Mail Filters that Use Challenge-Responses
Alan Connor
There are a bunch of loonies posting all sorts of garbage about mail filters
that use challenge-responses right now. Most of them are the sock puppets
of one particular head case.
Trying to carry on a reasonable conversation with them is pointless. They
have all been told, many times in the past, that their views are insane
and ignorant, but 'they' keep posting them anyway.
To set the record straight:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pass-list ---------> block-list (content-filter) ---------> Challenge-Response
I never see any spam.
I send out very few C-Rs.
I don't have to mess with my filter at all.
Spam is just gone from my life, no muss and no fuss.
The only complaint I have ever had was from a domain that turned
out to be on the dnsbl (dns blacklist) for spamming.
Anyone can reach me with no muss or fuss if they use their real return
address.
On the rare occassion that I send a C-R to an innocent party (I have to
assume that his has happenned at least once.)
whose address has been forged, then I have done them the favor of letting
them know that it is being forged, which can cause a person one hell
of a lot of trouble.
They have my real address and are told in the C-R that I have a copy
of the headers of the post if they need it.
Never had anyone respond in this way, or even send an angry response.
Like I said: ONE complaint, ever, and from spammers.
C-Rs are only one stage, and the final stage, of an effective mail filter
that is designed like so:
PASSLIST
Where every friend, associate, commercial mailing list, discussion
mailing list, business, and non-profit org is given free access
to my inbox with my consent.
Anyone you send mail to must be passlisted.
This is where you make SURE you get all the mail you REALLY need
to get, or just want.
BLOCKLIST (Content-Filter)
General, to kill most of the spam. You can use SpamAssasin here
called by procmail. Or just use good procmail recipes.
And specific, where domains and addresses are killed for various
offenses, generally repeated C-Rs that aren't returned.
(Do remember to blocklist your own address, or some clown will
send mail to you with your own address on the From: line and
set up a mail loop.)
You just can't catch all the spam with a content-filter like
SpamAssassin. If you even try, you will end up losing mail
that isn't spam, and getting some spam anyway. And you have
to update your filters all the time to keep abreast of the
spammers.
(As well as save the spam to look through to make sure there
isn't any mail you want in there, which rather defeats the
whole purpose of a spam filter, in my opinion. I don't want
to ever see that garbage.)
Better to just kill the mail you KNOW is spam, and send a
C-R to the few that your content filter isn't sure about.
CHALLENGE-RESPONSE
A little note that asks the receiver to paste a password on the
Subject: line and return it.
The Subject line on the C-R should have Re: original subject
on it.
This forces people to use their actual email address if they want
me to see their posts.
(And to read their mail...)
This is only required once. From then on, it's as if there is no
filter on my mail from their perspective.
AC
--
Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response
The key to taking control of your mailbox.
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/spamfoil.html
http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag
Frostbite
>
> I never see any spam.
From: Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy>
GEE, I WONDER WHY?????
--
wq!
Frostbite
I believe it was Alan Connor who said...
>
>
>
>
>
>
That is *really* right on, AC.
I am utterly convinced that these are the mail filters of the future.
Thanks!
--
wq!
Frostbite
>
>
> That is *really* right on, AC.
>
> I am utterly convinced that these are the mail filters of the future.
>
>
> Thanks!
Next time you are going to forge posts from me, make sure you remove
all of those traces to your ISP, jackass.
P.S. Even if I was convinced about your stupid C-R solution, there
would still only be two of us.
--
wq!
Sam
> I believe it was Alan Connor who forged...
>>
>>
>> That is *really* right on, AC.
>>
>> I am utterly convinced that these are the mail filters of the future.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Next time you are going to forge posts from me, make sure you remove
> all of those traces to your ISP, jackass.
Speaking of forgeries: are your really Bill Gates, and do you really work
for Morgan Stanley?
Alan Wonsowski
>> There are a bunch of loonies posting all sorts of garbage about mail filters
>> that use challenge-responses right now. Most of them are the sock puppets
>> of one particular head case.
"Mailblocks" offers a web based application that uses the
"challenge/response" method to eliminate spam. Details can be found on
the website:
Alan
D. Stussy
> ...
> I never see any spam.
He never sees any legitimate e-mail either. 100% filtration.
> I send out very few C-Rs.
Zero is also a small number.
> I don't have to mess with my filter at all.
True. If it rejects everything, no need to mess with perfection. That's the
only way to guarentee 100% spam identification.
> Spam is just gone from my life, no muss and no fuss.
So is e-mail. No email => no spam.
> The only complaint I have ever had was from a domain that turned
> out to be on the dnsbl (dns blacklist) for spamming.
An obvious lie. He has already proven himself to be a liar (in another post).
> Anyone can reach me with no muss or fuss if they use their real return
> address.
No one wants to reach you, even if you pay them.
> On the rare occassion that I send a C-R to an innocent party (I have to
> assume that his has happenned at least once.)
With 100% e-mail (and thus 100% spam) rejection, that will never happen.
> whose address has been forged, then I have done them the favor of letting
> them know that it is being forged, which can cause a person one hell
> of a lot of trouble.
>
> They have my real address and are told in the C-R that I have a copy
> of the headers of the post if they need it.
But they can't ever reach you because their response to the C/R will be caught
by your spam filter and killed.
> Never had anyone respond in this way, or even send an angry response.
That would be true with 100% filtration.
> Like I said: ONE complaint, ever, and from spammers.
Another lie.
> C-Rs are only one stage, and the final stage, of an effective mail filter
> that is designed like so:
>
> PASSLIST
>
> Where every friend, associate, commercial mailing list, discussion
> mailing list, business, and non-profit org is given free access
> to my inbox with my consent.
>
> Anyone you send mail to must be passlisted.
>
> This is where you make SURE you get all the mail you REALLY need
> to get, or just want.
Until some spammer forges one of his friend's mailbox addresses. However, we
know that can never happen. He has no friends.
> BLOCKLIST (Content-Filter)
>
> General, to kill most of the spam. You can use SpamAssasin here
> called by procmail. Or just use good procmail recipes.
>
> And specific, where domains and addresses are killed for various
> offenses, generally repeated C-Rs that aren't returned.
>
> (Do remember to blocklist your own address, or some clown will
> send mail to you with your own address on the From: line and
> set up a mail loop.)
>
> You just can't catch all the spam with a content-filter like
> SpamAssassin. If you even try, you will end up losing mail
> that isn't spam, and getting some spam anyway. And you have
> to update your filters all the time to keep abreast of the
> spammers.
>
> (As well as save the spam to look through to make sure there
> isn't any mail you want in there, which rather defeats the
> whole purpose of a spam filter, in my opinion. I don't want
> to ever see that garbage.)
>
> Better to just kill the mail you KNOW is spam, and send a
> C-R to the few that your content filter isn't sure about.
To guarentee that he has killed 100% of the spam, he must kill 100% of his
e-mail, if he were to receive any. No need to kill that which has never been
sent, however.
> CHALLENGE-RESPONSE
>
> A little note that asks the receiver to paste a password on the
> Subject: line and return it.
>
> The Subject line on the C-R should have Re: original subject
> on it.
>
> This forces people to use their actual email address if they want
> me to see their posts.
>
> (And to read their mail...)
>
> This is only required once. From then on, it's as if there is no
> filter on my mail from their perspective.
Or not required at all since you have no friends.
Morely 'I drank what?' Dotes
in news:5XL0c.28250$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net right after
begin :
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.187.208.229
03/01/04 22:34:39 dns 63.187.208.229
nslookup 63.187.208.229
Canonical name: sdn-ap-003watacoP0229.dialsprint.net
Addresses:
63.187.208.229
Hmmm...
--
Want a custom-built PC designed by gamers, for gamers?
Visit http://kryptonite.pc-gamereview.com
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Morely 'I drank what?' Dotes
<awonsowatattglobal.network@> wrote in
news:iiu740taojiv1fe01...@4ax.com right after begin :
> "Mailblocks" offers a web based application that uses the
> "challenge/response" method to eliminate spam. Details can be found on
> the website:
>
> www.mailblocks.com
Thanks for the warning.
Local ACL updated.
Morely 'I drank what?' Dotes
wrote in news:5XL0c.28250$W74....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
right after begin :
>
> I believe it was Alan Connor who said...
[idiotic and abusive C/R system snipped]
> That is *really* right on, AC.
>
> I am utterly convinced that these are the mail filters of the future.
One hopes that you are demonstrating sarcasm.
Timo Salmi
> There are a bunch of loonies posting all sorts of garbage about mail filters
> that use challenge-responses right now. Most of them are the sock puppets
> of one particular head case.
Alan, don't let it bother you. The email usages of the users are
hardly much affected by Usenet news opinions. Mine, yours, anyone's.
The 'market' will decide, one way or the other. Serious comments are
another matter, worth considering, since nothing is unproblematic.
However, I find it better just to post the information, and ignore
the frivolous baiting. By the very nature of the Usenet news, no
such heads are ever turned by arguing. It is a wasted effort.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo's procmail tips at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html
Alan Connor
Right again, Professor. I will try harder. Thank you.
Better to put the effort into a website covering the subject
thoroughly.
AC
bulk_trap
> There are a bunch of loonies posting all sorts of garbage about mail filters
> that use challenge-responses right now. Most of them are the sock puppets
> of one particular head case.
>
> Trying to carry on a reasonable conversation with them is pointless. They
> have all been told, many times in the past, that their views are insane
> and ignorant, but 'they' keep posting them anyway.
You're beginning to sound more and more like Moronis.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
AC> about mail filters that use challenge-responses right now.
It's rather overstating the case to use the plural.