Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*List\s+configuration\s*$/: 60 ]

Total 60 documents matching your query.

41. List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:12:57 -0900 (AKST)
Greetings: I don't know who thought it was a good idea to run an open list, but this last week I've been getting pounded with spam because I had the misfortunate of whitelisting sgi's domains until m
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00950.html (7,961 bytes)

42. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:44:29 +0800
I don't know who thought it was a good idea to run an open list, but this last week I've been getting pounded with spam because I had the misfortunate of whitelisting sgi's domains until my filters w
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00951.html (9,048 bytes)

43. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Mike Burger <mburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:10:42 -0500 (EST)
This list is open in that anyone can send to it...you don't have to be a subscriber to send to it...just to receive from it. -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS tel
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00952.html (9,374 bytes)

44. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:34:27 +0800
This list is open in that anyone can send to it...you don't have to be a subscriber to send to it...just to receive from it. ??? ^O^ ??? I am shocked. So I can mailbomb linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx from any
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00954.html (9,083 bytes)

45. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:43:13 -0900 (AKST)
Right. If it's not the list, then it's your smtp config. The fact remains that the mail *is* coming through oss.sgi.com, I verified the headers before sending out my bitch: Received: from oss.sgi.com
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00960.html (10,240 bytes)

46. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:54:42 -0500 (EST)
ANd your excuse for spamming the list with something that no list member can fix is what exactly? It apparently hasn't occurred to you that you should contact the list administrative address. -- ~~~~
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00961.html (9,476 bytes)

47. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:58:55 -0900 (AKST)
I've got a damned good reason for sending this to the list: 1) Any managed list should have the applicable administrator subscribed, or someone who reports to him/her, and 2) Publicising the problem
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00962.html (10,358 bytes)

48. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: "Thomas (maillists)" <thomas-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:07:11 +0100
I've got a damned good reason for sending this to the list: 1) Any managed list should have the applicable administrator subscribed, or someone who reports to him/her, and Why? You could simply cont
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00964.html (10,868 bytes)

49. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:16:40 -0900 (AKST)
Again: one stone, two birds (points 1 & 2). And I've got SGI white-listed because, for some reason, my patch updates for IRIX were getting caught by some of SpamAssassin's checks. The irony is that's
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00965.html (11,053 bytes)

50. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: "Thomas (maillists)" <thomas-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:23:32 +0100
And I've got SGI white-listed because, for some reason, my patch updates for IRIX were getting caught by some of SpamAssassin's checks. The irony is that's not really the point. Listen to me careful
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00966.html (11,098 bytes)

51. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:46:26 -0900 (AKST)
LOL. Okay, I really have no idea how to interpret this, so I'll concede you the point (whatever it is ;-) Based on the current protocols, that's pretty damned hard to do, given all the work-arounds.
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00967.html (11,812 bytes)

52. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: "Net Llama!" <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:02:07 -0800
The only child here is you. Throwing a tantrum because you dislike how a list is setup proves you to be the infantile fool. You've wasted significantly more bandwidth in your whining than the spam th
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00968.html (11,204 bytes)

53. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:05:30 -0900 (AKST)
No need, I've already sent the command to unsubscribe. The irony is that for all of your attempts to keep the list spam-free, one simple change could make it that much more effective. And there's ple
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00969.html (12,640 bytes)

54. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Arthur Corliss <corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:07:05 -0900 (AKST)
Right. You certainly won't be missed, twit. I've at least outline quite clearly my rationale for my actions. You still seem to be without reason altogether. Good riddance. --Arthur Corliss Bolverk's
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00970.html (11,132 bytes)

55. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:26:23 -0600
Arthur: Apparently you're listener is broken. I asked to drop the discussion, so I am now following through on my promise to block you from posting to the list. -Russell Cattelan Digital Elves Inc At
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00971.html (11,322 bytes)

56. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:04:22 +0800
Open list? I had to confirm my subscription. You even get spam on the qmail list which requires you send a confirmation for EACH post. Rule No. 2. Spammers are STUPID Somebody *please* unscrew your
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg00972.html (9,892 bytes)

57. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 16 Jan 2004 17:28:35 -0600
We do not plan to change our previous conscious decision to keep the list open. It's not broken, it's intentional. I'm sorry you don't like it. It's not your choice. staying subscribed, or not, is yo
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg01005.html (11,054 bytes)

58. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Darrell Michaud <dmichaud@xxxxxxx>
Date: 23 Jan 2004 16:58:53 -0500
It wasn't just yesterday. Not to revive a dead horse but I received over 30 spam mails from the XFS list in the last 24 hours. Something needs to be done if this list is going to remain useful to a w
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg01022.html (11,399 bytes)

59. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:38:03 -0600
Yes sorry folks. again! sigh. oss got rebooted yesterday and spamd didn't restart when the system came up. Attachment: signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg01025.html (12,126 bytes)

60. Re: List configuration (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:59:41 -0600
I sent that email 5 days ago, it sat on a server for 5 days before moving on. Argh. But yes, I see all the spam that got through yesterday. A disaster. I assume spamd died again, but this is getting
/archives/xfs/2004-01/msg01029.html (11,906 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu