Spammers LUV SpamAssassin

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by Alan Connor, Aug 31, 2003.

  1. Alan Connor

    Peter Jones Guest

    Or to put it another way: "I am rubber and you are glue..."

    And I note Alan has *still* avoided answering the question of how elrav
    handles forged "From:" headers...

    Peter Jones, Sep 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Connor

    Peter Jones Guest

    "Easier"? Totally effort-free; it seems Alan is doing all the work to
    disconnect himself from the rest of the world...

    Peter Jones, Sep 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Connor

    Sam Guest

    This is hillarious. Let's see Spanky name one mailing list admin who agreed
    to turn over new list members on a regular basis, just to accomodate his
    sooper dooper mail filter.

    Of course, this latest gem tells us two things:

    1) Despite his self-hyped procmail wizardry, Spanky is too stupid to figure
    out how to get procmail to whitelist mailing list traffic, making this a
    moot point. At least all other useless challenge-response annoyances
    include the capability to whitelist mailing list traffic, but Spanky isn't
    smart enough to figure out how to do that.

    2) Spanky does not subscribe to mailing lists.

    Point #2 needs a footnote. I admin several mailing lists. I find that
    mailing list subscribers tend to be a little bit more "sophisticated", on
    average. That's because it takes a minimum of effort to subscribe to a
    mailing list. That effort, as slight as it is, appears to be sufficient to
    keep most of the riff-raff out. Mailing list trolls are not common. On the
    other hand, on Usenet...

    What that says about Spanky will be today's homework assignment.

    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Sam, Sep 5, 2003
  4. Alan Connor

    Peter Jones Guest

    But at least you don't have to waste any of your valuable time manually
    changing filters, do you Alan?
    But at least you don't have to waste any of your valuable time manually
    changing filters, do you Alan?

    And I guess the ones that you do blocklist are those who have taken the
    evil path to SPAMMERHOOD by disagreeing with something you have said or
    But at least you don't have to waste any of your valuable time manually
    changing filters, do you Alan?
    A few. (Although perhaps most of the Nigerian stuff would exceed your
    length limit anyway.)

    On that note though, I guess it is a good thing that you have blocklisted
    my email address ("but at least you don't have to waste any of your
    valuable time manually changing filters, do you Alan?") -- some people
    actually do write letters with a bit of substance to them. I'd hate to
    actually be a friend of yours, spend all night writing you a letter about
    something that might interest you, only to have it automatically
    /dev/nulled for being more than 100 lines long...
    And there's your real problem, I suspect; lack of ability to imagine
    anything falling outside of your rather narrow view of reality.
    And yet, given that these newsgroups are positively crawling with spammers
    and trolls -- by your own words -- you are still here.

    Why, Alan, why?

    Peter Jones, Sep 5, 2003
  5. Alan Connor

    Peter Jones Guest

    Although I suspect he then manually blocklists them if their reply fails
    to live up to his high moral and intellectual standard...
    Given that people keep asking the question, though, perhaps you should
    consider the possibility that your docs aren't written particularly
    (So you keep saying!)
    No, it doesn't. We all have a reasonable grasp of how the system "works",
    Alan. The question is, how does it handle email in which the "From:"
    header has been forged to say it comes from an address on your passlist?
    Given that you yourself admitted earlier that you had received spam in
    which the "From:" header had your own email address on it, my guess is
    that it happily allows it through.

    But that's just my guess, because you continually refuse to answer the

    I cannot speak for everybody here, but if *I* had written something like
    elrav1 and got asked this question, my response would be "Good question;
    I'll have to consider how to hadle that. Thanks." Perhaps you should
    work on your people skills, Alan.

    Peter Jones, Sep 5, 2003
  6. Alan Connor

    /dev/rob0 Guest

    Indeed it would, "X-X-Sender: [email protected]", and in due course I've
    no doubt that Alan will do that to himself -- one way or another. As his
    killfile and blacklist grows, and whitelist shrinks, he will be
    isolated, and we'll hear less from Alan.

    Anyway, Simon -- weren't you posting as "Who"? What you're doing in an
    apparent attempt to get out of his killfile is in my view more wrong
    than Alan's rants and abuse. He does have the right to insulate himself
    from the likes of you and me. By so doing he is in a way making Usenet a
    better place for us all.

    So I encourage you to crawl back down here with me and all the other
    nutcases in Alan's killfile. We're having a party ATM! With that I offer
    a toast to Peter Breuer, the Most Killfiled So-And-So on Usenet!
    Slainte! :)

    BTW I find a great deal of truth in Alan's rants. The only problems are
    that he goes overboard (abusive language and black-or-white reasoning)
    and that in his zeal to remove the speck from his brother's eye, he
    apparently seems blind to the plank in his own.
    /dev/rob0, Sep 5, 2003
  7. Alan Connor

    Whoever Guest

    OK, I'll join you back in his killfile.
    While there may be grains of truth, I have a big problem with his basic
    tenet that only spammers use SpamAssassin and that people spend months,
    years tuning SpamAssassin to get acceptable results (although if they were
    spammers, why bother, since their objective in using SpamAssassin is to
    get past its filtering)
    Whoever, Sep 5, 2003
  8. Hello,
    I've followed this thread for a while now. I administrate the mail
    system for a medium sized company....using spamassassin and mimedfang.

    A few comments:

    1. At first look, the shell scripts may seem to use less ressources,
    at a closer glance, sorry, it's crap. Just our eternal mailserver
    filters out in the region of 8k to 16k spams a day with spamassassin.
    A bunch of shell scripts would kill the system
    2. Site-wide usage: Sort of goes hand in hand with number 1. The
    administrative overheads of using a system such as that collection of
    shell scripts is out of proportion in a large organisation.
    3. In a realistic business environment , the confirmation system would
    let you lose customers. Most endusers don't care, or are aware of the
    technicalities, and would more then likely be annoyed with the
    4. Spamassassin works well enough to filter 80+ % of the spams we
    receive, so the comment "it doesn't work" is just plain crap. In
    combination with blacklists, dns blacklists etc, that is increased,
    with razor even more so. You're dodgy little system has no chance of
    even getting anywhere near that without a massive
    manual/administrative intervention, and as such belongs in the realm
    of hobbyists tools.
    5. "Written in C to mystify it"
    Doh, what a load of absolute rubbish, it isn't much more likely that
    someone understands and uses shell scripting with all of the beels and
    whistles such as sed, awk etc and not be in a technical job (or a
    capacity as a hobbyist). Never heard an admin to make an issue out of
    it, only people who can't code/are too lazy too code.
    If you just have a shell, can't install 3rd party stuff, and don't
    mind annoying people, it might be a solution. Other then that grow up,
    you're just annoying people with your immature, unrealistic claims.

    oliver rochford
    Oliver Rochford, Sep 5, 2003
  9. Alan Connor

    John Winters Guest

    [Snip reasonable critcisms of elrav]

    Welcome to the Demi-god's kill-file. It's getting crowded in here.

    John Winters, Sep 5, 2003
  10. Alan Connor

    Alan Connor Guest

    I'd apologize too, for posting nonsense.

    So. Are you a spammer pretending to be something else, or a professional
    spam fighter protecting your job?

    Or do you have dreams of making a living with your computer that include
    sending UCM, with "your" UCM of course not being spam.

    Only the *other* guys UCM is really spam, right?

    As for reading the rest of a post that starts out with bullshit, I really
    don't think so.....

    The bottom line is here:

    I never see spam.
    I don't have to mess with my program at all. Ever.
    It uses virtually no disk space (13kb minus comments and blank lines for the
    executables) and has no memory footprint.
    It operates independently of the MUA and MTA.
    A 3rd grader could install and configure it in 5 minutes

    No technical support needed....

    Yes, I can understand why a spammer or professional spam fighter would
    be freaked out about this and be willing to post anything to discredit
    the program.

    But neither myself or anyone else expects a person who makes a living
    via spam, one way or another, to have any scruples, so we aren't surprised
    by the gigabytes of garbage posted by my program's enemies.

    Alan C
    Alan Connor, Sep 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.