Tactics for dealing with SPAM mail

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>and or cc fields.
>
>No thank you: any such policy draws an arbitrary line, probably in the
>wrong place. I quite often receive email with lots of addresses in the
>to: or cc: fields. Since it's usually from one or other of my more
>connected friends-and-acquaintances advising *all* their f-and-as of a
>change of address, I would prefer to receive such messages intact.
>(Since they use cc: rather than bcc: I also learn a number of *other*
>f-and-as' email addresses, some of which I didn't know :-)

Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
addresses in your message?

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>and or cc fields.

Another suggestion:
If someone is kicked off an ISP as a result or net-abuse, is that
person's details shared with other ISP's to make it more difficult for
them to repeat the same with another ISP?

Arwel Parry

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

In article <vQJy1OAB...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes

>Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
>Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>>and or cc fields.
>>

>>No thank you: any such policy draws an arbitrary line, probably in the
>>wrong place. I quite often receive email with lots of addresses in the
>>to: or cc: fields. Since it's usually from one or other of my more
>>connected friends-and-acquaintances advising *all* their f-and-as of a
>>change of address, I would prefer to receive such messages intact.
>>(Since they use cc: rather than bcc: I also learn a number of *other*
>>f-and-as' email addresses, some of which I didn't know :-)
>
>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>addresses in your message?
>

[massive list snipped]

Whew! Well, that's overdoing it a bit, but I have been the recipient of
an email individually addressed to 98 people, perfectly properly - it
was from the postmaster of a Nova Scotia ISP explaining what had been
done to one of his spammers whom we'd all complained about.

Arwel
============================================================
Arwel Parry apa...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk 10033...@compuserve.com
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Richard Herring

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

In article <vQJy1OAB...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn

<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote

>Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
>Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>>and or cc fields.
>>
>>No thank you: any such policy draws an arbitrary line, probably in the
>>wrong place. I quite often receive email with lots of addresses in the
>>to: or cc: fields. Since it's usually from one or other of my more
>>connected friends-and-acquaintances advising *all* their f-and-as of a
>>change of address, I would prefer to receive such messages intact.
>>(Since they use cc: rather than bcc: I also learn a number of *other*
>>f-and-as' email addresses, some of which I didn't know :-)
>
>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>addresses in your message?

[grotesque example snipped]

Of course not. But are *you* proposing to determine the magic threshold
beyond which they should be bounced?
--
Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>

Mike Pellatt

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

In article <vQJy1OAB...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> blurted out:

>Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
>Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>>and or cc fields.
>>
>>No thank you: any such policy draws an arbitrary line, probably in the
>>wrong place. I quite often receive email with lots of addresses in the
>>to: or cc: fields. Since it's usually from one or other of my more
>>connected friends-and-acquaintances advising *all* their f-and-as of a
>>change of address, I would prefer to receive such messages intact.
>>(Since they use cc: rather than bcc: I also learn a number of *other*
>>f-and-as' email addresses, some of which I didn't know :-)
>
>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>addresses in your message?

[ snip ]

Thanks for the spam.

I believe {R} has a word for people like you. Clive seems to be using
it on occasion, too.

--
Mike Pellatt

Jenny Kosarew

unread,

Dec 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/3/96

to

Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ann an sgriobhainn <LEdnjKAV...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
>Richard Herring <ric...@clupeid.demon.co.uk>
>>In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
>><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and not
>>>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>>>and or cc fields.
>>
>>No thank you: any such policy draws an arbitrary line, probably in the
>>wrong place.

[...]

>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>addresses in your message?

[500 lines or so of irritatingly long address list snipped]

As RC pointed out, most spammers know enough not to use the To: or Cc:
lines for long lists of addresses, and it certainly wouldn't catch many
of the spams I receive. Let us suppose Demon were to go ahead and
implement the sort of interception you suggest - how many addresses
would *you* suggest for the limit? I agree your 1000+ list would be a
likely candidate, but setting the limit that high would mean it would
catch fewer spams, and yet even that figure could also intercept wanted
mails.

To add to Richard Herring's example, the host site of a mailing list I
was on arbitrarily raised its charges by more than 1000%. The owner had
to withdraw the list and search out a new home. She was able to send
out a message to everyone that this was happening before closing the
list, but for the past few weeks most people have been kept up-to-date
with the progress in finding a new site by mass mailings. This list had
about 300 members (I think). Would your suggested limit stop me getting
those messages? What if the list had 1000 or 2000 members, or more?

For Turnpike or other mail programs to enable users to discard such
messages using criteria they could select for themselves, either using
POP3 and deleting from the server, or downloading but not adding to the
mailbase, would be fine, but for Demon to intercept my mail on the
grounds that they don't think I would want it would not be acceptable to
me, at least.

--
Jenny Kosarew jk...@escher.demon.co.uk
from Reading, England http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3968/

Sam.

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>addresses in your message?

That was a bit much just for an example. Normally such messages are
Bcc'ed anyway, so you wouldn't see the other recipients.

When you get to see the full list, either the sender has got their
mail prog set up wrong, or it's a set-up, designed so when one idiot
replies with some half-arsed flaming the entire list gets a copy, etc
etc.

Anyway, mail spam is not Demon's problem. Would you like it if the
Post office went through your mail? Nobody would get their gas bill
for starters. If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
use it. If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't
be half the complaints about this sort of thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck. s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/

Sam.

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Another suggestion:
>If someone is kicked off an ISP as a result or net-abuse, is that
>person's details shared with other ISP's to make it more difficult for
>them to repeat the same with another ISP?

I believe that may be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.

If it bothers you so much why not just load your rifle and go after
the perps yourself? Or just put up with it. The only reason we have
all this cool anarchy is because of tolerance.

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <32a4baa5...@news.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk>

>If it bothers you so much why not just load your rifle and go after
>the perps yourself? Or just put up with it. The only reason we have
>all this cool anarchy is because of tolerance.
>

See http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/dunblane.html as to why I don't have
a gun.

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk>

>
>Anyway, mail spam is not Demon's problem. Would you like it if the
>Post office went through your mail? Nobody would get their gas bill
>for starters. If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
>use it. If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't
>be half the complaints about this sort of thing.
>

Show me how to use an e-mail kill file with Turnpike and I'd be
delighted to do so.

Phil Payne

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

In article <849656...@cobalt.demon.co.uk>
fri...@cobalt.demon.co.uk "Friday" writes:

> You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

Yes. Time for another go. Thank heavens for the PC version.

--
Phil Payne

(ph...@sievers.com, despite what the bounces say. If I don't
reply, your message is probably still stuck on a Demon punt.)

Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660

Ian Sharrock

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

In article <32a4baa5...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Another suggestion:
>>If someone is kicked off an ISP as a result or net-abuse, is that
>>person's details shared with other ISP's to make it more difficult for
>>them to repeat the same with another ISP?
>
>I believe that may be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.
>

>If it bothers you so much why not just load your rifle and go after
>the perps yourself? Or just put up with it.

There's an interesting side issue here anyway - is it possible to make
unwanted mail illegal (for us lot in the UK at least)? I'll quote a bit
from Network Briefing (issue 247 21-25 Oct) in a piece about AOL
blocking junk e-mail [without permission, so I'll be up in front of the
beak myself :-) ]

"But an interesting addendum has arisen in the form of the UK Computer
Misuse Act, which makes it an offence to alter any data on any computer
without proper authorisation. If someone on America Online were to
declare that unsolicited electronic mail advertising to their node was
unauthorised, then anyone sending such mail would be committing a
criminal offence in the UK."

The article also states that US telecos are required by international
treaty to stop this (criminal act) happening. I dunno about elsewhere
in the world.

I don't know the follow up to this story - the court case in question
was due to be heard in November according to the article. I'd be very
interested to hear about the outcome.

First stab at a .sig below ;-)

Ian
--
Ian Sharrock
Permission to send unsolicited electronic mail advertising to this node is
explicitly *withdrawn*. Any entity sending such mail is committing a criminal
offence under the provisions of the UK Computer Misuse Act.

Bob Adams

unread,

Dec 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/4/96

to

In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>... If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
>use it.

Following on from the excellent advice above, just how do you configure
Turnpike to kill in-coming spams such as the example quoted?

>If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't
>be half the complaints about this sort of thing.
>
>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
>"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck.
s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
> http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk
/

If more people knew how to use their software, their .sig file would not
get quoted back to them!

--
Bob Adams
http://www.amster.demon.co.uk

Richard Sobey

unread,

Dec 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/5/96

to

On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:40:37 GMT, s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk (Sam.) told
everyone about:

>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Another suggestion:
>>If someone is kicked off an ISP as a result or net-abuse, is that
>>person's details shared with other ISP's to make it more difficult for
>>them to repeat the same with another ISP?
>
>I believe that may be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.

Why? Credit reference agencies are continually sharinginformation
about their customers with each other. Or am I missing something?

---
Richard Sobey
<ric...@conad.demon.co.uk>
<http://www.conad.demon.co.uk>

Hilary Curtis

unread,

Dec 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/5/96

to

In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>>addresses in your message?
>
>That was a bit much just for an example. Normally such messages are
>Bcc'ed anyway, so you wouldn't see the other recipients.
>
>When you get to see the full list, either the sender has got their
>mail prog set up wrong, or it's a set-up, designed so when one idiot
>replies with some half-arsed flaming the entire list gets a copy, etc
>etc.

No, not necessarily. Many people run clubs and societies etc, which may
have _large_ numbers of members who each want to be able to e-mail each
other freely. Cc'ing rather than bcc'ing allows any recipient to respond
to everyone else, and also to know who everyone else is. Of course, it
may make headers rather long, but it is for each club or society to
decide for itself what it thinks about this.

I would be _very_ dismayed if Demon tried to stop subscribers from using
long mail lists.

Besides, even if someone has set their mail prog up wrong, and cc'ed
when they meant to bcc, is that a reason to penalise them??

--
Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/8/96

to

In article <32a4baa5...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Another suggestion:
>>If someone is kicked off an ISP as a result or net-abuse, is that
>>person's details shared with other ISP's to make it more difficult for
>>them to repeat the same with another ISP?
>
>I believe that may be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984.

I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored
on computers. The aim is to allow access to information about stored by
other people. If the DPA stopped companies sharing information, why are
mailing lists still being sold?

>If it bothers you so much why not just load your rifle and go after

>the perps yourself? Or just put up with it. The only reason we have
>all this cool anarchy is because of tolerance.

--
Martin Challis

http://www.tinmar.demon.co.uk

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/8/96

to

In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Here's an example. Are you suggesting you're likely to put this many
>>addresses in your message?
>
>That was a bit much just for an example. Normally such messages are
>Bcc'ed anyway, so you wouldn't see the other recipients.
>
>When you get to see the full list, either the sender has got their
>mail prog set up wrong, or it's a set-up, designed so when one idiot
>replies with some half-arsed flaming the entire list gets a copy, etc
>etc.
>

>Anyway, mail spam is not Demon's problem. Would you like it if the
>Post office went through your mail? Nobody would get their gas bill

>for starters. If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
>use it. If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't

>be half the complaints about this sort of thing.

What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
circumstances the Post Office will intervine.

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/8/96

to

In article <nF10oKAN...@bertie.demon.co.uk>, Ian Sharrock
<i...@bertie.demon.co.uk> writes

>Ian
>--
>Ian Sharrock
>Permission to send unsolicited electronic mail advertising to this node is
>explicitly *withdrawn*. Any entity sending such mail is committing a criminal
>offence under the provisions of the UK Computer Misuse Act.

Love the sig, not sure how you could follow it up.

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

unread,

Dec 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/8/96

to

In article <32ac683a....@news.demon.co.uk> mi...@demon.co.uk "Alan" writes:

> On Fri, 06 Dec 96 18:59:02 GMT, "Dave (Reply address in.sig"
> <no...@llondel.demon.co.uk> had the following to say
>
> >First step is to acquire different software with mailkill.
> >Next, install it and check it works.
> >Finally, delete Turnpike.
> >
> >When a new version with mailkill appears, you can reverse the process.
> >
> So what news reader are you using Dave ? It's not showing in my header
> field at this end !

Sigh! Yet another manifestation of that fact that Agent is an
incompetent newsreader (and/or beloved of incompetents):

> X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.43 $

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
Tony Blair's New Labour: The Windows'95 of Political Parties
(c/w Plug'n'Pray and a pretence of offering object-orientation)

Keith Stanbury

unread,

Dec 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/8/96

to

In article <6mtSrUAW...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
<mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes

>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>

HA!..... you have *got* to be joking, of course....

Under *no* circumstance will Royal Mail interfere with delivery of
stamped/franked mail, irrespective of what it contains. It is *AGAINST*
their (Royal) charter.... (unless overruled by Magistrates Warrant, of
course)

Furthermore, unlike e-mail, they are *not* held accountable if what they
deliver is obscene/against the law!

Cor.... mebbe I'm the thick one!
--
Keith

Default

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

> >In article <r5PjfPAZ...@scot.demon.co.uk>, Craig Cockburn
> ><cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and
not
> >>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
> >>and or cc fields.

Not good. What about the legitimate mailing lists that some of us are
signed to that use aliasing rather than a listserv.
Surely the whole point of an ISP is unregulated internet access?

Alan Williams

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

No.. No.. No ..it was on the Sun, 08 Dec 96 18:53:47 GMT, that a voice
from a dark, dank place uttered ...

>In article <32ac683a....@news.demon.co.uk> mi...@demon.co.uk "Alan" writes:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Dec 96 18:59:02 GMT, "Dave (Reply address in.sig"
>> <no...@llondel.demon.co.uk> had the following to say
>>
>> >First step is to acquire different software with mailkill.
>> >Next, install it and check it works.
>> >Finally, delete Turnpike.
>> >
>> >When a new version with mailkill appears, you can reverse the process.
>> >
>> So what news reader are you using Dave ? It's not showing in my header
>> field at this end !
>
>Sigh! Yet another manifestation of that fact that Agent is an
>incompetent newsreader (and/or beloved of incompetents):
>
>> X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.43 $
>

ohhh....... that's it.......................ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ROTFL

happy xmas
Alan Williams
Prestwick

Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way...........

Michael

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

In article <6mtSrUAW...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
<mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>

>--
>Martin Challis
>
>http://www.tinmar.demon.co.uk

Hmm,
This thread has opened up that hornets nest again about mail and
where/who/how it should be handled. Dare I say on AOL they got so sick
and tired of junk mail they now have a list of addresses where anything
sent from them is filtered into a 'do not send' area. It sounded so good
at the begining in theory and they said if you receive any mail forward
it and they'd add it to the list.
Sadly since the thing has been introduced I've received more junk mail,
get rich quick etc schemes that I'm sure AOL are getting a bit sick of
me sending them to be added to the list. Hey, they even give you the
option to 'accept' all the junk mail if you want!!
I suppose junk mail is really a thing which will only increase in time
and the odd bits I get with this account tend to have to endure the
'delete' button rather rapidly. I recall Richard C earlier mentioning
that many mailers disguise their addresses and I can only agree that by
the time you read the whole header you find it came from somewhere else.
After all that you also find that the account used is no longer
functional and you end up with the mailed being returned (more online
time!) being a failed mail. :(
Michael
--
=============================== * #---- > < ======================
| Mic...@obscure.demon.co.uk | #==#0 , ) >---o--oO | Friends come & go, |
| Don't let them get to you!! | #==#@ >---o--oO | Enemies accumulate |
=============================== #---- > < ======================

Sam.

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

Martin Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.

Yes but basically it's not something you *need* Demon for. Plenty of
people here could tell him to get some mailkill software. Demon's tech
support is very poor, so perhaps they're not the right ISP for him. I
think they assume a decent amount of technical knowledge from their
users.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Adams

unread,

Dec 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/9/96

to

In article <01bbe537$8de0c2e0$5721...@zycon.demon.co.uk>, Default
<nn...@zycon.demon.co.uk> writes

>> >>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and
>not
>> >>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the to
>> >>and or cc fields.
>
>Not good. What about the legitimate mailing lists that some of us are
>signed to that use aliasing rather than a listserv.

I keep seeing this argument put forward and it seems a touch loopy.
Surely if somebody is clever enough to program a filter then they would
also be clever enough to put in something that was capable of allowing
mailing-list mail to flow unheeded?

>Surely the whole point of an ISP is unregulated internet access?

Spam'ers deserve to be regulated - they only have themselves to blame.

Jeinsen

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

Bob Adams <ams...@amster.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<rC3nRWAE...@amster.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <01bbe537$8de0c2e0$5721...@zycon.demon.co.uk>, Default
> <nn...@zycon.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >> >>I would like to see Demon taking some responsibility in this too and
> >not
> >> >>forwarding messages with more than a certain number of lines in the
to
> >> >>and or cc fields.
> >
> >Not good. What about the legitimate mailing lists that some of us are
> >signed to that use aliasing rather than a listserv.
>
> I keep seeing this argument put forward and it seems a touch loopy.
> Surely if somebody is clever enough to program a filter then they would
> also be clever enough to put in something that was capable of allowing
> mailing-list mail to flow unheeded?

But who programs the filter? If Demon are the ones to not forward messages
with more than a certain number of lines in the Cc or Bcc fields, do we
have to tell Demon everytime we sign up to a list? What next? Ringing Demon
and asking them if they'll hold my hand while I visit that scary
www.microsoft.com site?

The whole idea of using Demon rather than someone like AOL is that the user
is the *postmaster*. Demon simply supply the connections and should not be
responsible for any content (from anywhere).

And did it ever occur to the original poster that some of us may actually
like to receive junk mail, before he assumed that Demon should filter mail
for all of us?

MadDog@siberia_demon_co_uk

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

On Tuesday, in article <Kx8nZEAN...@spoff.demon.co.uk>
ste...@spoff.demon.co.uk "Stephen Agar" wrote:

SA> At the risk of being very off-topic, I am (as it happens) the Assistant
SA> Director in charge of all the Royal Mail commercial legal advice,
SA> including everything to do with postal law. It would be a criminal
SA> offence for any employee to even unduly delay mail, let alone detain it.
SA> Mail is covered by the Interception of Communications Act and is
SA> inviolate under the Post Office Act 1969.

Getting a bit off-topic, do you have any idea of the legal
situation regarding attempts to use an internet host for
mail routeing?

I'm thinking of the situation where some person attempts without
my permission to deliver an email along a path that passes through
myhost.demon.co.uk.

I currently have my system set up to bounce any such mail; but if
I were to accept it and then delete it, would that be illegal?

--
MadDog @ siberia.demon.co.uk

Mark Lowes

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <850307...@siberia.demon.co.uk>,
<MadDog@siberia_demon_co_uk> wrote:
[...]

> Getting a bit off-topic, do you have any idea of the legal
> situation regarding attempts to use an internet host for
> mail routeing?

God only knows, I guess (UK only) that the computer misuse acts apply.
I'm guessing but I would have thought that anyone using flyhmstr.dcu
as a relay without my permission would be breaking the law.

> I'm thinking of the situation where some person attempts without my
> permission to deliver an email along a path that passes through
> myhost.demon.co.uk. I currently have my system set up to bounce any
> such mail; but if I were to accept it and then delete it, would that
> be illegal?

Without reading the rfcs I guess that you should bounce the message
back as undeliverable at your site but I'm sure someone else knows far
better than me.

Mark
--
Mark Lowes <ro...@flyhmstr.demon.co.uk>

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <v5d1ZbAU...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith Stanbury
<ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <6mtSrUAW...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>

>>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>>

>HA!..... you have *got* to be joking, of course....
>
>Under *no* circumstance will Royal Mail interfere with delivery of
>stamped/franked mail, irrespective of what it contains. It is *AGAINST*
>their (Royal) charter.... (unless overruled by Magistrates Warrant, of
>course)

I stand corrected, although if you read Spy Catcher we could end up
having a very interesting and unrelated conversation.

>Furthermore, unlike e-mail, they are *not* held accountable if what they
>deliver is obscene/against the law!

I'm not asking for Demon to accecpt responsibility for the content. I
feel they should accept they must help their customers deal with
unwanted mail.

>Cor.... mebbe I'm the thick one!

Maybe, but your not the only one <s>

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <QR5UBhAf...@obscure.demon.co.uk>, Michael
<Mic...@obscure.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <6mtSrUAW...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>

>Hmm,
>This thread has opened up that hornets nest again about mail and
>where/who/how it should be handled. Dare I say on AOL they got so sick
>and tired of junk mail they now have a list of addresses where anything
>sent from them is filtered into a 'do not send' area. It sounded so
good
>at the begining in theory and they said if you receive any mail forward
>it and they'd add it to the list.
>Sadly since the thing has been introduced I've received more junk mail,
>get rich quick etc schemes that I'm sure AOL are getting a bit sick of
>me sending them to be added to the list. Hey, they even give you the
>option to 'accept' all the junk mail if you want!!
>I suppose junk mail is really a thing which will only increase in time
>and the odd bits I get with this account tend to have to endure the
>'delete' button rather rapidly. I recall Richard C earlier mentioning
>that many mailers disguise their addresses and I can only agree that by
>the time you read the whole header you find it came from somewhere
else.
>After all that you also find that the account used is no longer
>functional and you end up with the mailed being returned (more online
>time!) being a failed mail. :(

I must agree that I cant not think of a perfect solution. Although a
partical solution would be to allow end users (me) to browse mail before
downloading. I can ping post and get some details of the messages. So
is it not possible to use that facility?

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <32ab16a2...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Martin Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>

>Yes but basically it's not something you *need* Demon for. Plenty of
>people here could tell him to get some mailkill software. Demon's tech
>support is very poor, so perhaps they're not the right ISP for him. I
>think they assume a decent amount of technical knowledge from their
>users.

But as Demon provide the software, I feel that Demon should step in.
Demon will not support other software, so if I have a problem and am not
using Turnpike, wouldn't the attitude from Tech Support be "Tough"?

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/11/96

to

In article <UemLgJA611qyEwS$@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith Stanbury
<ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <AED051AC...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole
><pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <6mtSrUAW...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>,

>>Martin Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>What Craig is asking for, is for Demon to accept reasonability to help
>>>their customers deal with the problem. BTW I think that under certain
>>>circumstances the Post Office will intervine.
>

>hrmph....RUBBISH!..... (d***head!)
>>
>>I thought they only intervened in the case of harassing mail? Thing like
>>poison pen?
>
>hrrmph.... RUBBISH!...(nuvver d***head!)
>
>> I think it's better if Demon intervene as little as possible in
>>what mail we get and left it to us to use our software in the best possible
>>way to achieve what we want.
>>
>>I'd have thought that for huge spam lists etc, the best advice was
>>available in the support groups for the relevant software, or somewhere
>>like here, where there's plenty of advice available and, in general, more
>>experience than you could ever expect Demon or their tech support to
>>possess.
>>
>
>hrrmph... total load of cods wallop!!!! wish I hadn't bothered to
>download this tripe!!!
>

Thank you for your enlightening and helpful message.

Alan Williams

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

No.. No.. No ..it was on the Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:49:22 +0000, that a

voice from a dark, dank place uttered ...

>In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, on Wed, 4 Dec 1996
>"Sam." <s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>
>>Anyway, mail spam is not Demon's problem. Would you like it if the
>>Post office went through your mail? Nobody would get their gas bill
>>for starters. If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
>>use it. If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't
>>be half the complaints about this sort of thing.
>

>Err. Excuse me, but that arrogant attitude belies the fact that you dont
>know what you are talking about. Or so it seems to me.
>
>Pray tell, how does a kill file stop you receiving junk mail?
>(junk *news* maybe

No it does not stop it, David, but the filters allows you to file it
outwith your normal mail box.

seasons greetin's
Regards

Alan. W
**email from address is fake**
please use "reply to" button to contact me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Stephen M Baines

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <kFRrELAS...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk>
gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk "David Gibson" writes:

> Pray tell, how does a kill file stop you receiving junk mail?

> (junk *news* maybe)

In many packages (including KA9Q and WinDIS) you can set up mailkills
to bounce messages received from individuals. The version of KA9Q
with wild card mailkill that was released last week does a superb job
of this.

- --

Stephen M Baines F1/TouringCars http://www.pobox.com/~formula1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: cp850

iQB1AwUBMq9jVnzZENMJPwPtAQGGQAMAvaqzeB8mGgimjls9Tl4DCziCa4E0Rmpe
Bxufri81S8FAJh8NbIehOgxDO0fHFRuQ3+69OQUBcRlIAZ4fa2edKFVGeqrLolxU
HVKJOxhN4qLGj9A/sYwk8D6P046M0rZN
=eOvW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Lindsay

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article: <kFRrELAS...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> David Gibson

<gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, on Wed, 4 Dec 1996
> "Sam." <s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >Anyway, mail spam is not Demon's problem. Would you like it if the
> >Post office went through your mail? Nobody would get their gas bill
> >for starters. If you don't like it, get a kill file, and learn how to
> >use it. If more people knew how to work their software there wouldn't
> >be half the complaints about this sort of thing.
>
> Err. Excuse me, but that arrogant attitude belies the fact that you dont
> know what you are talking about. Or so it seems to me.
>

> Pray tell, how does a kill file stop you receiving junk mail?
> (junk *news* maybe)

KA9Q and Windis have killfile facilities, but you need to know what address to
insert into the file. Thus you could stop the second one arriving, or
alternatively we pool information somehow.

--
David Lindsay
Lindsay Research Fax:+44(0)118 9402500
Market Research & Consultancy davl...@mktres.demon.co.uk
Reading, Berks; UK http://www.mktres.demon.co.uk

Terrance Richard Boyes

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

David Lindsay (Davl...@mktres.demon.co.uk) wrote:

> <gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > Err. Excuse me, but that arrogant attitude belies the fact that you dont
> > know what you are talking about. Or so it seems to me.
> >
> > Pray tell, how does a kill file stop you receiving junk mail?
> > (junk *news* maybe)
>
> KA9Q and Windis have killfile facilities, but you need to know what address to

Probably lost on "gibson", since it's a Turnpike user...

> insert into the file. Thus you could stop the second one arriving, or

Or, if you think it's worth it, use POP3 to check the mail first.

> alternatively we pool information somehow.

This may or may not help, by the time the info has been collected and
distributed we've probably already got the junk ourselvesr.

--
<URL:http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1666> Team AMIGA
Windows: From the people who brought you EDLIN!

Stephen Booth

unread,

Dec 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/12/96

to

In article <CBgsyHAg...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
<mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>

>I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored
>on computers. The aim is to allow access to information about stored by
>other people. If the DPA stopped companies sharing information, why are
>mailing lists still being sold?
>

A couple of years back I was thinking of registering under the DPA as I
wanted to keep the membership details of a club I ran on my PC. In
summary if you pay the Data Protection Registrar ukp70pa (it may have
gone up since then) you can have a fairly free rein with peoples details
and they have little or no redress. the only real limitations are that
the information must be truthful and you must give them access to it
(although you can charge them as much as you like for the privelige) and
correct it if it is found to be in error. Also, obviously, information
or certain sorts cannot be diseminated, the guideline there seems to be
if it was on paper would you tell people (eg someones medical
information, financial status etc all of which are covered by other
statutes).

--
Stephen Booth

The thoughts expressed in this message are those of my employer,
or indeed any sane person.

Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

Hilary Curtis

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <+rvB7RAh...@abooth.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Booth
<ste...@abooth.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <CBgsyHAg...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored
>>on computers. The aim is to allow access to information about stored by
>>other people. If the DPA stopped companies sharing information, why are
>>mailing lists still being sold?
>>
>
>A couple of years back I was thinking of registering under the DPA as I
>wanted to keep the membership details of a club I ran on my PC. In
>summary if you pay the Data Protection Registrar ukp70pa (it may have
>gone up since then) you can have a fairly free rein with peoples details
>and they have little or no redress.

Not exactly. You can only use it for the purpose(s) for which you
collect it, and should not continue to store it beyond those purposes.
You _can_ decide on fairly wide purposes at the outset, but if so people
would have a right to know this when the data is first collected.

> the only real limitations are that
>the information must be truthful and you must give them access to it
>(although you can charge them as much as you like

I believe a "reasonable" charge is permissible

>for the privelige) and
>correct it if it is found to be in error.
>

--

David Gibson

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <QpUmfyAa...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> I wrote

1. You cant browse SMTP mail before receiving it so I repeat - how does
a kill file stop you *receiving* mail.

OK I was embarrassingly wrong about this. Apols for arrogance. I can
see exactly how this is possible now.
--
David Gibson

Paul Womar

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <850307...@siberia.demon.co.uk>
MadDog@siberia_demon_co_uk said:-

>On Tuesday, in article <Kx8nZEAN...@spoff.demon.co.uk>
> ste...@spoff.demon.co.uk "Stephen Agar" wrote:
>
>SA> At the risk of being very off-topic, I am (as it happens) the Assistant
>SA> Director in charge of all the Royal Mail commercial legal advice,
>SA> including everything to do with postal law. It would be a criminal
>SA> offence for any employee to even unduly delay mail, let alone detain it.
>SA> Mail is covered by the Interception of Communications Act and is
>SA> inviolate under the Post Office Act 1969.
>

>Getting a bit off-topic, do you have any idea of the legal
>situation regarding attempts to use an internet host for
>mail routeing?
>

>I'm thinking of the situation where some person attempts without
>my permission to deliver an email along a path that passes through
>myhost.demon.co.uk.
>
>I currently have my system set up to bounce any such mail; but if
>I were to accept it and then delete it, would that be illegal?

Please excuse me if what I am about to say is utter crap but I can't
see any reason why your host would be used as part of a mail path
through a dial up line or even a standard (single) leased line.
Imagine 9 "machines" all connected as a small part of the internet
(if you are using a proportional font you may now leave):

A-B-C
| | |
D-E-F
| | |
G-H-I

I my mauil wanted to go from A to I then it would go A-D-E-H-I or
A-D-G-H-I or some other combination but if you have a leased line is
the diagram not more like this below (Z being your machine)?

A-B-C
| | |
D-E-F
| | |
G-H-I-Z

Unless you have at least two different connections then surely they
aren't going to use your machine as it's just a dead end and the mail
will go I-Z-I. If I haven't understood the question then could
someone please tell me whats going on?

__

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Womar - Just your average Atari user on the verge of sanity.
Please do not crosspost newsgroup followups to this address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Womar

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <96121224...@stokes.demon.co.uk>
ne...@stokes.demon.co.uk (Philip Stokes) said:-

>David Gibson (gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> In article <32a4b987...@news.demon.co.uk>, on Wed, 4 Dec 1996
>> "Sam." <s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>> Pray tell, how does a kill file stop you receiving junk mail?
>> (junk *news* maybe)
>

>Err. Excuse me, but that arrogant attitude belies the fact that you dont

>know what you are talking about. Or so it seems to me :)
>
>It helps if you use mail software that has the capability to read and
>act on a killfile. Of course, your mail killfile won't stop you
>receiving unwanted *news* either.

Err. Excuse me! Even [Mail]kill files are poor at stopping junk
email, they can only descriminate as far as addresses go (or maybe
it's just my filter) this is fine for the smutmongers that send you
stuff, cyberpromo & earthstar. Howver most rubbish I get is not from
those sites and it will prevent further mailing from sites but not the
inital mailing. All IMHo before I ger "Err"ed at.

Richard Clayton

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

In article <85040647...@office.demon.net>, cl...@demon.net
writes

>> Without reading the rfcs I guess that you should bounce the message
>> back as undeliverable at your site but I'm sure someone else knows far
>> better than me.
>

>I would have thought the right action is to return a code 551 on seeing the
>RCPT TO: line.

551 is problematic, in that you would be required to produce a
forward-path and in principle the sender is going to take some
notice of this. We think it is much easier to use 550:

eg: 550 5.1.2 Cannot accept mail for not.me.squire.com

For those who haven't seen extended codes before

RFC1893 : 5.1.2 = "Bad destination system address"

--
richard richard.clayton @ T U R N P I K E .com
tel: +44 1306 732300
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM

Terrance Richard Boyes

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

Stephen Booth (ste...@abooth.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <CBgsyHAg...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
> <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored
> >on computers. The aim is to allow access to information about stored by

Not quite, it also covers hardcopies if they are indexed on computer.

> >other people. If the DPA stopped companies sharing information, why are
> >mailing lists still being sold?

Because they've registered saying that that's what they are going to use
the information for...

> gone up since then) you can have a fairly free rein with peoples details

> and they have little or no redress. the only real limitations are that

> the information must be truthful and you must give them access to it

> (although you can charge them as much as you like for the privelige) and

Not as much as you like, as much as is reasonable, somewhere in the region
of a tenner.

--
<URL:http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1666> Team AMIGA

Q: What's the definition of Australian foreplay?
A: "Are you awake Sheila?"

Paul Copsey

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

David Gibson (gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <96121224...@stokes.demon.co.uk>, on Thu, 12 Dec 1996
: Philip Stokes <ne...@stokes.demon.co.uk> writes
:
: >It helps if you use mail software that has the capability to read and

: >act on a killfile. Of course, your mail killfile won't stop you
: >receiving unwanted *news* either.

:
: 1. You cant browse SMTP mail before receiving it so I repeat - how does
: a kill file stop you *receiving* mail.

You used to be able to browse smtp mail by using finger nodename@post
(and it'll be nice when it comes back). Many spams give themselves
away by their sending address (anything from interramp, earthstar, the
repl...@address.in.message ones) and thus a mail kill based on this
can and does stop you receiving any more than the initial connection
from the punt (assuming it isn't open already), the MAIL FROM: and
RCPT TO: lines. Some systems will also allow an even more rigid
acceptance, where some mail is auto-killed, some is auto-accepted, and
the rest has it's RCPT TO: line brought to the user's attention for
acceptance/killing.

: 2. This is the Turnpike support group.

No it isn't, this is demon.service where the thread is crossposted,
neither I nor Phil use Turnpike, so the chances of us reading dis.t
are zero.

Paul
--
* Mail acceptance policy, see http://www.hectortd.demon.co.uk/mail.html *
Offical Demon announcements are best read through a Swedish Chef filter

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <ZvJQtRAU...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
David Gibson <gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk>
>In article <+rvB7RAh...@abooth.demon.co.uk>, on Thu, 12 Dec 1996
>Stephen Booth <ste...@abooth.demon.co.uk> writes

>
>>A couple of years back I was thinking of registering under the DPA as I
>>wanted to keep the membership details of a club I ran on my PC. In
>>summary if you pay the Data Protection Registrar ukp70pa (it may have

>>gone up since then) you can have a fairly free rein with peoples details
>>and they have little or no redress.
>

>One more comment, just for completeness (but this is getting off-topic
>now - so follow-up to poster please) ...
>
>You dont need to register under the DPA if you are just keeping names
>and addresses for "club" or "mailing list" purposes. They produce a set

This is true. I have the DPA guidelines and they publish them
electronically. Perhaps if they were generally available on the internet
this thread would have more light and less heat.

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.

Thomas D.G. Sandford

unread,

Dec 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/13/96

to

(off topic for turnpike support group, so removed from that group).

Martin Challis (mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <XIOZ$BAMpH...@whitney.demon.co.uk>, Richard Mason
: <ric...@whitney.demon.co.uk> writes

: >In article <CBgsyHAg...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis

: ><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
: >>I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored
: >>on computers.

: >[snip]
: >
: >Not so. The Data Protection Act Guidelines also specify:
: >
: >Automatic retrieval systems for microfilm and microfiche
: >Audio and video systems
: >Electronic flexi-time systems
: >Telephone logging equipment
: >Document image processing systems
: >Punched card processors
: > and
: >"Anything else that can automatically process personal data"
: >
: >Don't blame me, I didn't write the Act.

: Thank you for the information. My understanding is that these items
: only be registered if they hold information which can identify a person.

: My understanding is that paper based records are _not_ covered. So
: parents do not have access to schools records, very convenient. Sorry
: I'm getting political :)

But my understanding is that recent (or possibly shortly forthcoming) EU
legislation *will* extend many of the requirements of the DPA to paper based
records (in particular those relating to granting of access to subjects to
the records held on themselves).

--
Thomas Sandford | t.d.g.s...@prds-grn.demon.co.uk
Paradise Green Technical Services: S'ware/Hw design and Theatre Tech. Services

Paul Womar

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <+rvB7RAh...@abooth.demon.co.uk>
Stephen Booth <ste...@abooth.demon.co.uk> said:-

>In article <CBgsyHAg...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I think not. The Data Protection Act _only_ covers information stored

>>on computers. The aim is to allow access to information about stored by

>>other people. If the DPA stopped companies sharing information, why are
>>mailing lists still being sold?
>>

>A couple of years back I was thinking of registering under the DPA as I
>wanted to keep the membership details of a club I ran on my PC. In
>summary if you pay the Data Protection Registrar ukp70pa (it may have
>gone up since then) you can have a fairly free rein with peoples details

>and they have little or no redress. the only real limitations are that
>the information must be truthful and you must give them access to it
>(although you can charge them as much as you like for the privelige) and

>correct it if it is found to be in error.

I believe that the fee is now about 80UKP p.a and am quite confident
that you may not charge as much as you like, there is a maximum charge
of 10 UKP per record.

Stephen M Baines

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <85059040...@pwomar.demon.co.uk>
Pa...@pwomar.demon.co.uk "Paul Womar" writes:

> Err. Excuse me! Even [Mail]kill files are poor at stopping junk
> email, they can only descriminate as far as addresses go (or maybe
> it's just my filter) this is fine for the smutmongers that send you
> stuff, cyberpromo & earthstar. Howver most rubbish I get is not from
> those sites and it will prevent further mailing from sites but not the
> inital mailing. All IMHo before I ger "Err"ed at.

In that case (I admit this is a bit fiddly, but it works) forward the
message to yourself via post, and add the address to your mailkill
file. When post then trys to deliver it it will be bounced. Voila,
the first posting from a site bounced.

- --

Stephen M Baines F1/TouringCars http://www.pobox.com/~formula1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: cp850

iQB1AwUBMrKIxnzZENMJPwPtAQE9eQMAie+yFBZMnn+XMQO/o1ARZ4bAvRjHd/ks
/yVDed3e+OOJ+K9eEaAxdk/2dusP3DFsGHH5bm4/ZSzZvJNmXFN429vHFh+QwQte
6pt0HU4LSrf4QQN+YkMpdw03HgrDhv3C
=ghl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <16lChQAD...@turnpike.com>, sgriobh Richard
Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com>
>However, IMHO, this will not prevent you from receiving junk email,
>unless you go to the extreme of only receiving mail from a small and
>select group of people.
>
There are ways and means round this, see www.vix.com/spam

Tom Hughes

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <vQHkLkAK+TsyEAU$@turnpike.com>
Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> wrote:

> 551 is problematic, in that you would be required to produce a
> forward-path and in principle the sender is going to take some
> notice of this. We think it is much easier to use 550:
>
> eg: 550 5.1.2 Cannot accept mail for not.me.squire.com
>
> For those who haven't seen extended codes before
>
> RFC1893 : 5.1.2 = "Bad destination system address"

Well RFC 2034 uses 5.7.1 (with 551 as the base code) for that in
one of the example:

S: 551-5.7.1 Forwarding to remote hosts disabled
S: 551 5.7.1 Select another host to act as your forwarder

I think the extended code descriptions in RFC 1893 also supports
the use of 5.7.1, as 5.1.2 is defined as:

X.1.2 Bad destination system address

The destination system specified in the address does not
exist or is incapable of accepting mail. For Internet mail
names, this means the address portion to the right of the
"@" is invalid for mail. This codes is only useful for
permanent failures.

In the case we're discussing this patently isn't (at least
necessarily) true. For comparison, code 5.7.1 is defined as:

X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused

The sender is not authorized to send to the destination.
This can be the result of per-host or per-recipient
filtering. This memo does not discuss the merits of any
such filtering, but provides a mechanism to report such.
This is useful only as a permanent error.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.demon.co.uk)
http://www.compton.demon.co.uk/
...What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Richard Clayton

unread,

Dec 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/14/96

to

In article <85048816...@kempston.demon.co.uk>, Mike Mann
<mi...@mirage.co.uk> writes

>In article <QpUmfyAa...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk>, David Gibson

><gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>1. You cant browse SMTP mail before receiving it so I repeat - how does
>>a kill file stop you *receiving* mail.
>

>Simple: using appropriate software (not Turnpike), it is possible to
>reject incoming SMTP email based on its origin before receiving the
>content of the mail message.

yes it is, given suitable software (though to be strictly accurate, you
would be rejecting it on the basis of its alleged origin)

However, IMHO, this will not prevent you from receiving junk email,
unless you go to the extreme of only receiving mail from a small and
select group of people.

--

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <16lChQAD...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton
<ric...@turnpike.com> writes

>In article <85048816...@kempston.demon.co.uk>, Mike Mann
><mi...@mirage.co.uk> writes
>
>>In article <QpUmfyAa...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk>, David Gibson
>><gib...@mcrosolv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>1. You cant browse SMTP mail before receiving it so I repeat - how does
>>>a kill file stop you *receiving* mail.
>>
>>Simple: using appropriate software (not Turnpike), it is possible to
>>reject incoming SMTP email based on its origin before receiving the
>>content of the mail message.
>
>yes it is, given suitable software (though to be strictly accurate, you
>would be rejecting it on the basis of its alleged origin)
>
>However, IMHO, this will not prevent you from receiving junk email,
>unless you go to the extreme of only receiving mail from a small and
>select group of people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be possible to reject a
message based on several factors, like sender details, receipent details
and size? I never get any large message I do not know about, so, as an
example, I could reject all large messages execpt from known sources.

I agree this would not stop all messages, the small ones can be with by
simply deleting them on arrival. But when is comes to large mail, I
really don't want to spend online time downloading just to delete.

--
Martin Challis

http://www.tinmar.demon.co.uk

Use of this E-mail address does not signify permission to send unsolicited
advertising material by E-mail. Such mail will be regarded as harrassment and
will be reported to appropriate authorites. Sending such material will signify
acceptance of my standard £100.00 (one hundred pounds sterling) charge.

Richard Clayton

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <DfmAbBAA...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Powell
<ge...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk> writes

>>yes it is, given suitable software (though to be strictly accurate, you
>>would be rejecting it on the basis of its alleged origin)
>>
>>However, IMHO, this will not prevent you from receiving junk email,
>>unless you go to the extreme of only receiving mail from a small and
>>select group of people.

>I hate to disagree with Richard, whose posts are always liable to raise
>the signal-to-noise ratio, but I *DO* want to be able to reject mail
>based on its alleged origin (and, yes, I am using Turnpike - only V1.11
>so far)

ah .. so you believe that you will receive more than one piece of junk
mail from the same address ? During the summer this did happen. There is
limited evidence of it happening now ...

((and yes, I do know that I'm sitting on some of the hard evidence -
apologies to those awaiting it))

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

In article <32b36e82...@news3.news.demon.net>, "Sam."
<s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

>Martin Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>As allready stated in this topic the DOS product, I was supplied (by
>>Demon) to access my Demon account provides facilities to filter mail
>>_before_ downloading the whole message. (Something I did not know about
>>before) Now I know of this facility, I would like it to be put into
>>Turnpike.
>
>I think it should be in every mail reader. As it is, can't you use
>Windis to accept / kill your mail, and collect mail from Windis by
>POP3??
>
>>I was under the impression that POP3 was an extra service, for which
>>there was an extra fee.
>
>It is, but there's a beta going, and soon it'll be free and supported.

So the next question is, will Turnpike offer mail filtering on POP3? If
so, why POP3 and not SMTP?

Paul Copsey

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

On 16 Dec 1996 02:59:58, Martin Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be possible to reject a
> message based on several factors, like sender details, receipent details
> and size? I never get any large message I do not know about, so, as an
> example, I could reject all large messages execpt from known sources.

With POP3, it's easier to stop them being received based on size and
other details, with SMTP you only get the MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO: to
judge on (which still makes killfiling possible, just not quite as
clean)

Paul Copsey

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

On 13 Dec 1996 18:53:42, Paul Womar <Pa...@pwomar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Please excuse me if what I am about to say is utter crap but I can't
>see any reason why your host would be used as part of a mail path

If I were to send mail to paul%hectortd.d...@womar.demon.co.uk
(hope I have the syntax right ;-) then it would leave here, sit on a
punt until you arrived, head towards your machine which will then
either accept it and pass it to me again, accept it and dump it,
accept it and do something nasty (depends on the stability ;-), or
bounce it back.

It's also the way to test mail sending/delivery without having to beg
friends.

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <bJ0qwGAu...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh Martin
Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>

>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be possible to reject a
>message based on several factors, like sender details, receipent details
>and size? I never get any large message I do not know about, so, as an
>example, I could reject all large messages execpt from known sources.
>

Of course it is. I wrote a program to generate scripts for procmail to
do this three years ago (see http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/cv.html).
Deliver for VMS has been doing this for about 10 years.

The world of the PC has yet to catch up it seems.

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/~craig/

E-mail: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (preferred) or cr...@acm.org

Mike Mann

unread,

Dec 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/16/96

to

[Cross-posted to demon.ip.support.turnpike and demon.ip.support.win95;
demon.service removed from follow-ups for this part of the thread.]

In article <DfmAbBAA...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Powell

<ge...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I *DO* want to be able to reject mail
>based on its alleged origin (and, yes, I am using Turnpike - only V1.11
>so far)

>If forced I will change to another mail-reader, but Turnpike suits my
>needs to date, as a relative newbie.

There is another possibility. With Demon's new POP3 server, it's
quite simple to examine incoming email prior to delivery and delete
any unwanted items.

None of the mainstream Windows POP3 mail programs seem to allow
scanning of mail before delivery. Pegasus may well do so on its next
release but that won't help those who wish to stay with Turnpike.

If there's enough interest, I'll knock up a small program over
Christmas to allow this. What I have in mind is a Windows IP program
which connects to the POP3 server, lists any waiting mail and (at
least) provides information about the (alleged) origin, addressee and
subject of each message. It would then allow the user to delete any
unwanted items from the delivery queue and disconnect.

The idea could be extended to delete automatically any mail from a
domain which matches a list held in a mail-kill file which is
configurable by the user.

Such a program could be used fairly easily in conjunction with
Turnpike: the process would be to switch off Turnpike's "Receive
Mail" service by default, run the new program on connection to
pre-scan waiting mail, delete any unwanted items and switch back on
Turnpike's "Receive Mail" service. The program woul be equally
suitable for use with any other mailer.

This has the disadvantage that Turnpike, or whatever SMTP server is
being used, would fail to respond to the first attempt by Demon's
punts to send waiting mail and would have to wait for the second
attempt a few minutes later. That disadvantage could be ameliorated
by using POP3 mail collection instead, where the user initiates mail
download.

Whether going through this hassle would be worthwhile depends on the
quantity of unwanted incoming mail, but it could be a useful technique
to have available for the odd occasion when a massive unwanted email
arrives and holds up delivery of wanted messages.

Any comments on this proposal are very welcome.

Regards, Mike.

--
Home: mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk | mi...@mirage.co.uk
PGP 2.6.2i public key available by mail from p...@kempston.demon.co.uk

Loe van Haarlem

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

One thing I have noticed is that the amount of
junk mail received stands in direct relation to
the WEB pages visited. I get very little junkmail
yet use the Net every day. But I do try to avoid blatant
commercial sites. I also refuse to leave details.
No matter whats on offer.
--
Loe van Haarlem l...@loevan.demon.co.uk http://www.loevan.demon.co.uk/

Giolla Decair

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

Previously Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> said:
>In article <DfmAbBAA...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Powell

><ge...@g8kbz.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>yes it is, given suitable software (though to be strictly accurate, you
>>>would be rejecting it on the basis of its alleged origin)
>>>However, IMHO, this will not prevent you from receiving junk email,
>>>unless you go to the extreme of only receiving mail from a small and
>>>select group of people.
>>I hate to disagree with Richard, whose posts are always liable to raise

>>the signal-to-noise ratio, but I *DO* want to be able to reject mail

>>based on its alleged origin (and, yes, I am using Turnpike - only V1.11
>>so far)

>ah .. so you believe that you will receive more than one piece of junk
>mail from the same address ? During the summer this did happen. There is
>limited evidence of it happening now ...

How about the case where a wide spread spam haasn't reached you yet?
Or if you have say a work and a home address you receive the spam at
one unavoidably and then add it's address to your kill file at the
other address before it get's to you, cuts your spam by half.
Ok this won't always work but it can be useful for large spams
such as the nokia orange spam.

--
Giolla Decair ____
"Broken inside now our hearts lost forever \ _/__
Can't replace the fear or the thrill of the chase" \X /
"and if I showed you my darkside would you still hold me tonight?" \/

David Gibson

unread,

Dec 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/17/96

to

In article <32b36fb8...@news3.news.demon.net>, on Sun, 15 Dec 1996
"Sam." <s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk> writes

> Now say you're sorry.

Im sorry. It was an uncalled-for comment. If its any excuse, I was
having an exasperating day :-(
--
David Gibson

Martin Challis

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

In article <xkhjmVAW...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton
<ric...@turnpike.com> writes

>In article <bJ0qwGAu...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, Martin Challis
><mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk> writes
>

>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be possible to reject a
>>message based on several factors, like sender details, receipent details
>>and size?
>

>SMTP will not tell you the size. POP3 will, and in ESMTP you can
>advertise size acceptance limits.

Ok, is ESMTP available from Demon? If not would Turnpike be upgraded to
use all the features of POP3?

>> I never get any large message I do not know about, so, as an
>>example, I could reject all large messages execpt from known sources.
>>

>>I agree this would not stop all messages, the small ones can be with by
>>simply deleting them on arrival. But when is comes to large mail, I
>>really don't want to spend online time downloading just to delete.
>

>depends what you mean by large. A handful of incompetent junk emailers
>have taken to putting addressees into "to:" lines rather than "bcc:"
>lines, which tends to bulk out the mail a bit... apart from that it is
>rare for junk unsolicited email to exceed a hundred lines or so. ie the
>size alone is unlikely to distinguish it.

Things are never that easy. <s> As I have yet to get a large number of
junkmail, so I don't have a figure in mind. Any filtering system should
be able to let me set a figure. I realise that any generic filter will
not be 100% successful. But I can only see number of junkmail
increasing, so by pesstering you now for filtering, I hope I can atleast
keep pace and keep the number down.

My concern is about large spams, either in size or fequency. So if I am
collecting mail and see a large (number or size) unwanted mail I would
be able to deal with the situation with out hasseling Demon.

I am assuming that browsing mail before collection would be an option,
which would add further functionallity. The setup I have in mind is:

Logon get a list of waiting mail.
Disconnect, view the list.
Items, by default are marked as interesting.
Items which meet the kill criteria are marked as
uninteresting.
The user can then change, accept.
Next online session those mail items marked as interesting are
then transfered, items marked as uninteresting are deleted.

Simple! <s>

Martin

Terrance Richard Boyes

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

Martin Challis (mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> <t...@pierrot.demon.co.uk> writes

> >Martin Challis (mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >>
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be possible to reject a
> >> message based on several factors, like sender details, receipent details

> >> and size? I never get any large message I do not know about, so, as an

> >> example, I could reject all large messages execpt from known sources.
> >

> >Yes it is. The first 2 bits are easy, the third one is a little more
> >difficult since the "long finger" output from post isn't working yet.
>
> So now all we have to do, is get Demon to put this on the Turnpike
> Required List.

Who's using Turnpike?

ObHint: Newsgroups: and below...

--
<URL:http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1666> Team AMIGA

-- I have seen the FUN ---

Richard Clayton

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

In article <850892...@warren.demon.co.uk>, Nick Leverton
<lev...@warren.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <Uh56nXA1...@turnpike.com>

> Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> writes:
>>
>>ah .. so you believe that you will receive more than one piece of junk
>>mail from the same address ? During the summer this did happen. There is
>>limited evidence of it happening now ...
>

>Wed Nov 27 14:01:32 1996 rejected: from: ji...@worldnet.att.net
>Sat Nov 30 07:30:54 1996 rejected: from: d.j.k...@worldnet.att.net

looks as if this counts

>Mon Dec 02 11:43:40 1996 rejected: from: repl...@address.in.message
>Mon Dec 02 16:01:43 1996 rejected: from: repl...@address.in.message
>Tue Dec 03 07:31:08 1996 rejected: from: repl...@address.in.message

OK. this counts

>Wed Dec 04 22:45:02 1996 rejected: from: e-m...@earthstar.com

one off (for this sample)

>Thu Dec 05 01:10:52 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com
>Thu Dec 05 01:10:53 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com
>Thu Dec 05 01:21:20 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com
>Thu Dec 05 02:12:16 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com
>Thu Dec 05 02:12:17 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com
>Thu Dec 05 07:30:54 1996 rejected: from: priz...@server.com

6 hours from first to last

>Thu Dec 05 07:31:10 1996 rejected: from: j...@mail.babeview.com
>Thu Dec 05 10:50:10 1996 rejected: from: j...@mail.babeview.com

4 hours first to last

>Sat Dec 07 07:30:42 1996 rejected: from: jo...@mailloop.com
>Sat Dec 07 07:31:04 1996 rejected: from: jo...@mailloop.com
>Tue Dec 10 07:31:51 1996 rejected: from: jo...@mailloop.com

1 minute first to last

>Fri Dec 13 07:31:00 1996 rejected: from: jlha...@worldnet.att.net

and this counts too.

OK.. I'll rephrase, a proportion of junk mail (about 1/3 for the warren
(actually, I suspect much less than a third because you've posted the
bounces not the stuff that got through)) is from repeat offenders
(ignoring multiple delivery of the same mail which someone who collected
mail less often would not be able to bounce).

Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it
will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
blocking schemes.

Chris Taylor

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

In article <OBa8fnA3...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton
<ric...@turnpike.com> writes

[on junk mail originating from the same site]

>Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
>some people as an effective way of blocking it.

*promoted* being the operative term. I've as yet to see the stats that
support that claim.

> My view remains that it
>will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
>junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
>blocking schemes.

this debate will continue to go around in circles until you post the
evidence !

--
chris chris taylor "When you are happy ..."
@ knakee.demon.co.uk Alexander, 323 BC

Paul Womar

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

In article <961216...@hectortd.demon.co.uk>
pa...@white-star.com (Paul Copsey) said:-

>On 13 Dec 1996 18:53:42, Paul Womar <Pa...@pwomar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Please excuse me if what I am about to say is utter crap but I can't
>>see any reason why your host would be used as part of a mail path
>

>If I were to send mail to paul1.112806e-308...@womar.demon.co.uk

>(hope I have the syntax right ;-) then it would leave here, sit on a
>punt until you arrived, head towards your machine which will then
>either accept it and pass it to me again, accept it and dump it,
>accept it and do something nasty (depends on the stability ;-), or
>bounce it back.

I was aware of this but it is a complete waste of time for everyone
involved to route via my machine surely? It does have uses of course
but apart from doing a bit of testing here and there, if I only have a
single connection to the net then it is useless.

Craig Cockburn

unread,

Dec 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/19/96

to

Ann an sgriobhainn <uor3IRAc...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh Martin
Challis <mcha...@tinmar.demon.co.uk>

>Ok, is ESMTP available from Demon?

no, I have asked them several times.

Loe van Haarlem

unread,

Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96

to

In article <OBa8fnA3...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton
<ric...@turnpike.com> writes

>Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by

>some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it

>will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
>junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
>blocking schemes.

In any case, I always thought that a bounce / reject invites an
automatic resend. No ?

Andrew Gabriel

unread,

Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96

to

In article <OBa8fnA3...@turnpike.com>,

Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> writes:
>
>OK.. I'll rephrase, a proportion of junk mail (about 1/3 for the warren
>(actually, I suspect much less than a third because you've posted the
>bounces not the stuff that got through)) is from repeat offenders
>(ignoring multiple delivery of the same mail which someone who collected
>mail less often would not be able to bounce).
>

>Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
>some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it
>will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
>junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
>blocking schemes.

I'm not a Turnpike user, but I make a suggestion if you are thinking
of developing some blocking addition to your software.

Don't make the reason for the bounce obvious, indeed, you could even
lie about it. For example, if you decide to filter on SMTP MAIL FROM,
and you receive an entry in your kill-file, I would suggest bouncing
it with something like 'System error', rather than 'Spam not accepted
here'. Better still, actually accept the MAIL FROM, but bounce the
RCPT TO with unknown user. This will make life (slightly) harder for
the spammer (I keep meaning to do this to my sendmail).

Something which would catch a fair amount of what I recieve would be
to ensure the host part in MAIL FROM address is a valid DNS name,
but I don't know if this might have other repercussions.

--
Andrew Gabriel Home: And...@cucumber.demon.co.uk
Consultant Software Engineer Work: Andrew....@net-tel.co.uk

Paul Copsey

unread,

Dec 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/20/96

to

On 19 Dec 1996 17:00:48, Paul Womar <Pa...@pwomar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <961216...@hectortd.demon.co.uk>
> pa...@white-star.com (Paul Copsey) said:-

> >If I were to send mail to paul%hectortd.d...@womar.demon.co.uk

> >(hope I have the syntax right ;-) then it would leave here, sit on a

> I was aware of this but it is a complete waste of time for everyone

> involved to route via my machine surely?

That's how spammers work, find a machine that'll forward the mail on
and pass their spam through it. In that case, I doubt they'd use the
method I described, but by connecting directly and trying that way.

Terrance Richard Boyes

unread,

Dec 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/21/96

to

Andrew Gabriel (and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Something which would catch a fair amount of what I recieve would be
> to ensure the host part in MAIL FROM address is a valid DNS name,
> but I don't know if this might have other repercussions.

Time, and anyway just 'cos it came from a valid address doesn't mean it
isn't spam...

--
<URL:http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/1666> Team AMIGA

A cynic is a person searching for an honest man, with a stolen lantern.
- Edgar A. Shoaff

Sam.

unread,

Dec 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/21/96

to

Loe van Haarlem <l...@loevan.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>One thing I have noticed is that the amount of
>junk mail received stands in direct relation to
>the WEB pages visited.

If you don't tell them your email address they've no way of knowing
it. Your browser only tells them your domain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where am I" - Charlie Chuck. s...@greenaum.demon.co.uk
http://www.greenaum.demon.co.uk/

Richard Clayton

unread,

Dec 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/21/96

to

In article <4yv$vCALIp...@loevan.demon.co.uk>, Loe van Haarlem
<l...@loevan.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
>>some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it
>>will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
>>junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
>>blocking schemes.

>In any case, I always thought that a bounce / reject invites an
>automatic resend. No ?

It all depends on the code number at the start of the protocol response
line...

Having said that, the word is that there are broken mailers out there
who not take all possible "no"s as a negative answer... so it is
considered to be good practice to stick with one of a small number of
response codes which are often encountered, since they are most likely
to be effective

Paul Copsey

unread,

Dec 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/21/96

to

On 20 Dec 1996 13:18:03, Loe van Haarlem <l...@loevan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <OBa8fnA3...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton

> <ric...@turnpike.com> writes

> >Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
> >some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it
> >will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
> >junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
> >blocking schemes.
> In any case, I always thought that a bounce / reject invites an
> automatic resend. No ?

From a human it often does, from a junk mailer not so far in my
experience.

And I've been operating a robotic mailkill for months, a non-robotic
one for almost as long.

Nick Leverton

unread,

Dec 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM12/30/96

to

In article <OBa8fnA3...@turnpike.com>

Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> writes:
>In article <850892...@warren.demon.co.uk>, Nick Leverton
><lev...@warren.demon.co.uk> writes

>>Wed Dec 04 22:45:02 1996 rejected: from: e-m...@earthstar.com

>
>one off (for this sample)

But long term persistent offender, as you probably know.

[examples snipped]

>6 hours from first to last

>4 hours first to last

>1 minute first to last

Sure. And some of them were almost certainly multiple attempts to
mailboxes that don't exist any more, and would have been bounced anyway
were they not mailkilled, since I regretfully removed the "default" line
from the KA9Q aliases file. The point is I garnered all those addresses
from reading net-abuse groups. I never received even one spam from them.

>Rejection of junk mail by robotically applied rules is being promoted by
>some people as an effective way of blocking it. My view remains that it
>will be of limited effect, and that we should expect to see unsolicted
>junk mail senders moving fairly quickly to circumvent the more simple
>blocking schemes.

As I said, it's not a complete answer, but it helps in filtering junk
out at the moment. I expect the useful methods to evolve, just as mail
spammers' methods evolve. Eventually KA9Q won't have the facilities,
and I'll have to change to something else. I won't stop the battle just
because the battleground may later move.

Nick