From shane48@example.com Mon Nov 03 12:58:07 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 55734 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2003 12:58:07 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2003 12:58:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6932 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2003 12:58:01 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 6715 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2003 12:57:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 6702 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2003 12:57:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.intermeta.de) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2003 12:57:58 -0000 Received: from forge.intermeta.de (forge.intermeta.de [83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.intermeta.de (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA3CvjpT029668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for <shane48@example.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:57:46 +0100 Subject: Re: ApacheCon logo: a little less busy From: Henning Schmiedehausen <shane48@example.com> To: shane48@example.com In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: INTERMETA - Gesellschaft für Mehrwertdienste mbH Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 03 Nov 2003 13:57:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -5.2 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes, I know. But I could try. :-) Regards Henning On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 10:33, Andreas Hartmann wrote: > Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > > > We have Incubator twice, can we have Turbine instead? ;-) > > There are only top level projects on the image ;) > BTW, I replaced one of the Incubators with Avalon > (see right image on http://www.cocooncenter.org/apache/coins-04.png) > > -- Andreas > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH shane48@example.com 930.692.7287 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire "Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!" -- AOL CD when played backwards (User Friendly - 200-10-15) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 10:38:31 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 48401 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 10:38:08 -0000 Received: from 218-165-151-204.hinet-ip.hinet.net (HELO USER) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 10:38:08 -0000 From: "shane48@example.com" <shane48@example.com> To: "shane48@example.com" <shane48@example.com> Subject: join the many Americans enlarging their penises! m,. Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:37:00 +0800 X-Priority: 3 (normal) Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAwMDAwIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjxnNHNhZDZrPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTUwMHB4Pg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9Im5h dnkiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIHNpemU9MiBjb2xvcj0ieWVs bG93Ij4xMDAlIEd1YXJhbnRlZWQgUmVzdWx0cyBPciBZb3VyIE1vbmV5IEJhY2sNCjwvdHI+DQo8 dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsdWUiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEi IHNpemU9NCBjb2xvcj0id2hpdGUiPjxiPg0KPGJyPg0KU2ljayBvZiB0aGUgZ2lybHMgbWFraW5n IGpva2VzIGFib3V0IHlvdXIgdGlueSBwZW5pcz88YnI+PGJyPg0KPCEtLSBnNHNhZDZrIC0tPg0K SG93IHdvdWxkIHlvdSBmZWVsIGhhdmluZyBhIGZldyBleHRyYSBpbmNoZXMsIGFuZCBhIGJpZyBh bmQgY29tbWFuZGluZyBwZW5pcz88YnI+PGJyPg0KV2UndmUgYmVlbiBzZWxsaW5nIHBlbmlzIHBp bGxzIGZvciBhIGxvbmcgdGltZSBhbmQgaGF2ZSBzZXZlcmFsIG1pbGxpb24gSEFQUFkgY3VzdG9t ZXJzISA8YnI+PGJyPg0KPEEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2pvYW5uZUB3d3cuaGVyYmFsdXNhLmJpei93 aGl0ZWxpbmUvdnAvP2c0c2FkNmsiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPlRha2UgYSBsb29rIGF0 IGhvdyBpdCB3b3JrczwvYT48YnI+PGJyPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9 Im5hdnkiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIHNpemU9MiBjb2xvcj0i eWVsbG93Ij5Xb3JsZHMgTW9zdCBFZmZlY3RpdmUgRW5sYXJnZW1lbnQgVGVjaG5pcXVlDQo8L3Ry Pg0KPC90YWJsZT48ZzRzYWQ2az4NCjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+DQo8 Zm9udCBzaXplPSIxcHgiIGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMDAiPmc0c2FkNmsgZzRz YWQ2ayBnNHNhZDZrPC9mb250Pg0KPGc0c2FkNms+DQo8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vam9hbm5lQHd3 dy5oZXJiYWx1c2EuYml6L3doaXRlbGluZS9vdXQuaHRtbCI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyIg c2l6ZT0iMiI+dG8gZ2V0IG9mZjwvYT4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 17:20:30 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 71852 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 17:20:25 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 17:20:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 49678 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 17:20:09 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 49341 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 17:20:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 49270 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 17:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO samburan.intranet.hisitech.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 17:20:03 -0000 Received: from hisitech.com ([83.161.120.155]) by samburan.intranet.hisitech.com (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id hA5HK1L27181; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:20:02 +0100 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:20:01 +0100 Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: <shane48@example.com>, shane48@example.com To: "Noel J. Bergman" <shane48@example.com> From: Santiago Gala <shane48@example.com> In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N CCing community, for wider input. El mi=E9rcoles, 5 novi, 2003, a las 17:59 Europe/Madrid, Noel J. Bergman=20= escribi=F3: >> I did *not* subscribe to the attendees mailing list, not I know what >> this is about. > > Spammers spoof source and destination addresses. And yes, it is a=20 > plan to > take over the world. > > According to a report that came out recently, over 60% of all spam is=20= > sent > from a virus infected Windows machine. > > --- Noel > I think the moment is coming where we should think about using those=20 interesting GPG keys for something more than "just" signing releases. Is there any way, for instance, to allow messages signed by Apache=20 committers to pass through to any public Apache list unmoderated ? Is there any way, for instance, that subscribers to our lists are=20 encouraged to send us public keys for the same purpose? Is there any way that the same PGP/GPG key can be "certified" and the=20 resulting X.509 cert further used for certain accesses, like bugzilla=20 or even ssh? Is there any way, after this takes off, to "punish" non identified=20 mail, for instance requiring manual confirmation of each mail? The long term goal would be to use effectively digital identity to=20 protect us from spam. I don't know a lot of precise technical details about cryptography, but=20= from my naive attitude all I say looks reasonable and even desirable. Regards, Santiago (ignorance is daring and bliss) Gala :-)= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 21:27:05 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 90929 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:27:04 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 11923 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:26:44 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 11753 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:26:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 11729 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hume.tsdinc.steitz.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:26:41 -0000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Received: from Lavoie.tsdinc.steitz.com ([83.161.120.155]) by hume.tsdinc.steitz.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:26:40 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Received: from steitz.com ([83.161.120.155]) by Lavoie.tsdinc.steitz.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:26:28 -0700 From: "Phil Steitz" <shane48@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: <shane48@example.com> Subject: Mailing from apache email address Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2003 21:26:45.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[839BDF00:01C3A3E3] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Apologies if the answer to this question is obvious and I have just not stumbled on it; but I am having a hard time "legally" sending mail from my apache email address. Short of logging in to minotaur via ssh and using pine, I know of no authenticated way to do this. I can't seem to connect my Mozilla mail client via SMTP. From the headers on mails from this and other apache lists, it looks like some folks are just modifying the headers. I can set up my local sendmail to push shane48@example.com; but that seems bogus to me. Even when I send from minotaur, the headers don't look right. Can someone give me a clue? What do other people do? Is there a doc on this somewhere? Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 21:33:53 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 95210 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:33:52 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:33:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21645 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:33:32 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 21491 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:33:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 21477 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:33:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:33:31 -0000 X-Sasl-enc: n6cLLf/dofd8axvbc7UFWQ 1068068015 Received: from bronfman504 (Toronto-HSE-ppp3744202.sympatico.ca [83.161.120.155]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B443C701D for <shane48@example.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:33:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:39:21 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Joshua Slive <shane48@example.com> To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: Mailing from apache email address In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.58.0311051637170.1456@bronfman504> References: <shane48@example.com> X-X-Sender: shane48@example.com@mail.messagingengine.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Phil Steitz wrote: > Apologies if the answer to this question is obvious and I have just not > stumbled on it; but I am having a hard time "legally" sending mail from > my apache email address. Short of logging in to minotaur via ssh and > using pine, I know of no authenticated way to do this. I can't seem to > connect my Mozilla mail client via SMTP. From the headers on mails from > this and other apache lists, it looks like some folks are just modifying > the headers. I can set up my local sendmail to push shane48@example.com; > but that seems bogus to me. Even when I send from minotaur, the headers > don't look right. Can someone give me a clue? What do other people do? > Is there a doc on this somewhere? On the current internet, you should expect no mapping between login account / smtp server and an actual email address. (Although some of the current anti-spam proposals want to reinstitute such a thing.) In other words, it is perfectly valid to just change your header and send through your normal smtp server. (Personally, I avoid using my @apache.org address unless I am speaking in some way as a representitive of apache.) Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 21:54:53 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 5453 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:54:51 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:54:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 47657 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:54:31 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 47535 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 21:54:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 47518 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 21:54:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.datazug.ch) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 21:54:30 -0000 Received: from apache.org [83.161.120.155] by mail.datazug.ch with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A1A647D90074; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:54:33 +0100 From: Joerg Pietschmann <shane48@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: Mailing from apache email address References: <shane48@example.com> In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Phil Steitz wrote: > Apologies if the answer to this question is obvious and I have just not > stumbled on it; but I am having a hard time "legally" sending mail from > my apache email address. Short of logging in to minotaur via ssh and > using pine, I know of no authenticated way to do this. I can't seem to > connect my Mozilla mail client via SMTP. Just create another Mail account and claim "shane48@example.com" as email address. Use the usual outgoing mail server of your provider, they don't care about the content of From: header. If you select a mailbox in this new account, every reply and newly composed message will appera to be sent from your apache account. J.Pietschmann --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 22:57:54 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 39059 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 22:57:53 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 22:57:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 50461 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 22:57:38 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 50310 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 22:57:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 50285 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 22:57:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 22:57:36 -0000 Received: from noel770 (cae88-16-024.sc.rr.com [83.161.120.155]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hA5MvTQT012537; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:57:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" <shane48@example.com> To: <shane48@example.com> Cc: <shane48@example.com> Subject: RE: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:57:39 -0500 Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > I think the moment is coming where we should think about using those > interesting GPG keys for something more than "just" signing releases. S/MIME certificates are acquired, e.g., from Thawte, just as you would an SSL certificate. There are root Certificate Authorities, just as for HTTPS. Any good mail client has built-in support. Thawte certificates are free, although they have limited verification until you start to get signed by Thawte notaries (another web-of-trust concept). > Is there any way, for instance, to allow messages signed by Apache > committers to pass through to any public Apache list unmoderated? How do you propose getting a critical mass of signed mail, and what do you want to do in the meantime with unsigned mail from a subscriber? The mail server would need everyone's public key to verify the signatures. But how does that solve the problem? Are you going to require *ALL* messages to be signed? Mind you, I've been saying for years that, because of spam, e-mail anonymity is going to die. All messages will be required to be digitally signed, or will be considered spam a priori. So your view does not bother me in the slightest, but other people consider that there is a right to send anonymous e-mail. I agree. I'd just mark it as spam. But until S/MIME is the accepted norm, rather than the exception, I don't see that it offers a solution. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Wed Nov 05 23:47:17 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 55743 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 23:47:16 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 23:47:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 25362 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 23:46:51 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 25185 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2003 23:46:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 25048 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2003 23:46:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO samburan.intranet.hisitech.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2003 23:46:48 -0000 Received: from hisitech.com ([83.161.120.155]) by samburan.intranet.hisitech.com (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id hA5NkrL30623 for <shane48@example.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:46:54 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:46:52 +0100 Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Santiago Gala <shane48@example.com> To: shane48@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N El mi=E9rcoles, 5 novi, 2003, a las 23:57 Europe/Madrid, Noel J. Bergman=20= escribi=F3: >> I think the moment is coming where we should think about using those >> interesting GPG keys for something more than "just" signing releases. > > S/MIME certificates are acquired, e.g., from Thawte, just as you would=20= > an > SSL certificate. There are root Certificate Authorities, just as for=20= > HTTPS. > Any good mail client has built-in support. Thawte certificates are=20 > free, > although they have limited verification until you start to get signed=20= > by > Thawte notaries (another web-of-trust concept). > enigmail for mozilla uses pgp/gpg as infrastructure, in essentially the=20= same way. Other clients support also this scheme. Messages can be signed either as S/MIME or with the ---BEGIN PGP ...=20 markers in ASCII messages. >> Is there any way, for instance, to allow messages signed by Apache >> committers to pass through to any public Apache list unmoderated? > > How do you propose getting a critical mass of signed mail, and what do=20= > you > want to do in the meantime with unsigned mail from a subscriber? > Making life easier for people using them and more difficult for people=20= not using them. Actually, I am exploring the concept, I expected some expert to come=20 out and say "Actually, project XYZ in sourceforge does a variant of=20 this, only much better" :-) > The mail server would need everyone's public key to verify the=20 > signatures. This looks simple enough, at least for people signing releases. They=20 are already in the pgp/gpg infrastructure. Any key in the Apache web of=20= trust could be initially allowed. Possibly plus any X.509 certificate=20 from reasonable authorities, until/unless they are banned for bad=20 behavior (i.e. innocent until proved otherwise). > But how does that solve the problem? Are you going to require *ALL* > messages to be signed? > The initial "prize" would be something like you don't need to subscribe=20= or wait moderation to send, and you can read via news. Also, you can=20 send from any account if you send a signed message. And, of course, we=20= should have a policy on allowing certain forms of signed messages to=20 Apache lists. Signatures could either be removed at the list server=20 (and substituted by a Header) or kept in. > Mind you, I've been saying for years that, because of spam, e-mail=20 > anonymity > is going to die. All messages will be required to be digitally=20 > signed, or > will be considered spam a priori. So your view does not bother me in=20= > the > slightest, but other people consider that there is a right to send=20 > anonymous > e-mail. I agree. I'd just mark it as spam. But until S/MIME is the > accepted norm, rather than the exception, I don't see that it offers a > solution. > It looks like a chicken and egg problem. But as we get having Apache=20 identities and a web of trust for signing releases and the like, we=20 could actually encourage signed mail, for instance allowing it pass=20 through moderation in any Apache list. This could encourage quite a few=20= people outside Apache to use it for occasional bug reports and the like. More thinking needed. > --- Noel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Thu Nov 06 00:17:36 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 66095 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 00:17:35 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 00:17:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 58020 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 00:17:20 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 57855 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 00:17:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 57837 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 00:17:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 00:17:18 -0000 Received: from noel770 (cae88-16-024.sc.rr.com [83.161.120.155]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hA60HHhf017635 for <shane48@example.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:17:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" <shane48@example.com> To: <shane48@example.com> Subject: RE: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:17:23 -0500 Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > How do you propose getting a critical mass of signed mail, and what do > > you want to do in the meantime with unsigned mail from a subscriber? > Making life easier for people using them and more difficult for people > not using them. > I expected some expert to come out and say "Actually, project > XYZ in sourceforge does a variant of this, only much better" :-) The problem is not whether or not some project does it (we've got some new toys for James that will handle S/MIME operations on the server), but whether or not we can reasonably expect universal availability without unduly impacting our general audience. Subscription is an easy one-time thing. > > The mail server would need everyone's public key to verify the > > signatures. > This looks simple enough, at least for people signing releases. That would be a few handfuls of people. What about the 1000s of regular users who subscribe to the lists? > > But how does that solve the problem? Are you going to require *ALL* > > messages to be signed? > The initial "prize" would be something like you don't need to subscribe > or wait moderation to send What does this do to stop spam from someone who decides to use your address as the fake sender? Haven't you ever gotten bounced e-mail because someone sent spam posing as you? The only way to stop it is to verify each and every e-mail with an authenticated identity. When no one can send e-mail as anyone other than themself, then spam will start to stop. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Thu Nov 06 17:27:23 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 8073 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 17:27:23 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 17:27:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 74137 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 17:27:07 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 73974 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 17:27:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 73959 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 17:27:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tartaros.codefaktor.de) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 17:27:05 -0000 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (p50919D9B.dip.t-dialin.net [83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by tartaros.codefaktor.de (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hA6HR6Ak017318; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:27:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Santiago Gala <shane48@example.com> From: Erik Abele <shane48@example.com> Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:27:04 +0100 To: shane48@example.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 06.11.2003, at 00:46, Santiago Gala wrote: > Actually, I am exploring the concept, I expected some expert to come > out and say "Actually, project XYZ in sourceforge does a variant of > this, only much better" :-) fwiw: there is a nice concept called Tripoli, see http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview Hth... Cheers, Erik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Thu Nov 06 23:20:28 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 75763 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 23:20:28 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 23:20:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 95086 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 23:20:05 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 94946 invoked by uid 500); 6 Nov 2003 23:20:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 94932 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2003 23:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO samburan.intranet.hisitech.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Nov 2003 23:20:03 -0000 Received: from hisitech.com ([83.161.120.155]) by samburan.intranet.hisitech.com (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id hA6NK9L13988; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:20:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:20:07 +0100 Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: shane48@example.com To: Erik Abele <shane48@example.com> From: Santiago Gala <shane48@example.com> In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N El jueves, 6 novi, 2003, a las 18:27 Europe/Madrid, Erik Abele escribi=F3:= > On 06.11.2003, at 00:46, Santiago Gala wrote: > >> Actually, I am exploring the concept, I expected some expert to come=20= >> out and say "Actually, project XYZ in sourceforge does a variant of=20= >> this, only much better" :-) > > fwiw: there is a nice concept called Tripoli, see=20 > http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview > Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about=20 requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult=20 challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted senders,=20= something that could take 1 sec CPU time for a reasonable processor.=20 The idea was raising the cost of sending spam and putting it where it=20 belongs. Trusted senders, like the ASF, for instance, would not be=20 required to do it. So, a spammer would have to pay like 1 TeraInstruction per message, and=20= a reasonable PC would send no more than say 3000 spams per hour. This,=20= BTW, would make desirable to send signed messages for bulk senders,=20 since those would be much "cheaper" to send. Regards, Santiago= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Fri Nov 07 01:27:39 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 25188 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 01:27:39 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 01:27:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 57471 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 01:27:19 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 57355 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 01:27:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 57342 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 01:27:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 01:27:19 -0000 Received: from noel770 (cae88-16-024.sc.rr.com [83.161.120.155]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hA71RLLm013783; Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:27:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Noel J. Bergman" <shane48@example.com> To: <shane48@example.com>, "Erik Abele" <shane48@example.com> Subject: RE: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:27:17 -0500 Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > fwiw: there is a nice concept called Tripoli, see > > http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview > A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about > requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult > challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted senders How do you know if the sender was known/trusted? HowNothing can be trusted except fro the IP address of the immediate connector, or the digital signature. Everything else is easily forged. The only ubiquitous solution is S/MIME. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Fri Nov 07 21:57:40 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 1014 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:38 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:57:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 55628 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:16 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 55463 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 55449 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hyperreal.org) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:57:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 36105 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:23 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.org (HELO fez.hyperreal.org) (83.161.120.155) by localhost.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:57:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 28164 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Nov 2003 21:57:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (shane48@example.com) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 21:57:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:57:20 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf <shane48@example.com> X-X-Sender: shane48@example.com To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost.hyperreal.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: > Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) > > A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about > requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult > challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted senders, > something that could take 1 sec CPU time for a reasonable processor. > The idea was raising the cost of sending spam and putting it where it > belongs. Trusted senders, like the ASF, for instance, would not be > required to do it. > > So, a spammer would have to pay like 1 TeraInstruction per message, and > a reasonable PC would send no more than say 3000 spams per hour. This, > BTW, would make desirable to send signed messages for bulk senders, > since those would be much "cheaper" to send. Ouch. Daedalus.apache.org sends out over 1M messages per day, and at bursty times 100 per second. How do we convince a non-trivial number of hosts to trust us and not require that computation? Brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Fri Nov 07 22:25:16 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 13226 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:16 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 22:25:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 84835 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:01 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 84668 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 84655 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hyperreal.org) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 22:25:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 46361 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:09 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.org (HELO fez.hyperreal.org) (83.161.120.155) by localhost.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 22:25:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28205 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Nov 2003 22:25:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (shane48@example.com) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 22:25:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:25:06 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf <shane48@example.com> X-X-Sender: shane48@example.com To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: Mailing from apache email address In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost.hyperreal.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Joshua and Joerg said you can just send mail as whomever you like through your local SMTP relay; and while that's usually true, some conservative sysadmins will only allow relaying through of mail claiming to be from a particular sender domain; furthermore it's becoming more common for port 25 outgoing to be filtered when coming from "untrusted" networks. Therefore, you have one other option involving SSH, but allowing you to use your local mail client. Minotaur.apache.org is configured to allow SMTP relaying via the localhost interface. So what you do is set up an SSH tunnel that connects your own localhost port X (X can be any value above 1024) to minotaur's localhost port 25; then in your mail client configuration, you set your SMTP server to be "localhost", port X. When you send a message, your mail client will connect to localhost:X, relayed over your SSH connection to localhost:25 on minotaur. I do this, though not with apache.org's server. In a similar way, you can use the POP service that runs on minotaur's localhost interface. Tunnel to localhost:110. Brian On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Phil Steitz wrote: > Apologies if the answer to this question is obvious and I have just not > stumbled on it; but I am having a hard time "legally" sending mail from > my apache email address. Short of logging in to minotaur via ssh and > using pine, I know of no authenticated way to do this. I can't seem to > connect my Mozilla mail client via SMTP. From the headers on mails from > this and other apache lists, it looks like some folks are just modifying > the headers. I can set up my local sendmail to push shane48@example.com; > but that seems bogus to me. Even when I send from minotaur, the headers > don't look right. Can someone give me a clue? What do other people do? > Is there a doc on this somewhere? > > Phil > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sat Nov 08 11:53:41 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 17026 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 11:53:41 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 11:53:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 28597 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 11:53:33 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 28451 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 11:53:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 28438 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 11:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pulse.betaversion.org) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 11:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 27495 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 11:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?83.161.120.155?) (shane48@example.com) by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 11:53:29 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Stefano Mazzocchi <shane48@example.com> Subject: Re: Mailing from apache email address Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:54:09 +0100 To: shane48@example.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 7 Nov 2003, at 23:25, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Therefore, you have one other option involving SSH, but allowing you to > use your local mail client. Minotaur.apache.org is configured to allow > SMTP relaying via the localhost interface. So what you do is set up an > SSH tunnel that connects your own localhost port X (X can be any value > above 1024) to minotaur's localhost port 25; then in your mail client > configuration, you set your SMTP server to be "localhost", port X. > When > you send a message, your mail client will connect to localhost:X, > relayed > over your SSH connection to localhost:25 on minotaur. I do this, > though > not with apache.org's server. Uh, didn't know that minotaur allowed that. You learn something new every day ;-) -- Stefano, who likes to have several options when email is concerned --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sat Nov 08 15:37:31 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 80611 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 15:37:31 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 15:37:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 27758 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 15:37:23 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 27599 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2003 15:37:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 27586 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 15:37:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.speakeasy.net) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 15:37:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 29128 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 15:37:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pobox.com) ([83.161.120.155]) (envelope-sender <shane48@example.com>) by mail7.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <shane48@example.com>; 8 Nov 2003 15:37:23 -0000 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:37:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Mailing from apache email address Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Ben Hyde <shane48@example.com> To: shane48@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian's sketch below of how to tunnel to apache mail servers provides a good opportunity to enquire if anyone knows of a 'server' I could slip into inetd.conf which would dig such tunnels on demand? Presumably it would rendezvous somehow with my ssh-agent to get credentials. As it is I have a script I run that creates a dozen tunnels for various services (smtp, ldap, http proxies, vnc, ssh, pptp, etc. etc) lurking behind various firewalls inside various organizations; it's unreliable. - ben On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 05:25 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > Joshua and Joerg said you can just send mail as whomever you like > through > your local SMTP relay; and while that's usually true, some conservative > sysadmins will only allow relaying through of mail claiming to be from > a > particular sender domain; furthermore it's becoming more common for > port > 25 outgoing to be filtered when coming from "untrusted" networks. > > Therefore, you have one other option involving SSH, but allowing you to > use your local mail client. Minotaur.apache.org is configured to allow > SMTP relaying via the localhost interface. So what you do is set up an > SSH tunnel that connects your own localhost port X (X can be any value > above 1024) to minotaur's localhost port 25; then in your mail client > configuration, you set your SMTP server to be "localhost", port X. > When > you send a message, your mail client will connect to localhost:X, > relayed > over your SSH connection to localhost:25 on minotaur. I do this, > though > not with apache.org's server. > > In a similar way, you can use the POP service that runs on minotaur's > localhost interface. Tunnel to localhost:110. > > Brian > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Apologies if the answer to this question is obvious and I have just >> not >> stumbled on it; but I am having a hard time "legally" sending mail >> from >> my apache email address. Short of logging in to minotaur via ssh and >> using pine, I know of no authenticated way to do this. I can't seem to >> connect my Mozilla mail client via SMTP. From the headers on mails >> from >> this and other apache lists, it looks like some folks are just >> modifying >> the headers. I can set up my local sendmail to push >> shane48@example.com; >> but that seems bogus to me. Even when I send from minotaur, the >> headers >> don't look right. Can someone give me a clue? What do other people >> do? >> Is there a doc on this somewhere? >> >> Phil >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com >> For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com > For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sun Nov 09 17:08:40 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 34185 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 17:08:39 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 17:08:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 42828 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 17:08:24 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 42667 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 17:08:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 42646 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 17:08:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 17:08:22 -0000 Received: from algroup.co.uk (wiese.ben.algroup.co.uk [83.161.120.155]) by scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECAE107C80 for <shane48@example.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:08:24 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:08:22 +0000 From: Ben Laurie <shane48@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.4; MultiZilla v83.161.120.155g) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) References: <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 83.161.120.155 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: > >>Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) >> >>A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about >>requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult >>challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted senders, >>something that could take 1 sec CPU time for a reasonable processor. >>The idea was raising the cost of sending spam and putting it where it >>belongs. Trusted senders, like the ASF, for instance, would not be >>required to do it. >> >>So, a spammer would have to pay like 1 TeraInstruction per message, and >>a reasonable PC would send no more than say 3000 spams per hour. This, >>BTW, would make desirable to send signed messages for bulk senders, >>since those would be much "cheaper" to send. > > > Ouch. Daedalus.apache.org sends out over 1M messages per day, and at > bursty times 100 per second. How do we convince a non-trivial number of > hosts to trust us and not require that computation? You require hash-cash for list postings and sign them for redistribution. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sun Nov 09 17:24:41 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 39392 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 17:24:40 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 17:24:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 57177 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 17:24:31 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 57010 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 17:24:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 56996 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 17:24:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.speakeasy.net) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 17:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 7196 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 17:24:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pobox.com) ([83.161.120.155]) (envelope-sender <shane48@example.com>) by mail8.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <shane48@example.com>; 9 Nov 2003 17:24:33 -0000 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:24:53 -0500 Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Ben Hyde <shane48@example.com> To: shane48@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> Message-Id: <shane48@example.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 12:08 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > Brian Behlendorf wrote: > >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: >> >>> Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) >>> >>> A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about >>> requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult >>> challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted >>> senders, >>> something that could take 1 sec CPU time for a reasonable processor. >>> The idea was raising the cost of sending spam and putting it where it >>> belongs. Trusted senders, like the ASF, for instance, would not be >>> required to do it. >>> >>> So, a spammer would have to pay like 1 TeraInstruction per message, >>> and >>> a reasonable PC would send no more than say 3000 spams per hour. >>> This, >>> BTW, would make desirable to send signed messages for bulk senders, >>> since those would be much "cheaper" to send. >> >> >> Ouch. Daedalus.apache.org sends out over 1M messages per day, and at >> bursty times 100 per second. How do we convince a non-trivial number >> of >> hosts to trust us and not require that computation? > > You require hash-cash for list postings and sign them for > redistribution. Such a signature would, i hope, assert little. Is a spec for signing the headers added to forwarded mail? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sun Nov 09 20:37:44 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 94628 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 20:37:44 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 20:37:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 81048 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 20:37:29 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 80893 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 20:37:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 80880 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 20:37:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 20:37:28 -0000 Received: from algroup.co.uk (wiese.ben.algroup.co.uk [83.161.120.155]) by scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF91107C80 for <shane48@example.com>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:37:32 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <shane48@example.com> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 20:37:30 +0000 From: Ben Laurie <shane48@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.4; MultiZilla v83.161.120.155g) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: shane48@example.com Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) References: <shane48@example.com> In-Reply-To: <shane48@example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 83.161.120.155 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ben Hyde wrote: > > On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 12:08 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> Brian Behlendorf wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: >>> >>>> Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) >>>> >>>> A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about >>>> requiring the email sender to compute a computationally difficult >>>> challenge before the email was accepted, for uknown/untrusted senders, >>>> something that could take 1 sec CPU time for a reasonable processor. >>>> The idea was raising the cost of sending spam and putting it where it >>>> belongs. Trusted senders, like the ASF, for instance, would not be >>>> required to do it. >>>> >>>> So, a spammer would have to pay like 1 TeraInstruction per message, and >>>> a reasonable PC would send no more than say 3000 spams per hour. This, >>>> BTW, would make desirable to send signed messages for bulk senders, >>>> since those would be much "cheaper" to send. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ouch. Daedalus.apache.org sends out over 1M messages per day, and at >>> bursty times 100 per second. How do we convince a non-trivial number of >>> hosts to trust us and not require that computation? >> >> >> You require hash-cash for list postings and sign them for redistribution. > > > Such a signature would, i hope, assert little. It would assert that the mailing list saw hashcash it considered adequate. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: shane48@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: shane48@example.com From shane48@example.com Sun Nov 09 21:25:20 2003 Return-Path: <shane48@example.com> Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 9942 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 21:25:19 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 21:25:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 15491 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 21:25:00 -0000 Delivered-To: shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 15328 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2003 21:24:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact shane48@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:shane48@example.com> list-post: <mailto:shane48@example.com> Reply-To: shane48@example.com Delivered-To: mailing list shane48@example.com Received: (qmail 15315 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2003 21:24:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO S-UTL01-DANOC.stsn.com) (83.161.120.155) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2003 21:24:59 -0000 Received: (from MITHRIL [83.161.120.155]) by S-UTL01-DANOC.stsn.com (NAVGW 83.161.120.155) with SMTP id M2003110915291116565 for <shane48@example.com>; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 15:29:11 -0600 Message-ID: <009901c3a707$f1c253c0$b3df020a@MITHRIL> From: "David Reid" <shane48@example.com> To: <shane48@example.com> References: <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> <shane48@example.com> Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:25:05 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ben, Has hash-cash got any further since last time we talked about it? I always thought it was a cool idea... david ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Laurie" <shane48@example.com> To: <shane48@example.com> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: Re: bogus subs to mailing lists (more?) > Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: > > > >>Classified for reading until I finish a proposal ;-) > >> > >>A nice scheme against spam, I read about some time ago, was about > >>requiring the email sender to compute a
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}