Using SORBS? just how much credibility do you want to lose?
Just be glad no one has set up a net kook DNSBL yet.
Will be pleased to be one of the first subscribers.
-J
Just be glad no one has set up a net kook DNSBL yet.
won't work. the trogs post to mailing lists. procmail is
my friend and could be yours. but i can't figure out why
otherwise seemingly sane folk keep replying to known kooks.
randy
Yes it is kindof amazing how well it works......
Unlike others on this list I have never claimed to have any credibility. I am just a small time op.
Dean Anderson wrote:
Is it time to break out the "Please do not feed the trolls" sign?
Feeding 'em anyway... but *plonk* for Mr. Anderson. For those who are
masochists, read on.
But only 16 email clients (counting Netscape, Mozilla, and Firefox
separately), support SMTP AUTH. But there are more than 1000 different
email client programs.
Firefox isn't an email client... maybe you're thinking of Thunderbird?
There may be lots of programs, but most / all of the ones that people
actually USE support SMTP auth. Most of the less popular ones I've heard
of / seen support SMTP auth as well - Becky!, The Bat, Mulberry, OS X's
Mail.app. I could probably name more than 16 off the top of my head[2].
Better yet, try to name 16 mail clients people _actually use_ which
DON'T, other than MUA-only programs like mailx and mutt with no SMTP
support at all. When I worked at a mediumish sized hosting company with
probably well over 100k mail users, I can't _ever_ recall hearing about
a complaint of a customer using a mail client that didn't support SMTP
auth.
With seat belts, there is mandated 100% compliance. With SMTP AUTH,
there is presently approximately 0.16% compliance.
Bullshit. The percentage as measured by number of actual USERS is high,
since 99.99% [1] of all users are using an MUA which supports SMTP auth.
Plus, most people have access to a mail server through their ISP /
school / workplace which relays for local clients.... but not for the
rest of the universe.
If you really want to make an argument against SMTP auth, there are
definitely support hassles involved in getting people setup to use it.
Unless you want to exclude all but 16 or so mail clients (out of more
than 1000), you can't really require SMTP AUTH. Some ISPs
(residential) specify the mail client programs (or like AOL, provide
custom software). They already have per-user accounts, and can
therefore implement SMTP AUTH more easily. But then, *some* ISPs
assume all their users run Windows, too. Not everyone is in that
boat.
There are plenty of non-Windows mailers which support SMTP auth - the
list below includes quite a few Mac OS, cross platform, and UNIX / Linux
clients. Not only that, but on a *nix system, it's possible to configure
the MTA as an authenticated SMTP client - at that point, you could use
whatever you wanted (either via SMTP to localhost or /usr/sbin/sendmail)
and have it sent on.
Just be glad no one has set up a net kook DNSBL yet.
Thankfully, there's always procmail.
:0
* ^From:.*<dean@av8\.com
/dev/null
in this interminable thread from hell, someone finally said the magic words:
Thankfully, there's always procmail.
and helpfully gave a specific recipe:
:0
* ^From:.*<dean@av8\.com
/dev/null
now, speaking as someone who went around the loop a few times with dv8 on the
topic of PPLB, i can assure all of you that his mind (or whatever) is pretty
much made up. all arguing's going to do at this point is (a) fulfill his
fantasies of adequacy/relevance by making him seem worthy of refutation, (b)
cause lurkers and onlookers to scratch their heads and wonder if "there's
gotta be something to this, or why would the volume be so sustainably high
on the thread?", and (c) annoy the hell out of everybody else on the list.
it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots if the rest of you are just
going to keep on replying to same. so, as RAH had LL say: "never try to teach
a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig." here's what my thread
reader says this thread looks like. as you can see, most of the traffic is
in response to a single crackpot.
[ 30: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.] Re: Slashdot: Providers Ignoring DNS TTL?
Y - [ 75: Dean Anderson ] Re: SMTP AUTH
< 25: "Patrick W. Gilmore"> Re: Slashdot: Providers Ignoring DNS TTL?
< 26: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.>
< 14: Matthew Sullivan >
< 84: "Edward B. Dreger" >
Y - [ 19: Dean Anderson ]
[ 22: "Steven J. Sobol" ]
Y - [ 32: Dean Anderson ]
Y - [ 116: Dean Anderson ]
[ 27: "Edward B. Dreger" ]
Y - [ 82: Dean Anderson ] Re: SMTP AUTH
[ 8: Joe Maimon ] Re: Slashdot: Providers Ignoring...
Y - [ 25: Dean Anderson ]
[ 107: Will Yardley ] Re: SMTP AUTH
[ 26: David Lesher ]
[ 54: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.] Re: SMTP AUTH
< 24: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.>
Y - < 28: Dean Anderson >
[ 19: Richard A Steenberge]
[ 32: James ]
[ 38: Joe Maimon ]
< 9: Randy Bush >
< 33: Matthew Sullivan >
< 23: Tim Wilde >
[ 21: David Lesher ]
i'm not one of the annointed moderators, but i heard that we were supposed
to practice "peer moderation" and so i'm asking you all to please show a
little discipline before you hit the "FlameCrackpot" key.
in this interminable thread from hell, someone finally said the magic words:
> Thankfully, there's always procmail.
and helpfully gave a specific recipe:
Yeah, but not the one you really need. Thankfully, there's always more
procmail.
it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots if the rest of you
are just going to keep on replying to same.
:0
* ^(From|To|Cc):.*av8\.com
/dev/null
It looks like Dean's Message-IDs are using 'localhost.localdomain' as a
host, so if you get mail from legitimate senders whose setups are also
broken you may not want to filter on that, too, but then again you
might. It's my understanding that Message-Id headers are supposed to
be unique in the world.
:0
* ^(References|In-Reply-To|Message-Id):.*<Pine.LNX.4.44..*@localhost.localdomain>
* ^Sender:.*owner-nanog@merit.edu
${purgatory}
HTH,
Steve
(bah, I know I shouldn't reply, but)
'Nix only?
The product that includes one of the most popular Windows SMTP servers in the
universe can authenticate itself to other MTAs too.
That'd be Microsoft Exchange, and that functionality has existed since version
5.5... iow, for at least five or six years.
(there, I'm done, I'm not posting anything further in this thread)
Is it time to break out the "Please do not feed the trolls" sign?
Feeding 'em anyway... but *plonk* for Mr. Anderson. For those who are
masochists, read on.> But only 16 email clients (counting Netscape, Mozilla, and Firefox
> separately), support SMTP AUTH. But there are more than 1000 different
> email client programs.Firefox isn't an email client... maybe you're thinking of Thunderbird?
Thats it.
There may be lots of programs, but most / all of the ones that people
actually USE support SMTP auth. Most of the less popular ones I've heard
of / seen support SMTP auth as well - Becky!, The Bat, Mulberry, OS X's
Mail.app. I could probably name more than 16 off the top of my head[2].Better yet, try to name 16 mail clients people _actually use_ which
DON'T, other than MUA-only programs like mailx and mutt with no SMTP
support at all. When I worked at a mediumish sized hosting company with
probably well over 100k mail users, I can't _ever_ recall hearing about
a complaint of a customer using a mail client that didn't support SMTP
auth.
This off-list message from Jay is probably relevant: Jay had some better
points to make:
Vixie makes almost nothing but a personal attack. The one relevant
mis-statement is that Vixie seems to suggest that I'm the only one to have
"been around the loop" on PPLB. There were numerous others who agreed with
me on DNSOP. In fact, there wasn't anyone not part of ISC who agreed with
Vixie.
It is always the same folks who make the personal attacks. Its almost
always a proxy for Vixie.
On the discussion on DNSOP about DNS Anycast, there were an interesting
personal attacks from John Brown, contrary to Vixie's description of
events: (same sort of thing happened with Dan Bernstein in 2002)
All this argument about a guy whose business website is a GIF, with 4 links above it, 2 of which point to a machine that's refusing connections? And whose signup page consists of an html tag and a body tag (and that's it... regardless of how much fater, more reliable or better the service is... you can't sign up for it online)...
C'mon folks... let's get back to the usual complaining about the size of the global routing table 
C'mon folks... let's get back to the usual complaining about the size of
the global routing table
Wow! A short message that only quotes the essential
points being responded to and doesn't leave pages of
irrelevant quotes following the poster's own words!
Amazing!