to be moderated, and that happened at 16:44. If you,or anyone else, receives a third copy of any message, then there is a real problem somewhere, but please tell me about it *off list*, to paul(a)frixxon.co.uk Sorry folks, this is the last time I'll respond on-list about this. -- Paul

On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 19:42, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: I don't pretend to understand these things, but it's not a timeout in acknowedging emails sent to the list is it? e.g. (simplistic view) list sends message to you, you get the message but the turnaroud is so high that there's a timeout at the sending side before any ack gets back to it. So it keeps resending until it thinks the message has got through, and you keep getting multiple copies. Presumably such a failure point would lay between the client and the local mailserver though... Most ISPs seem to be drowning in a sea of spam these days and completely overloaded - at least they are over here. Unfortunately most of it comes anyway :( Bring back the good old days of the 'net :-) cheers Jules

It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated: Well, a large web hosting company here in Boca Raton, Florida (where my girlfriend works as tech support) put in some new anti-spam measures---basically, if the reverse DNS doesn't exist, or it's in one of the black lists (don't know which ones they use) the mail is rejected outright. The switch over was last week. They're still backlogged with email support issues ("I'M LOOSING MAIL!!!!!!! WHATS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?!?!?! MY FRIEND ISN'T A SPAMMER! AND YOU'RE REJECTING HIS/HER/ITS EMAIL!") to the point where *everybody* (up to managers) are on the phones and answering email. Granted, they handle a tremendous amount of email (it's a huge facility, hundreds of machines, thousands upon thousands of sites) so the strain of the mail servers is incredible (they had to shut them down for 12 hours last week, just to let things settle down). If I were running an ISP I might be hesitant to implement some of the measures, simply due to support issues alone. That, however, is a good idea. Might do that myself. -spc (Didn't hear of that one ... )

"Some of us" are running spoofed identds for other internal reasons. What do you mean by "certain protocol errors"? -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com -- For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism. -----------------

[...] [...] [...] ITYM 1413, which amusingly offers the same type of response as valid (despite condemning it in other places in the document). "The information returned is that associated with the fully specified TCP connection identified by <server-address>, <client-address>, <port-on-server>, <port-on-client>, where <server-address> and <client-address> are the local and foreign IP addresses of the querying connection -- i.e., the TCP connection to the Identification Protocol Server. (<port-on-server> and <port-on-client> are taken from the query.) For example: 6193, 23 : USERID : UNIX : stjohns 6195, 23 : ERROR : NO-USER " -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com -- Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery. -- Jack Paar ----------------

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, der Mouse wrote: Don't forget that a lot of Linux dists were shipping with identd configured to send 'UNKNOWN' or 'ERROR:NO-USER' to all requests. Supposedly this was to improve security... -Toth

One of the most promising sounding Anti-SPAM and Anti-virus measures I've heard of recently (can't remember where from though) is Greylisting - http://greylisting.org/ http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/whitepaper.html basically, when somebody new connects to your mail server, send them a 451 4.7.1 Please try again later but note the details. Real mailservers will indeed come back a short time later, at which point the mail is allowed through, and that mailserver's IP and email addresses are marked good. Most spam sending software and viri give up, or wait too long before coming back. The results look impressive: http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~jmack/grey/ I haven't implemented it myself yet.. I'm currently using several blacklisting services on the mail server, which currently cuts out most things trying to get in directly, but the majority of my spam though comes in through several external ISP POP3 accounts that I maintain for historical reasons. I manage those at client-side (spamnix in Eudora, basically SpamAssassin wrapped in a plugin). Given the complete lack of originating IP or envelope information when fetching from a remote POP3 mailbox, I think I'm probably limited to continuing to content-filter these, which is a pain as it takes forever to download the mail, unless anybody knows any different? Rob

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: It seems unlikely that spammercide will be legalized, particularly when current law enforcement organizations refuse to even try to prosecute (under existing conspiracy and agency responsibility laws) mortgage brokers and V1@GRA peddlers for spamming, or hiring spammers to spam on their behalf. The FTC says that it is "impossible to track down spammers, because they operate anonymously"! But even they have to admit that it is trivial to track down the merchants that the spammers work with. Conspiracy may usually be hard to get a conviction under (except for political cases), but these guys have a paper trail. Something that MIGHT work: Urban legends spread fast on the internet, and are believed by otherwise rational people. Once word gets out that 83 spammers have been tracked down and terminated with molten iron, some of them might be a little more hesitant.

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:43:51PM -0700, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: Aren't you forgetting something? Right - he also needs a handy bucket of molten iron to terminate spammers with! Regards, Alex. -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: snopes.com is good for many kinds of things, but she is a sucker on certain technology issues. What kind of phone system does 9 0 # work on? Besides, it's really true! A friend of a friend lived next to a spammer, and some biker dude came and burned him to death!

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/jailcall.htm As stated, it won't work on ANY system. What it's based on is: 1. get the recipient to enable "three way calling" (often by a hook flash) 2. get the recipient to dial 9 for an outside line 3. get the recipient to connect with an operator 4. get the recipient to get off the three way call Steps 1 and 4 are missing from the corrupted bogus story, rendering it completely useless. TPC (The Phone Company) is aware that the instructions are WRONG, but they don't want to correct the details "for security reasons". Barbara doesn't understand what's wrong with it. It's stated that way to make it sound like some bizarre incomprehsnsible to mortals thechnological system, but it's really nothing more that social engineering. An easier way to do the exact same scam is to call Microsoft, and say, "Hi, this is Bill Gates. I'm at Starbucks and my cell battery is dead, so I have to use the payphone. Would you connect me to an outside line?" She also says that the WARNING! of the 809 scam (that people get cheated out of THOUSANDS of dollars, by being fooled into returning calls to Dial-a-porn in the virgin islands) is true, inspite of being aware that the most that ANYBODY has ever lost to that scam was on the order of $10. ... and the guy who was just decapitated was killed because they thought that he was a spammer.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: [9 0 #] Actually, it started with a verifiable incident at a naval installation in New Orleans. The ORIGINAL story was close to correct: that can only be called a hoax. Miscreants who didn't even understand the concept of "three-way-calling with an outside line" rewrote it, dropping the traceback, supplying a first person story of it happening on a residential system, turning the simple idea of "3-way with outside line" into a "technological mystery incomprehensible to normal mortals" (tm) and put in the bullshit about inmates as part of the DANGER! DANGER! hook. One version of the social virus says that the evildoers have some sort of magical machine that lets them take control of your account when you press those numbers. And, most versions of that social virus explicitly say that it is a DANGER to everybody's home line. They've even created a new version that claims that the evildoers can use it against your cell phone. How many people (other than Sellam) have multiple line mobile phones? The assholes who take a legitimate story of a minor problem, and turn it into a "pass this on to everybody who you care about" WARNING! are worse than conventional spammers. They take conscious lusers and zombify them into replicating their virus. There is a pretty decent discussion of that particular hoax at http://www.korova.com/virus/hoax980212.htm there's even a non-HTML version! : http://www.korova.com/ascii/kmr8003.txt You know far more about phone systems than I do. But is there ANY system that will initiate 3-way-calling just by pressing 9 during a conversation? Wouldn't there have to be some sort of hook-flash or line button? What would prevent the CALLER from DTMF control of the system? But that doesn't stop the resurfacing of the WARNING!s that tell you that inmates or other lowlifes are going to cheat you out of THOUSANDS of dollars. The Spamminator (spammercidal maniac) has been tracking them down.

Inerestingly enough in 1980 I worked for the one (and hopefully only) company that I hated going to work each day. At the time my (first) wfie and I had just moved to FLA from NY. All of her friends were in NY. Our telephone bills were HUGE. Since I hated the company, was young (21) and rather a loose cannon. I made use of the very technique that spawned this legend (with minor changes). I would call my wife at the apartment, ask which friend she wanted to speak with, initiate a three way with the friend in NY. I would then put my receiver back on the cradle with a little wedge so you could not see that it was really off hook. People DID wonder why my extension was always busy....

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Fred Cisin wrote: Fred, http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/jailcall.htm ...their conclusion is that the basic scam is "sort of" true, which is accurate as far as PBX systems go. But the cell phone bullshit is not true at all (at least not as far as I know, though again, that scenario can technically be possible) and should be in its own entry, or at least explicitly and individually labeled as false. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

The problem here is with the broken software you were using, not with greylisting. Anything calling itself a mailer that refuses to queue and retry when faced with a soft failure is so broken it should not be let out of the intranet - and I would argue shouldn't be used there either, given how many other things they probably got wrong too. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Yeah. The world needs more people willing to tell the senders of such email "_you_ lost it, by entrusting it to broken software". But that requires senders willing to take the responsibility for their own actions (such as, choosing software without making sure it actually met the spec). And such people are in notably short supply these days, especially in North America (which I realize you probably aren't). /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

At 16:57 18/06/2004, you wrote: I was perhaps being a bit simplistic in my moan ... The main ISP I use does actually include an Envelope-to: header, and so I guess all the information I complained about is there after all. I was thinking from the perspective of running fetchmail locally to fetch mail and pass it to the MTA; of course by then the originating IP has been lost as far as the MTA (postfix in my case) is concerned, as connections come from localhost. Actually. [having just looked into it while writing this] fetchmail does parse the headers to find the originating IP, but it appears to only check this against a blacklist file. I'd have to work out some way of patching in the blackhole DNS checks that I currently use with postfix, or patch them both to pass the IP over in some defined way. This is probably beyond my skills ... Greylisting won't be of help in this case at all, as it only works on the initial mail server that receives the spam directly. It'll probably be easier to one day when I have a day to spare to trawl through all my email and work out what is wanted that comes in on those addresses, and sort those out, then ditch those accounts! [They are mostly used by contact addresses on domain registrations, financial stuff, mailing lists, etc. not impossible to change, but not quite as easy as sending out an email to all my contacts saying I've moved.] Rob

Depends on the time of year. Right now, for example, Eastern time is -0400; it's in the winter that it's -0500. (At least in Canada, but as I understand it the only difference between Canadian and US Eastern time is exactly when they shift to and from summer time, and even that I don't think differs much these days.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Williams" &lt;paul(a)frixxon.co.uk&gt; To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:44 PM Subject: Re: Duplicate Posts - Burst Posts... GMT -4 (UK Time -5) As i said, i'm subscribed to both lists, but i only ever seedupes in the talk list, and those are dupes of mails that was already sent to "talk".i never receive dupes (so far) in the tech list. Charles 'Thunder' Blackburn Quake3 Co-Lead http://www.tsncentral.com The Leader in the E-Sports Revolution --- A: Top Posters Q: What's the most annoying thing in a mailing list?

Patrick Finnegan wrote: Yup, that would the problem. I was under the impression that they where seperate lists when I subscribed. Thanks! :-) Regards, Bert