Unofficial SuSEFAQ project needs your help
Hi everyone, As the subject header says the project needs your help in adding new content. While I am still unpacking the big part is finished and I can play with my projects again. However, while I was away SuSE 9.0 came lots of new comers joined etc. etc . As a result I was not able to follow the current threads since October and that is in a few days two months time. So I need FAQ entries the question and the answer just in simple text format (yes putting url links so that I can follow the thread will help) Any mini howto's are also welcomed send it to my direct attention note: my mail server does not like spam at all so make sure you have your reverse address delegated. If that becomes a problem please post it to the http://sf.net/projects/susefaq Thanks in advance. -- Togan Muftuoglu Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer http://susefaq.sf.net
The Tuesday 2003-11-25 at 18:59 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
So I need FAQ entries the question and the answer just in simple text format (yes putting url links so that I can follow the thread will help)
Suggest you add this: X-Message-Number-for-archive: 169751 about clock not being set properly. It is being asked quite frequently. Just mention it if you want modifications or additions.
send it to my direct attention note: my mail server does not like spam at all so make sure you have your reverse address delegated.
I have no control whatsoever about that. My email is real enough, but I use dial up (modem, temporary connections), and the range is certainly blacklisted now and then (it is a very large provider). Lets try.
If that becomes a problem please post it to the http://sf.net/projects/susefaq
Well, I'm posting it to the list as well, I don't like browsing if I can help it :-)
Thanks in advance.
Welcome. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
* Carlos E. R.; <robin1.listas@tiscali.es> on 04 Dec, 2003 wrote:
Suggest you add this:
X-Message-Number-for-archive: 169751
about clock not being set properly. It is being asked quite frequently. Just mention it if you want modifications or additions.
Ok I will have a look at the thread
send it to my direct attention note: my mail server does not like spam at all so make sure you have your reverse address delegated.
I have no control whatsoever about that. My email is real enough, but I use dial up (modem, temporary connections), and the range is certainly blacklisted now and then (it is a very large provider). Lets try.
I can understand it. Not every provider provides the reverse entry and even if they do the ip could be in the blacklists as well. Yet like many people I have to cut down the spam as much as I can sometimes it does cut legitimate mail as well, like yours :-( -- Togan Muftuoglu Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer http://susefaq.sf.net
The Thursday 2003-12-04 at 08:20 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
about clock not being set properly. It is being asked quite frequently. Just mention it if you want modifications or additions.
Ok I will have a look at the thread
It is possible that there is something wrong in the boot.clock script for SuSE 9.0, but as I haven't updated I can not check (8.2 here). I doubt it, but it is funny there are so many people complaining - but it could be new users trying to adjust the clock incorrectly, as has been typical for a long time ;-)
send it to my direct attention note: my mail server does not like spam at all so make sure you have your reverse address delegated.
I have no control whatsoever about that. My email is real enough, but I use dial up (modem, temporary connections), and the range is certainly blacklisted now and then (it is a very large provider). Lets try.
I can understand it. Not every provider provides the reverse entry and even if they do the ip could be in the blacklists as well. Yet like many people I have to cut down the spam as much as I can sometimes it does cut legitimate mail as well, like yours :-(
I have friends with adsl and fixed IP with a .org domain name; but as the IP belongs to the provider, reverse lookup resolves to a name like n*.n*.n*.pool.provider or something similar, the same as for a dynamic IP address. It is an unsolvable problem, even for small businesses. It should be possible to find some better way of rejecting spam... For example, an idea. Set up a filter, with spamassassin. Parse received spam, and block all email coming from that origin (from address and IP number), say for a day or two. The first email passes through, but not the second. Another idea - this I think exists commercially - when an email from a not whitelisted name comes, it is answered by a robot, requesting an answer; ie, it is a challenge/response setup. When the answer is received, the name is added to the whitelist list, and the original email is forwarded to the recipient. A third idea: I think that instead of directly rejecting email based on the IP, this should simply add to a negative score (maybe in SpammAssassin). If the remitent is whitelisted, or, say, has a valid pgp signature, it receives a positive score and goes on. This could be combined to create a dynamic blacklist as well. One of my providers (tiscali) advertises a premium account with spam/antivirus filters, for something like 3Eur/day. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
* Carlos E. R.; <robin1.listas@tiscali.es> on 05 Dec, 2003 wrote:
The Thursday 2003-12-04 at 08:20 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
about clock not being set properly. It is being asked quite frequently. Just mention it if you want modifications or additions.
Ok I will have a look at the thread
It is possible that there is something wrong in the boot.clock script for SuSE 9.0, but as I haven't updated I can not check (8.2 here). I doubt it, but it is funny there are so many people complaining - but it could be new users trying to adjust the clock incorrectly, as has been typical for a long time ;-)
I have not upgraded yet the box sits on the shelve for a long time :-)
I can understand it. Not every provider provides the reverse entry and even if they do the ip could be in the blacklists as well. Yet like many people I have to cut down the spam as much as I can sometimes it does cut legitimate mail as well, like yours :-(
I have friends with adsl and fixed IP with a .org domain name; but as the IP belongs to the provider, reverse lookup resolves to a name like n*.n*.n*.pool.provider or something similar, the same as for a dynamic IP address. It is an unsolvable problem, even for small businesses.
Currently postfix is only checking if you have reverse address if yes then then next protection is in in effect. It is not looking if your reverse is what you are claiming to be. However it is a solvable problem depending on your ISP's willingness to work with you. Back in Turkey I could not have it done, I was using the national Telecom's dsl service., however in Germany my ISP (knock the wood as they are the best thing I have encountered in Germany so far in terms of customer service) delegated the reverse addresses to may domain so with a /29 block I have full control of the IP's and the domain :-) Long live Kamp-dsl
It should be possible to find some better way of rejecting spam...
Could be yet I do not have the time to play with it right now. I have to finish moving in a I write this we still do not have a wardrobe and trying to pick things to wear out the cartoons is no fun believe me
For example, an idea. Set up a filter, with spamassassin. Parse received spam, and block all email coming from that origin (from address and IP number), say for a day or two. The first email passes through, but not the second.
That is difficult as I receive tons of email from various countries and so does my wife
Another idea - this I think exists commercially - when an email from a not whitelisted name comes, it is answered by a robot, requesting an answer; ie, it is a challenge/response setup. When the answer is received, the name is added to the whitelist list, and the original email is forwarded to the recipient.
This idea IMO creates for spam then stoppping it
A third idea: I think that instead of directly rejecting email based on the IP, this should simply add to a negative score (maybe in SpammAssassin). If the remitent is whitelisted, or, say, has a valid pgp signature, it receives a positive score and goes on. This could be combined to create a dynamic blacklist as well.
I think I will stick to what I have for some time at least till I finish unpacking. Thanks for the ideas they are appreciated -- Togan Muftuoglu Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer http://susefaq.sf.net
The Friday 2003-12-05 at 08:32 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
I have not upgraded yet the box sits on the shelve for a long time :-)
I feel lazy, so I'll wait till next release O:-)
address. It is an unsolvable problem, even for small businesses.
Currently postfix is only checking if you have reverse address if yes then then next protection is in in effect. It is not looking if your reverse is what you are claiming to be.
Ah. Right, Tiscali I think doesn't have any reverse address. My other provider (teleline alias terra) has. I'll try to remember next time I write to you :-)
However it is a solvable problem depending on your ISP's willingness to work with you.
None! In my case, I don't have a domain, so, none. On the case of some friends of mine, who have been in this business for a long time, they say it is also impossible unless you hire the domain using the ISP services.
Another idea - this I think exists commercially - when an email from a not whitelisted name comes, it is answered by a robot, requesting an answer; ie, it is a challenge/response setup. When the answer is received, the name is added to the whitelist list, and the original email is forwarded to the recipient.
This idea IMO creates for spam then stoppping it
I guess you mean to say that it would increment spam. Possibly. However, I read somewhere that this is a commercially used idea. Perhaps it is used not for individual addresses, but for a whole domain - after all, the domain is known to exist - and the challenge is done by the postmaster or some such address, not by the recipient itself.
I think I will stick to what I have for some time at least till I finish unpacking. Thanks for the ideas they are appreciated
Don't worry, they were thrown out just for comments, not for actually you using them. Some of those ideas need somebody developing them. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
As the subject header says the project needs your help in adding new content. While I am still unpacking the big part is finished and I can I don't know if you call this help, but I gave you a plug in feedback I just wrote to SuSE. I wasted a lot of time struggling to get mysql running because there was no (useful) help on that subject. In my feedback I asked that SuSE provide you web space so users could have a better chance of finding help.
Damon Register
* Damon Register; <damon.w.register@lmco.com> on 01 Mar, 2004 wrote:
Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
As the subject header says the project needs your help in adding new content. While I am still unpacking the big part is finished and I can I don't know if you call this help, but I gave you a plug in feedback I just wrote to SuSE. I wasted a lot of time struggling to get mysql
Thanks
running because there was no (useful) help on that subject. In my feedback I asked that SuSE provide you web space so users could have a better chance of finding help.
Why not submit your experiences in solving the mysql problem as a mini howto so others can solve with out struggling or loosing too much time -- Togan Muftuoglu | Unofficial SuSE FAQ Maintainer | Please reply to the list; http://susefaq.sf.net | Please don't put me in TO/CC. Nisi defectum, haud refiecendum
participants (3)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Damon Register -
Togan Muftuoglu