Re: [vox] ricochet
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] ricochet
begin William Kendrick <email@example.com>
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 09:11:14AM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> > 2. thanks for the informative ricochet post. i'd like to point out that
> > spamcop actually searches http: links in spam, so it sounds better
> > than ricochet at least in that regard.
> spamcop is an online service, is it not? Last I heard, they are soon
> ending their non-membership usage. I'm afraid their service will turn to
> a pay one soon or something.
you worry for nothing. it's not a paid-for service. you have to sign
up now because some people were abusing the service (sending nag
messages to innocent people). they want to make sure they can boot the
i was a little trepid too when you had to sign up, but i quickly changed
my tune. it's not meant to be commercial at all.
> Also, with ricochet, I need only type [Shift] + [S] :)
all i need to do is type control f. why do you think it would be
harder with spamcop? this is mutt we're talking about! mutt can do
> With spamcop, I need to type [F] "firstname.lastname@example.org" [Enter] [y]
you just haven't spent any time with mutt. that's all.
# Pressing control f sends the email to spam cop
macro index \Cf "<display-toggle-weed><forward-message>submit.ZZjtP1ORLykFQnBq@spam.spamcop.net\n"
> Then wait a few minutes to be e-mailed back an URL that I'm to use...
> except during the busy times, I need to come back and try again, because
> it's too busy to deal with non-member submissions.
as we speak, i'm writing a procmail rule that will do this all
behind-the-scenes. no user interaction at all.
> Very much a pain in the butt, in comparison.
no it's not. you just haven't been very creative about it. :-)
> > what would really be useful is if you can post some other differences
> > between ricochet and spamcop. i'm not loyal to spamcop per se -- if
> > ricochet is better, i'd switch to it in half a heartbeat.
> I just like that it's a simple Perl script sitting on my account with
> configuration files I can tweak. It handles its own whois caching, keeps
> its own logs, and has a nice complaint template where you can use
> variables ;)
from what little i know of richochet, it sounds like spamcop is more
> > 3. i've also found that using the MTA itself is a great way to start
> > shaving off non relayed spam. again, rod has set up spam filtering for
> > postfix. very handy. that, coupled with using ORDB, has made the
> > amount of intercepted spam i have to deal with for vox/vox-tech very
> > low.
> Well to me, this is kind of apples-to-oranges. I'm not interested in
> having the spam deleted out from under me. I'm interested in being
> a spam-fighting vigilante. ;)
DOH!! i'll try to explain this:
i'm not talking about deleting email. i'm talking about not even
opening up a connection for the spammer.
the spammer's system tries to connect to your smtp port to send you
spam. the MTA recognizes the IP address. it won't even make the TCP
connection. this is a huge "fuck you" for the spammer. you've
essentially cut him off of your part of the net. you've created a
blackhole. (in technical physics lingo, you've created a "whitehole",
but most people don't know what a whitehole is so the common terminology
i have yet to meet anybody that thinks more about spam than i do. and
up till a few weeks ago, thanks to rod, very few people who spent more
time combatting spam than i did. my life is almost spam free at this
my 3 pronged approach:
1. use ORDB to block all relayed spam.
2a. tcpwrap the MTA, dropping non-relayed spam into /etc/hosts.deny
to block SMTP connections
2b. use postfix's access rules to block smtp connections
3. use spamcop for first time non-relayed spam (they never get a
chance to send me 2nd spam becaue of approach 2a/2b).
is about as good as you're ever going to do with combatting spam.
it's pointless to complain about each and every spam that comes to you.
why you ask? you should do some reading on the subject -- do a google
search on "+uu.net +spam". one of the internet's biggest backbones is a
spammer by association. it was so bad that services that MAPS blackhole
exempted uu.net from their blackhole list!
there are plenty of major backbones that simply don't respond to
complaints. hinet.net and ethome.com to name a few. the best approach
for this kind of spam is to simply blackhole them. when enough people
blackhole these bastards, they'll have no choice but to reassess their
PGP Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
PGP Public Key: finger email@example.com
vox mailing list