You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Jake Maul <ja...@gmail.com> on 2009/06/10 21:05:32 UTC
BOTNET timeouts?
Howdy all,
The last couple days I've been seeing a lot of Botnet-related
timeouts. Obviously the Botnet plugin itself hasn't changed...
DNS problems maybe? Anyone else seen this? It's causing my SA children
to hang and for the server to hit the max-children setting. I had to
disable Botnet to get things up and running reliably again.
Thanks,
Jake
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Wed, June 10, 2009 21:05, Jake Maul wrote:
> The last couple days I've been seeing a lot of Botnet-related
> timeouts. Obviously the Botnet plugin itself hasn't changed...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217261
> DNS problems maybe? Anyone else seen this? It's causing my SA children
> to hang and for the server to hit the max-children setting. I had to
> disable Botnet to get things up and running reliably again.
hope the patch still works
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
John Rudd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
>> Jake Maul wrote:
>>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
>>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
>> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
>> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
>> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
>> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
>> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
>
> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
>
> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
> of repair.
>
> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
> want to go with, etc., so you're also unqualified to state how much
> time it would take to resolve it.
Whatever, just fix it or pull it.
Bill
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>
> Since we saw two of them come in pretty back to back, I suspect a joe
> job of sometype. those people might not have subscribed.
That would be a bit tricky to just be a joe job. This list is confirmed
opt-in. i.e.: if you subscribe, an automated bot from ezlm sends you a
message that you need to reply to to get subscribed. Well, actually all
you have to do is send a second message to a different address that
contains randomly generated text as a magic cookie. But still, you need
to know that randomly generated address.
Of course, it's always the possibility someone guessed the random text
in the reply address.. but, good luck..
They start off a bit like this (note: I've munged the email address, and
changed the values of the magic text and serial number, but I have not
changed the length. I substituted letters for letters, and numbers for
numbers. Otherwise, this is the start of a real confirm message.)
---------------------
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
users@spamassassin.apache.org mailing list.
To confirm that you would like
example@example.com
added to the users mailing list, please send
a short reply to this address:
users-sc.1244818352.jacibredcfjnkiobdtef-example=example.com@spamassassin.apache.org
Usually, this happens when you just hit the "reply" button.
...
------------
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Raquel <ra...@thericehouse.net>.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:47:21 -0600
LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com> wrote:
> On 12-Jun-2009, at 10:36, Raquel wrote:
> > It's called "double opt-in"
>
> No it's not. It's called 'subscription confirmation'.
>
> "Double opt-in" is a spammer phrase invented to imply that a form
> on a web page asking for an email address is "opt-in".
>
If you want to get snippy and real technical about it, the Mailman
people call it, "confirmed opt-in".
--
Raquel
============================================================
Our values are defined by what we will tolerate when it is done to
others.
--William Greider
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 12-Jun-2009, at 20:16, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> RFC's aside...a link at the bottom of the email is the easiest. I
> don't plan on unsubscribing so I don't really care, but being bull
> headed is pointless in this case.
Modifying the message body breaks things. If you can figure out how to
subscribe, you can figure out how to unsubscribe. Not taking the time
to figure this out is merely selfish and lazy. even if you don't know
to look at the headers, you can go to google.
<http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unsubscribe+spamassassin>
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you *think*
before you break 'em.
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com>.
At 07:16 PM 6/12/2009, you wrote:
>LuKreme,
>
>I agree that one should be able to read the mail headers, but unless
>you knew to look there, you wouldn't really ever care to. Especially
>when wanting to unsubscribe. I don't think it has ever come across my
>mind to look there. RFC's aside...a link at the bottom of the email
>is the easiest. I don't plan on unsubscribing so I don't really care,
>but being bull headed is pointless in this case.
I know we're beating a dead horse here, but a few things to think about:
You don't MAGICALLY join a mailing list. You have to follow usually a
few steps (often not only subscribe, but often confirm your request
by replying to the "You really want to join this list?" e-mail or
clicking on a link in the e-mail.
You generally get a e-mail telling you that you've confirmed your
subscription AND includes instructions on how to unsubscribe.
Almost EVERY mailing list either includes instructions on how to
unsubscribe at the bottom or in the headers.
If you're joining a anti-spam mailing list, you should be able to
figure out how to unsubscribe.
Almost NO mailing list software has you e-mail the general list to
perform commands such as unsubscribe.
If you're smart enough to join, you should be smart enough to unsubscribe.
I'm probably missing sometihng, but that's a good majority of it.
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Curtis LaMasters <cu...@gmail.com>.
LuKreme,
I agree that one should be able to read the mail headers, but unless
you knew to look there, you wouldn't really ever care to. Especially
when wanting to unsubscribe. I don't think it has ever come across my
mind to look there. RFC's aside...a link at the bottom of the email
is the easiest. I don't plan on unsubscribing so I don't really care,
but being bull headed is pointless in this case.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:47 PM, LuKreme<kr...@kreme.com> wrote:
> On 12-Jun-2009, at 10:36, Raquel wrote:
>>
>> It's called "double opt-in"
>
> No it's not. It's called 'subscription confirmation'.
>
> "Double opt-in" is a spammer phrase invented to imply that a form on a web
> page asking for an email address is "opt-in".
>
>
> --
> Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you *think*
> before you break 'em.
>
>
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 12-Jun-2009, at 10:36, Raquel wrote:
> It's called "double opt-in"
No it's not. It's called 'subscription confirmation'.
"Double opt-in" is a spammer phrase invented to imply that a form on a
web page asking for an email address is "opt-in".
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you *think*
before you break 'em.
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Raquel <ra...@thericehouse.net>.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org> wrote:
> > .... maybe i lean towards if you are not smart enough to find
> > the headers you shouldn't have subscribed in the first place.
>
> Actually, it's worse than that. In order to FIND the list and the
> link/insruction to subscribe to it, you go to the website, and the
> two links for subscribing and unsubscribing via e-mail are right
> *there* together in that one place.
>
> Scary....
>
> - Charles
>
It's been 6 years since I subscribed to this list, but I was sent a
confirmation email that had to be replied to in order to subscribe.
It's called "double opt-in". Just about as safe as can be for
getting only those who really want to subscribe.
--
Raquel
============================================================
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
--Charles Darwin
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
> Could even just send an autoresponse back to the sender advising them
> where they should look in order to find out the unsubscribe instructions.
Or run a script to unsubscribe them :-)
Could look for 'out of office' and 'on vacation' also.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>|SECNAP Network Security
Finalist 2009 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Mike Cardwell <sp...@lists.grepular.com>.
Charles Gregory wrote:
>> .... maybe i lean towards if you are not smart enough to find
>> the headers you shouldn't have subscribed in the first place.
>
> Actually, it's worse than that. In order to FIND the list and the
> link/insruction to subscribe to it, you go to the website, and the two
> links for subscribing and unsubscribing via e-mail are right *there*
> together in that one place.
>
> Scary....
>
> - Charles
On the many mailing lists where I see these poorly directed unsubscribe
emails, nearly all of them contain the single word "unsubscribe" and
nothing else. Couldn't the mailing list software be updated to detect
these emails and to reject them? Or at least put them into a moderation
queue so threads like this one don't get started?
Could even just send an autoresponse back to the sender advising them
where they should look in order to find out the unsubscribe instructions.
--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
> .... maybe i lean towards if you are not smart enough to find
> the headers you shouldn't have subscribed in the first place.
Actually, it's worse than that. In order to FIND the list and the
link/insruction to subscribe to it, you go to the website, and the two
links for subscribing and unsubscribing via e-mail are right *there*
together in that one place.
Scary....
- Charles
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
Shane Williams wrote:
>
> Since CAN-SPAM only covers "email whose primary purpose is advertising
> or promoting a commercial product or service", the SA mailing list
> isn't even address by the law, much less in violation of it.
>
Guess I never caught that part. I knew the lawyers who drafted it made
sure their friends in politics were except.
no, I don't know about gmail. I do know if you are unlucky enough to be
forced to use OWA, well, you should not be on this list anyway..
either case, then. maybe i lean towards if you are not smart enough to
find the headers you shouldn't have subscribed in the first place.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
* Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
* Best Anti-Spam Product 2008, Network Products Guide
* King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch>.
and when all fails:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unsubscribe+spamassassin+mailing+list
On 6/12/2009 4:07 PM, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> I'm curious why you can't see the unsubscribe link in the header with
> Gmail. I can.
>
> Curtis LaMasters
> http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
> http://www.builtnetworks.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Shane Williams<sh...@shanew.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>
>>> the spamassassin mailing list does violate (technically) the US (you)
>>> CAN-SPAM laws.
>>> #1, no easy unsubscribe (if you are on gmail, you really can't unless you
>>> know how to)
>>> #2, no full physical address of sender.
>>>
>> Since CAN-SPAM only covers "email whose primary purpose is advertising
>> or promoting a commercial product or service", the SA mailing list
>> isn't even address by the law, much less in violation of it.
>>
>> --
>> Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
>> http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT iSchool
>> =----------------------------------+-------------------------------
>> All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew@shanew.net
>> Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
>>
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Curtis LaMasters <cu...@gmail.com>.
I'm curious why you can't see the unsubscribe link in the header with
Gmail. I can.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Shane Williams<sh...@shanew.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>> the spamassassin mailing list does violate (technically) the US (you)
>> CAN-SPAM laws.
>> #1, no easy unsubscribe (if you are on gmail, you really can't unless you
>> know how to)
>> #2, no full physical address of sender.
>>
>
> Since CAN-SPAM only covers "email whose primary purpose is advertising
> or promoting a commercial product or service", the SA mailing list
> isn't even address by the law, much less in violation of it.
>
> --
> Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
> http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT iSchool
> =----------------------------------+-------------------------------
> All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew@shanew.net
> Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
>
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Shane Williams <sh...@shanew.net>.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> the spamassassin mailing list does violate (technically) the US (you)
> CAN-SPAM laws.
> #1, no easy unsubscribe (if you are on gmail, you really can't unless you
> know how to)
> #2, no full physical address of sender.
>
Since CAN-SPAM only covers "email whose primary purpose is advertising
or promoting a commercial product or service", the SA mailing list
isn't even address by the law, much less in violation of it.
--
Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT iSchool
=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
All syllogisms contain three lines | shanew@shanew.net
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 06:43 12-06-2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>SA mailing list folks: you might want to include both automatically
>in the footer of your emails. Yes, they will break dkim signing for
>many people, but maybe we should lead by example.
The people that footer is intended for won't read it anyway.
Regards,
-sm
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 05:08 16-06-2009, McDonald, Dan wrote:
>Altering message bodies might break gpg|pgp signatures, but not DKIM.
It generally invalidates the DKIM signature.
This mailing list does not use Mailman.
Regards,
-sm
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Jonas Eckerman <jo...@frukt.org>.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
> List servers like mailman resend the message with a different envelope
> header.
Wich doesn't invalidate a DKIM, PGP or S/MIME signature.
> The MTA receiving this message looks for policy statements about
> spamassassin.apache.org, not for policy statements from fantomas.sk.
For SPF yes. For DKIM it should look for policy statements from
"fantomas.sk" since that is the domain of the address used in the From
header.
If the message had contained a DKIM signature, it should of course look
for a DKIM key for the domain specified in the DKIM-Signature header.
Regards
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
Fruktträdet & Förbundet Sveriges Dövblinda
http://www.fsdb.org/
http://www.frukt.org/
http://whatever.frukt.org/
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by "McDonald, Dan" <Da...@austinenergy.com>.
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 13:44 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:29:13 +0200
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
> On 15.06.09 12:30, RW wrote:
> > Would you care to elaborate? You comment makes no sense to me.
>
> the more people use DKIM/PGP, the less unsubscribe-signatures will be
> attached to list mail. And since (I guess) we do want people use such
> techniques, we shouldn't rely on the fact enough people won't use them so
> the "accidental(1)" subscribers won't see them and will complain
>
List servers like mailman resend the message with a different envelope
header. For example, the message I'm quoting was received as:
Jun 16 06:45:23 sa amavis[27515]: (27515-18) Passed CLEAN, [140.211.11.3] [195.168.3.66] <us...@spamassassin.apache.org> -> <Da...@austinenergy.com>, Message-ID: <20...@fantomas.sk>, mail_id: i+AbqzQlLrXO, Hits: -4.291, size: 4375, queued_as: AD64C187, 1077 ms
The MTA receiving this message looks for policy statements about
spamassassin.apache.org, not for policy statements from fantomas.sk. If
spamassassin.apache.org were to alter the body and DKIM sign the
message, it would be fine because it would match
spamassassin.apache.org's policy.
Altering message bodies might break gpg|pgp signatures, but not DKIM.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
www.austinenergy.com
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:29:13 +0200
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> > > mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> > > > I am not as convinced as you:
> > > >
> > > > - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> > > > back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same
> > > > domain), this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do
> > > > break signatures so the receiving site should cope with this, but
> > > > I am not sure they really do.
> >
> > On 15.06.09 00:03, RW wrote:
> > > Some lists only add the footer to single part text/plain emails.
> > > Most people don't sign mailing list messages anyway.
> >
> > this makes adding unsubscribe footer somehow useless :)
On 15.06.09 12:30, RW wrote:
> Would you care to elaborate? You comment makes no sense to me.
the more people use DKIM/PGP, the less unsubscribe-signatures will be
attached to list mail. And since (I guess) we do want people use such
techniques, we shouldn't rely on the fact enough people won't use them so
the "accidental(1)" subscribers won't see them and will complain
(1) "accidental" subscriber is a person who asks for subscribing and remembers
to confirm, but forgets the whole stuff in the short time and starts
whining and complaining just after... I have seen them in more mailing
lists.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
WinError #99999: Out of error messages.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:29:13 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> > mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> > > I am not as convinced as you:
> > >
> > > - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> > > back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same
> > > domain), this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do
> > > break signatures so the receiving site should cope with this, but
> > > I am not sure they really do.
>
> On 15.06.09 00:03, RW wrote:
> > Some lists only add the footer to single part text/plain emails.
> > Most people don't sign mailing list messages anyway.
>
> this makes adding unsubscribe footer somehow useless :)
Would you care to elaborate? You comment makes no sense to me.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> > I am not as convinced as you:
> >
> > - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> > back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
> > this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures
> > so the receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they
> > really do.
On 15.06.09 00:03, RW wrote:
> Some lists only add the footer to single part text/plain emails. Most
> people don't sign mailing list messages anyway.
this makes adding unsubscribe footer somehow useless :)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Linux - It's now safe to turn on your computer.
Linux - Teraz mozete pocitac bez obav zapnut.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
RW a écrit :
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
> mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I am not as convinced as you:
>>
>> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
>> back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
>> this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures
>> so the receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they
>> really do.
>
> Some lists only add the footer to single part text/plain emails.
given that the most widely used MUAs show the html part, this means such
footers are useless because only few people see them, and these people
can see headers.
(and anyway, whatever part you alter, the sig is broken).
> Most
> people don't sign mailing list messages anyway.
"Most people" have no way to chose which mail to dkim-sign, since this
is done at MTA level. are you confusing this pgp?
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by RW <rw...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 +0200
mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> wrote:
> I am not as convinced as you:
>
> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
> back to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
> this may cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures
> so the receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they
> really do.
Some lists only add the footer to single part text/plain emails. Most
people don't sign mailing list messages anyway.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> > On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
> >> If that happens then the message is no longer signed by the original
> >> sender, but rather by the mailing list. Probably not a big deal for a
> >> mailing list, but would be in any person-to-person communications.
> Chris Owen wrote:
> > Why would someone wanting person-to-person communications send mail
> > through Mailman?
On 14.06.09 18:22, Bill Landry wrote:
> [replying back to the list for the benefit of others following this thread]
Thank you. Would be nice if Chris sent the post to list...
> They wouldn't. I was simply trying to illustrate a point that removing
> and resigning a message on a mailing list probably is not a big deal.
I think it is sometimes very good to know that the mail sent to the list was
really sent by the person in From: address.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
We are but packets in the Internet of life (userfriendly.org)
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Jonas Eckerman <jo...@frukt.org>.
David Gibbs wrote:
> Since Mailman adds it's own headers to the messages it processes, any existing signatures in the message are invalidated.
But... They aren't. Some may be, but not all. As an example, the post
from mouss wich you replied to was verified with DKIM by our MX to be
signedhave passed through a system correctly signing for
"mouss@ml.netoyen.net".
DKIM specifies wich headers it includes in the signature, and ignores
headers that are prepended after the signature. As long as mailman
leaves the specified headers below the signature alone, adding it's own
headers won't invalidate DKIM signatures.
Also, some signatures simply don't care about the *message* headers at
all, only about the body or the signed MIME part(s).
> Thus, Mailman has to remove any existing signatures and let the MTA resign the message after it's been processed.
If mailman has been set up to change the body (adding a footer for
example) or change headers that can reasonably be expected to appear in
signatures (like From or Subject for example), it should remove certain
signatures (like DKIM) and (preferably) replace them with the
authentication results at the current point (of course, it should (when
applicable) include any prepended results header(s) in it's own
signature if it then resigns the message).
Otherwise I see no reason for it to remove signatures. Wich is an
obvious reason *not* to add a footer or a subject tag, as well as a
reason not to rewrite From and reply-To. Wether or not that reason is
important is a personal opinion, but it is valid.
If signatures are left in places and important data isn't changed, our
regular verification methods can verify wether a post purporting to be
mouss (for example) came from a system that should send mail from mouss.
If mailman removes existing signatures or changes important data, we can
not verify that the mail really was sent though a system supposed to
send mail from mouss.
If mailman (or it's MTA) adds authentication results, we have to trust
the system (and it's administator(s)) in order to be reasonably sure
wether the mail was sent from an autorized system or not. This may not
be reasonable for all list hosts.
Note: Important data for the mail from mouss that you replied to is the
body, and the following headers:
Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
As long as mailman (or anything else) doesn't change that data, the DKIM
signature will still be valid and verifiable, wich it is here.
Regards
/Jonas
--
Jonas Eckerman
Fruktträdet & Förbundet Sveriges Dövblinda
http://www.fsdb.org/
http://www.frukt.org/
http://whatever.frukt.org/
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
> mouss wrote:
>>> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so
>>> that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
>>
>> which doesn't help, because if I get mail claiming to come "From:
>> <mo...@netoyen.net>", yet it doesn't have a sig of mine, I don't
>> really care if some fancy mailman owner has added his own.
>
> Huh? I really don't understand what you just wrote.
>
> "Mailman" is a mailing list management program (which is used to manage
> this list, fwiw). And the signatures I was talking about are DKIM or
> Domainkeys.
>
> Since Mailman adds it's own headers to the messages it processes, any
> existing signatures in the message are invalidated. Thus, Mailman has to
> remove any existing signatures and let the MTA resign the message after
> it's been processed.
This is *not* correct. Check the headers of this message and check the SA
test results. The list server added its headers, did not strip my DK &
DKIM signatures, and SA shows that the message contains DK & DKIM
signatures and that they are still valid.
Headers added after signing do *not* cause a problem if they are added in
the proper order, above the ones used for signing, as is the standard.
Bill
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Tirs, Juni 16, 2009 03:13, David Gibbs wrote:
> Since Mailman adds it's own headers to the messages it processes, any
> existing signatures in the message are invalidated. Thus, Mailman has to
> remove any existing signatures and let the MTA resign the message after
> it's been processed.
i am on more maillists where this is not so, even my own mailman setup
does not have a problem with dkim signing, eg on postfix maillist my
header is not invalid after i get my mails back from there maillist
on another list i have problem since that there site using clamsmtp that
breaks dkim (fix is to disable add heder in clamsmtp)
> Or are you just being sarcastic?
just on facebook :)
--
xpoint
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by David Gibbs <da...@midrange.com>.
mouss wrote:
>> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so
>> that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
>
> which doesn't help, because if I get mail claiming to come "From:
> <mo...@netoyen.net>", yet it doesn't have a sig of mine, I don't
> really care if some fancy mailman owner has added his own.
Huh? I really don't understand what you just wrote.
"Mailman" is a mailing list management program (which is used to manage this list, fwiw). And the signatures I was talking about are DKIM or Domainkeys.
Since Mailman adds it's own headers to the messages it processes, any existing signatures in the message are invalidated. Thus, Mailman has to remove any existing signatures and let the MTA resign the message after it's been processed.
Or are you just being sarcastic?
david
--
IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
David Gibbs a écrit :
> Bill Landry wrote:
>> This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
>> sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
>> list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
>> signed the message.
>
> As I understand it, in order for the signatures to be valid, the message has to be signed by the sender ... because most mailing list software adds headers.
>
> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
>
which doesn't help, because if I get mail claiming to come "From:
<mo...@netoyen.net>", yet it doesn't have a sig of mine, I don't really
care if some fancy mailman owner has added his own.
if all it takes is to claim to be a "mailman", then I can fake all
signatures of the whole internet by adding mailman headers.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Chris Owen wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>>> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so
>>> that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
>
>> If that happens then the message is no longer signed by the original
>> sender, but rather by the mailing list. Probably not a big deal for a
>> mailing list, but would be in any person-to-person communications.
>
>
> Why would someone wanting person-to-person communications send mail
> through Mailman?
[replying back to the list for the benefit of others following this thread]
They wouldn't. I was simply trying to illustrate a point that removing
and resigning a message on a mailing list probably is not a big deal.
But if, for example, a receiving MTA were to add some kind of footer to
a signed message in a person-to-person communication (not a mailing list
communication), then that would effectively render the DK and/or DKIM
signatures invalid, as the message content would have changed.
The same is true if a mailing list adds a footer to a message and does
not remove the original DK and DKIM signatures, as the list recipients
would receive the message with invalid signatures, and SA would report
them as invalid.
Bill
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
David Gibbs wrote:
> Bill Landry wrote:
>> This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
>> sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
>> list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
>> signed the message.
>
> As I understand it, in order for the signatures to be valid, the message has to be signed by the sender ... because most mailing list software adds headers.
As long as the headers are added in the proper order, they will not
break DK & DKIM signing. But adding anything to the body will break the
signatures, as the body is included as part of the signature.
If you take a look at the headers of this message, you will see what
headers I've included in my DK & DKIM signatures, as well as the message
body. Any changes in any of these areas will render the signature invalid.
> Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
If that happens then the message is no longer signed by the original
sender, but rather by the mailing list. Probably not a big deal for a
mailing list, but would be in any person-to-person communications.
Bill
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by David Gibbs <da...@midrange.com>.
Bill Landry wrote:
> This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
> sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
> list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
> signed the message.
As I understand it, in order for the signatures to be valid, the message has to be signed by the sender ... because most mailing list software adds headers.
Mailman has specific functionality to remove signature headers so that the message can be resigned as it's sent out.
david
--
IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
David Gibbs wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>> - mail admin at example.com configures his mail system to sign all
>> outbound mail with DKIM
>> - he rejects any mail with a From: in his domain if it doesn't have a
>> valid DKIM signature
>> - joe@example.com posts to a list that appends a footer (or munges the
>> Reply-To header, assuming this is used in the signature).
>> - list resends the message to mx.example.com.
>> - mail is From: joe@example.com, but it is either not signed (list
>> removed the signature) or the sig is not valid (message altered by list).
>
> I don't think DKIM / Domainkeys will be invalidated by adding a footer ... as the footer is added to the message before it is signed and resent.
This may be true if the sender were adding the footer before signing and
sending the message to the list. However, not true if it's the mailing
list that is adding the footer after the original sender has already
signed the message.
Bill
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by David Gibbs <da...@midrange.com>.
mouss wrote:
> - mail admin at example.com configures his mail system to sign all
> outbound mail with DKIM
> - he rejects any mail with a From: in his domain if it doesn't have a
> valid DKIM signature
> - joe@example.com posts to a list that appends a footer (or munges the
> Reply-To header, assuming this is used in the signature).
> - list resends the message to mx.example.com.
> - mail is From: joe@example.com, but it is either not signed (list
> removed the signature) or the sig is not valid (message altered by list).
I don't think DKIM / Domainkeys will be invalidated by adding a footer ... as the footer is added to the message before it is signed and resent.
> BTW, in .fr, most MUAs (including webmail) translate "spam" as "Messages
> undesirables", which most users naturally understand as a way to report
> mail they don't want. so even if you send them mail regularly, but there
> is one they didn't like, they'll hit the "This Is Spam" button. The
> fault is shared between the luser and the UI designer/translater!
Yeah ... but I've also had cases of idiots who were deliberately reporting mailing list messages as spam because they couldn't be bothered to unsubscribe.
david
--
IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
David Gibbs a écrit :
> mouss wrote:
>> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets back
>> to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain), this may
>> cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures so the
>> receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they really do.
>
> Signatures ... as in DKIM / DomainKeys? Or GPG signatures?
>
any (cryptographic) signature method that is invalidated if text is
added to the body.
here is an example:
- mail admin at example.com configures his mail system to sign all
outbound mail with DKIM
- he rejects any mail with a From: in his domain if it doesn't have a
valid DKIM signature
- joe@example.com posts to a list that appends a footer (or munges the
Reply-To header, assuming this is used in the signature).
- list resends the message to mx.example.com.
- mail is From: joe@example.com, but it is either not signed (list
removed the signature) or the sig is not valid (message altered by list).
>> - the code is not trivial because of the MIME structure.
>
BTW. dspam once had a bug (dunno if it was fixed): when you enabled the
"signature in body" option, it appended text to the body, which
obviously won't work for html mail for example!
> Ah, this may be the case ... I'm unfamiliar with the exact configuration of the SA lists. On my own list server I convert everything to plain text to avoid problems with incompatible mail clients.
>
yes, that usually works (in "text only" lists such as this one where we
don't exchange images...). but even this is a hard game because you need
to take a decision when the message is broken (incorrect html, ... etc).
this is somewhat similar to the problem of browsers trying to fix
incorrect html, but each browser has its heuristics, and you're never
sure what the browser guessed is what the page author intended!
that said, I agree that in a "text only" list, it should work correctly,
and even if it does not, the fault is in the sender side ;-p
>>> This is what I do for all the lists I run. Yes, some people are too dumb to read that far ... but MOST people aren't.
>>>
>> those who send these "unsubscribe" posts do not really look at the list
>> messages when they do.
>
> True enough. Add to those the people who think the best way to get unsubscribed from a list is to simply report it as spam.
>
BTW, in .fr, most MUAs (including webmail) translate "spam" as "Messages
undesirables", which most users naturally understand as a way to report
mail they don't want. so even if you send them mail regularly, but there
is one they didn't like, they'll hit the "This Is Spam" button. The
fault is shared between the luser and the UI designer/translater!
>> I am convinced that an "unsubscribe" option should be implemented in MUAs.
>
> I completely concur. It's not rocket science.
>
> I *THINK* I saw a tbird add in that implements this kind of functionality, but it would be better as part of the core.
>
yep.
> david
>
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 14-Jun-2009, at 10:23, David Gibbs wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets
>> back
>> to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain),
>> this may
>> cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures so the
>> receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they really
>> do.
>
> Signatures ... as in DKIM / DomainKeys? Or GPG signatures?
Both.
--
Satan oscillate my metallic sonatas
Re: List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by David Gibbs <da...@midrange.com>.
mouss wrote:
> - this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets back
> to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain), this may
> cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures so the
> receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they really do.
Signatures ... as in DKIM / DomainKeys? Or GPG signatures?
> - the code is not trivial because of the MIME structure.
Ah, this may be the case ... I'm unfamiliar with the exact configuration of the SA lists. On my own list server I convert everything to plain text to avoid problems with incompatible mail clients.
>> This is what I do for all the lists I run. Yes, some people are too dumb to read that far ... but MOST people aren't.
>>
>
> those who send these "unsubscribe" posts do not really look at the list
> messages when they do.
True enough. Add to those the people who think the best way to get unsubscribed from a list is to simply report it as spam.
> I am convinced that an "unsubscribe" option should be implemented in MUAs.
I completely concur. It's not rocket science.
I *THINK* I saw a tbird add in that implements this kind of functionality, but it would be better as part of the core.
david
--
IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
List headers and footers [Re: Unsubscribe]
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
David Gibbs a écrit :
> LuKreme wrote:
>> The unsubscribe link is right there in plain sight. Whether Gmail
>> conceals it from you has nothing to do with it.
>
> Few consumer mail clients (Gmail, Yahoo, Thunderbird, OE, Outlook, Lotus/Domino, etc) show the user headers by default. This means they are clearly NOT in plain sight.
>
>> No. this is a bad idea. If you can't figure out how to look at mail
>> headers, then you have no business on this list.
>
> The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to look at the mail headers.
>
> Putting the unsubscribe info in the footer is a good idea no mater what.
I am not as convinced as you:
- this modifies the body, thus breaking signatures. when mail gets back
to the same domain (sender and final recipient in same domain), this may
cause problems. I agree that many lists do break signatures so the
receiving site should cope with this, but I am not sure they really do.
- the code is not trivial because of the MIME structure.
- because of the points above and may be other issues, consensus is hard
to reach.
> This is what I do for all the lists I run. Yes, some people are too dumb to read that far ... but MOST people aren't.
>
those who send these "unsubscribe" posts do not really look at the list
messages when they do.
I am convinced that an "unsubscribe" option should be implemented in MUAs.
> david
>
>
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 13-Jun-2009, at 22:04, David Gibbs wrote:
> LuKreme wrote:
>> The unsubscribe link is right there in plain sight. Whether Gmail
>> conceals it from you has nothing to do with it.
>
> Few consumer mail clients (Gmail, Yahoo, Thunderbird, OE, Outlook,
> Lotus/Domino, etc) show the user headers by default. This means
> they are clearly NOT in plain sight.
No, it means that the clients are HIDING something that is in plain
sight. It is the client's issue, not the email's issue nor the mailing
list's issue.
>> No. this is a bad idea. If you can't figure out how to look at mail
>> headers, then you have no business on this list.
>
> The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to look at the mail headers.
Says you?
> Putting the unsubscribe info in the footer is a good idea no mater
> what
No it's not. It adds kruft to the end of the message, destroys the
integrity of signed posts, and makes every message unnecessarily
longer by duplicating information. It is a crutch for the ignorant and
uninformed and lazy.
--
There is NO Rule six!
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by David Gibbs <da...@midrange.com>.
LuKreme wrote:
> The unsubscribe link is right there in plain sight. Whether Gmail
> conceals it from you has nothing to do with it.
Few consumer mail clients (Gmail, Yahoo, Thunderbird, OE, Outlook, Lotus/Domino, etc) show the user headers by default. This means they are clearly NOT in plain sight.
> No. this is a bad idea. If you can't figure out how to look at mail
> headers, then you have no business on this list.
The point is, you shouldn't HAVE to look at the mail headers.
Putting the unsubscribe info in the footer is a good idea no mater what. This is what I do for all the lists I run. Yes, some people are too dumb to read that far ... but MOST people aren't.
david
--
IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 12-Jun-2009, at 07:43, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> the spamassassin mailing list does violate (technically) the US
> (you) CAN-SPAM laws.
No one cares, and it's not true. The unsubscribe link is right there
in plain sight. Whether Gmail conceals it from you has nothing to do
with it. If you want to complain about it, complain to google. They
will tell you that the full text of the message is available and how
to get to it.
> SA mailing list folks: you might want to include both automatically
> in the footer of your emails.
No. this is a bad idea. If you can't figure out how to look at mail
headers, then you have no business on this list.
--
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, June 12, 2009 14:37, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> If you look at the message headers, there's a header explaining where to
>> send unsubscribe messages to (this is the RFC standard header for doing
>> this, so look for it in other mailing lists):
>>
>
> google webmail does not support it :/
>
>
Thats actually an interesting point, and kinda ironic at that.
Since we saw two of them come in pretty back to back, I suspect a joe
job of sometype. those people might not have subscribed.
other interesting point,
the spamassassin mailing list does violate (technically) the US (you)
CAN-SPAM laws.
#1, no easy unsubscribe (if you are on gmail, you really can't unless
you know how to)
#2, no full physical address of sender.
this just goes to show how stupid can-spam is, if spammers can easily
buy 20,000 nonsense domains, subscribe you without your permission to
all 20,000, include a remove link and address and make you unsubscribe
from all 20,000
SA mailing list folks: you might want to include both automatically in
the footer of your emails. Yes, they will break dkim signing for many
people, but maybe we should lead by example.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, World Executive Alliance
* Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
* Best Anti-Spam Product 2008, Network Products Guide
* King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Sat, June 13, 2009 03:42, LuKreme wrote:
> On 12-Jun-2009, at 07:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> google webmail does not support it :/
> Yes it does. Look under something like "Original Message"
it was a leading q & a from my side and i am not using it :)
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 12-Jun-2009, at 07:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> google webmail does not support it :/
Yes it does. Look under something like "Original Message"
--
I am by nature made for my won good, not my own evil
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Fri, June 12, 2009 14:37, Matt Kettler wrote:
> If you look at the message headers, there's a header explaining where to
> send unsubscribe messages to (this is the RFC standard header for doing
> this, so look for it in other mailing lists):
google webmail does not support it :/
> List-Unsubscribe: <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>
wonder how users subscribed in the first place :)
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: Unsubscribe
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
Mike Yrabedra wrote:
> unsubscribe
>
If you look at the message headers, there's a header explaining where to
send unsubscribe messages to (this is the RFC standard header for doing
this, so look for it in other mailing lists):
List-Unsubscribe: <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Unsubscribe
Posted by Mike Yrabedra <li...@323inc.com>.
unsubscribe
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
>> This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
>> mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
>> Mark's patch.
>
> Actually it's a patch by Daniel J McDonald from 2007-06-15.
> I just refreshed it for 0.8 and reposted it two months later.
> Credits where credits are due.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users&m=118194701009930
> http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users&m=118641079630268
Thanks for the clarification, Mark, and my apologies for the oversight,
Dan (oh, and BTW, thanks for the original patch!).
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
> This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
> mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
> Mark's patch.
Actually it's a patch by Daniel J McDonald from 2007-06-15.
I just refreshed it for 0.8 and reposted it two months later.
Credits where credits are due.
http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users&m=118194701009930
http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users&m=118641079630268
Mark
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
> I've had no trouble with Botnet timeouts, but just now patched anyway,
> to avoid any potential trouble. I, and many others appreciate how
> responsive you've been with your sanesecurity work, but not everyone has
> the same resources.
> Whenever I install GNU free software, I have to remember this. If
> someone wants to fork Botnet, go for it! Otherwise, just patch.
> This isn't Microsoft, where you can sit on a serious security bug for 3
> years and be held accountable... uhhhh.. nevermind.
I agree that forking is an option; however, in this case the author
continues to claim that he is supporting botnet, but the reality says
otherwise...
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Ken A <ka...@pacific.net>.
I've had no trouble with Botnet timeouts, but just now patched anyway,
to avoid any potential trouble. I, and many others appreciate how
responsive you've been with your sanesecurity work, but not everyone has
the same resources.
Whenever I install GNU free software, I have to remember this. If
someone wants to fork Botnet, go for it! Otherwise, just patch.
This isn't Microsoft, where you can sit on a serious security bug for 3
years and be held accountable... uhhhh.. nevermind.
Ken
Bill Landry wrote:
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
>>>> Jake Maul wrote:
>>>>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
>>>>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
>> The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library
>> was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic
>> the SpamAssassin code.
>>
>>>> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
>>>> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
>>>> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
>>>> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
>>>> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
>> If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that
>> way about John's work.
>>> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
>>>
>>> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
>>> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
>>> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
>>> of repair.
>>>
>>> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
>>> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
>>> want to go with, etc.,
>> Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing
>> resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the
>> complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know
>> I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I
>> fully sympathize with John's priorities.
>
> John has been citing other priorities for 2 years (second verse, same as
> the first), and it has been even longer than that since the plugin has
> been updated - despite the issues that have been reported (a simple
> search (botnet timeout) of the mailing list archives will prove my point).
>
> You can start your search here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5506
>
> And the results of this effort were reported to John and summarily
> ignored.
>
> http://markmail.org/message/dmqjh5haffw7vbfg#query:mark%20Martinec%20botnet+page:1+mid:dmqjh5haffw7vbfg+state:results
>
> And still are ignored to date:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200901.mbox/%3C200901151806.07138.Mark.Martinec+sa@ijs.si%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200901.mbox/%3C8b155d900901151312h6599f2e5ra2d4fe3ffd28998c@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
> mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
> Mark's patch.
>
> Bill
>
--
Ken Anderson
Pacific Internet - http://www.pacific.net
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
> Res wrote:
>
>> No because I seem to have reliable DNS and have never exhibited the issue.
>
> Oh, and if in fact you "really" had a clue, you would know that "DNS
> reliability" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue... ;-)
funny, given most people dont have the trouber you do, ya cry baby
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Res wrote:
> No because I seem to have reliable DNS and have never exhibited the issue.
Oh, and if in fact you "really" had a clue, you would know that "DNS
reliability" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue... ;-)
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
Truth still hurts hey, one day you might smell the coffee :)
On Sat, 13 Jun, Bill Landry as usual sooked nothing worth reading:
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Res wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>> I just love these kinds of responses (talk about 5yo tantrums), as they
>> only server to prove my point about your credibility and the value of
>> your opinions. Thank you! :-)
>
> truth hurts dont it landry, just like i tell those who "demand" extra
> capability from my projects, if you want it *right now* pay me for it
> and you'll get immediate attention, else tolerate what I've provided or
> fuck off and use something else, I lose no sleep either way, my life
> comes before no-life whinging fucking cry baby lamers like you.
Sorry for wasting everyone time with this, but I've just got to say that
the entertainment value here is simply priceless! But Res, we should
probably stop now so that the list can get back to it normal business.
Thanks for the laughs this morning, Res, you really made my day! :-)
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 13-Jun-2009, at 18:21, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>> It's the weekend and I was bored :)
>
> This list does not exist to provide you amusement.
Are you sure about that?
--
I gotta straighten my face This mellow-thighed chick just put my
spine out of place
RE: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by RobertH <ro...@abbacomm.net>.
Blazing Fast Slap ya twice for ya know it JH wrote:
> A word of advice, though: your rants would be a great deal
> more impressive and might actually generate some respect for
> your opinions if they displayed a greater degree of
> sophistication than that possessed by an average seventh-grader.
>
whoa!!!
john john john,
dont dis on the 7th graders... ;-)
some of them are smarter than we ever were, so to speak...
as necessary though, get 'dem *moron* guns out and ready padner :-)
- rh
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>> Last time I looked, Justin ran this list, not you.
>
> you, and if Justin has a problem with it _he_ can take care of it.
Exactly.
>
> A word of advice, though: your rants would be a great deal more impressive
Errr, I'm not here to impress anyone
> and might actually generate some respect for your opinions if they displayed
I only care that my friends respect me (as I respect them), none of my
friends on this list, I'm not here to make friends, I hav enough already.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>>
>> > It's the weekend and I was bored :)
>>
>> This list does not exist to provide you amusement.
>
> Last time I looked, Justin ran this list, not you.
That's true. Fair enough, comment withdrawn. Behave in whatever manner
suits you, and if Justin has a problem with it _he_ can take care of it.
A word of advice, though: your rants would be a great deal more impressive
and might actually generate some respect for your opinions if they
displayed a greater degree of sophistication than that possessed by an
average seventh-grader.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been
saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and
had been well armed. ... Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag,
half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of
the Nazis. -- Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 days until SWMBO's Birthday
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>
>> It's the weekend and I was bored :)
>
> This list does not exist to provide you amusement.
Last time I looked, Justin ran this list, not you.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> It's the weekend and I was bored :)
This list does not exist to provide you amusement.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The yardstick you should use when considering whether to support a
given piece of legislation is "what if my worst enemy is chosen to
administer this law?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until SWMBO's Birthday
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
> A killfile. That would be the place to put "cry babies" wouldn't it?
> Good idea. Glad you thought of it. Go do it. Add me while you're at it.
Sorry dont use em, I save sooks like you for rainy weekends so i can have
more fun when I'm bored.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>> > Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>> > includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
>> > people involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>> .....and the one after it. :)
>
> That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a killfile,
> I'll be more than happy to assist :)
A killfile. That would be the place to put "cry babies" wouldn't it?
Good idea. Glad you thought of it. Go do it. Add me while you're at it.
- Charles
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
> Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
> killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
What, and not have the delight of showing you for the sook and demanding
whiner that you are? not a chance :)
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
Bill Landry a écrit :
>> Bill Landry a écrit :
>>> Res wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>>>>>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>>>>>> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
>>>>>> people involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>>>>> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>>>>>
>>>>> .....and the one after it. :)
>>>> That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a
>>>> killfile, I'll be more than happy to assist :)
>>> Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
>>> killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
>>> it would also allow the rest of us to focus on "real" list related
>>> issues without unnecessary distractions, and it would give you ample
>>> time to focus on improving your grammar, spelling and people skills.
>>> Sounds like a real win/win situation to me...
>>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I think you'll agree with me that it is time to stop feeding <censored/>
>
> Yes, I agree - I'm done now.
>
just to avoid Res taking this too bad: there is nothing personal. this
is strictly related to _this_ thread.
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
> Bill Landry a écrit :
>> Res wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>>>>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>>>>> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
>>>>> people involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>>>> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>>>>
>>>> .....and the one after it. :)
>>> That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a
>>> killfile, I'll be more than happy to assist :)
>>
>> Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
>> killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
>> it would also allow the rest of us to focus on "real" list related
>> issues without unnecessary distractions, and it would give you ample
>> time to focus on improving your grammar, spelling and people skills.
>> Sounds like a real win/win situation to me...
>>
>
> Bill,
>
> I think you'll agree with me that it is time to stop feeding <censored/>
Yes, I agree - I'm done now.
Bill
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>.
Bill Landry a écrit :
> Res wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>>>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>>>> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
>>>> people involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>>> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>>>
>>> .....and the one after it. :)
>> That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a
>> killfile, I'll be more than happy to assist :)
>
> Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
> killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
> it would also allow the rest of us to focus on "real" list related
> issues without unnecessary distractions, and it would give you ample
> time to focus on improving your grammar, spelling and people skills.
> Sounds like a real win/win situation to me...
>
Bill,
I think you'll agree with me that it is time to stop feeding <censored/>
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Res wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that
>>> includes sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect
>>> people involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>>
>> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>>
>> .....and the one after it. :)
>
> That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a
> killfile, I'll be more than happy to assist :)
Maybe you could add your email address to your outbound mail server's
killfile. I know that would deprive the world of your comic relief, but
it would also allow the rest of us to focus on "real" list related
issues without unnecessary distractions, and it would give you ample
time to focus on improving your grammar, spelling and people skills.
Sounds like a real win/win situation to me...
Bill
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
>> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that includes
>> sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect people involved
>> in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
>
> So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
>
> .....and the one after it. :)
That's perfectly acceptable, if you need help with setting me in a
killfile, I'll be more than happy to assist :)
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that includes
> sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect people involved
> in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
So we'll just all pretend you didn't send this message.....
.....and the one after it. :)
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Gregory wrote:
> I'm always amused by the hyporcrisy of people who spend paragraphs of text
> explaining that the person they are addressing is 'not worth their time'.
It's the weekend and I was bored :)
Though now its Sunday, I have socialising to do, and none of that includes
sitting on mailing lists listening to cry babies who expect people
involved in OSSP's to drop everything and be their servants.
TTFN
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: [sa] Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> .... my life comes before no-life whinging fucking cry baby lamers like
> you.
I'm always amused by the hyporcrisy of people who spend paragraphs of text
explaining that the person they are addressing is 'not worth their time'.
- C
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
> I just love these kinds of responses (talk about 5yo tantrums), as they
> only server to prove my point about your credibility and the value of
> your opinions. Thank you! :-)
truth hurts dont it landry, just like i tell those who "demand" extra
capability from my projects, if you want it *right now* pay me for it and
you'll get immediate attention, else tolerate what I've provided or fuck
off and use something else, I lose no sleep either way, my life comes
before no-life whinging fucking cry baby lamers like you.
>
> Bill
>
> Res wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm sure John might be happier to stay awake later and work on it for a
>>>> hour or so each night as a 'priority' *IF* Bill was willing to pay
>>>> John for his time, but I suspect not somehow, as it is far easier to
>>>> come
>>>> on a mailing list and have a temper tantrum like an 5yo kid.
>>>
>>> Maybe your opinion would carry some weight if you had even a little
>>> bit of
>>> a clue about what you are talking about. How long have you been on this
>>> list? How much effort have you put into debugging this plugin issue?
>>
>> A lot longer than you might think, I don't say much here, I've used this
>> list for years to mostly "get ideas" on rulesets when new spam arrives
>> (why reinvent the wheel) to whih bTW I've envr seen anything
>> contributing from yourself.
>>
>>> Were you even remotely involed in the process of coming up with a patch
>>> for the issue? Do you even use the botnet plugin yourself and
>>> experienced
>>
>> No because I seem to have reliable DNS and have never exhibited the issue.
>>
>>> past 2 years? How many open source projects do you support directly
>>> yourself? Are you actually giving anything back to the community that
>>> you
>>> Next time get a clue before you willy nilly jump in on a thread and start
>>> flapping about something you really know nothing about!
>>
>> Got more a clue then you it seems, but I have the same problems with the
>> projects I am involved with, tantrum wanking lamers like yourself
>> demanding we give up our lives and work JUST to satisfy something you
>> want, it will never happen turdbreath, get used to it, if you dont like
>> it, dont use it, nobody is holding a gun to your pathetic mutated little
>> head making you use it.
>>
>> Now fuck off and go elsewhere where someone might actually want to
>> listen to your "I'm mightier than you" rants, you sad sad sad pathetic
>> excuse of man.
>>
>>
>
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
I just love these kinds of responses (talk about 5yo tantrums), as they
only server to prove my point about your credibility and the value of
your opinions. Thank you! :-)
Bill
Res wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>>> I'm sure John might be happier to stay awake later and work on it for a
>>> hour or so each night as a 'priority' *IF* Bill was willing to pay
>>> John for his time, but I suspect not somehow, as it is far easier to
>>> come
>>> on a mailing list and have a temper tantrum like an 5yo kid.
>>
>> Maybe your opinion would carry some weight if you had even a little
>> bit of
>> a clue about what you are talking about. How long have you been on this
>> list? How much effort have you put into debugging this plugin issue?
>
> A lot longer than you might think, I don't say much here, I've used this
> list for years to mostly "get ideas" on rulesets when new spam arrives
> (why reinvent the wheel) to whih bTW I've envr seen anything
> contributing from yourself.
>
>> Were you even remotely involed in the process of coming up with a patch
>> for the issue? Do you even use the botnet plugin yourself and
>> experienced
>
> No because I seem to have reliable DNS and have never exhibited the issue.
>
>> past 2 years? How many open source projects do you support directly
>> yourself? Are you actually giving anything back to the community that
>> you
>> Next time get a clue before you willy nilly jump in on a thread and start
>> flapping about something you really know nothing about!
>
> Got more a clue then you it seems, but I have the same problems with the
> projects I am involved with, tantrum wanking lamers like yourself
> demanding we give up our lives and work JUST to satisfy something you
> want, it will never happen turdbreath, get used to it, if you dont like
> it, dont use it, nobody is holding a gun to your pathetic mutated little
> head making you use it.
>
> Now fuck off and go elsewhere where someone might actually want to
> listen to your "I'm mightier than you" rants, you sad sad sad pathetic
> excuse of man.
>
>
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Res wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>> How long have you been on this list?
>
> A lot longer than you might think, I don't say much here,
...
> we give up our lives and work JUST to satisfy something you want, it
> will never happen turdbreath, get used to it, if you dont like it, dont
> use it, nobody is holding a gun to your pathetic mutated little head
> making you use it.
>
> Now fuck off and go elsewhere where someone might actually want to
> listen to your "I'm mightier than you" rants, you sad sad sad pathetic
> excuse of man.
Res, if that's a good indicator of what the quality of your contributions
to list discussions will be, go back to lurking. Please.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to be noble with other people's money.
-- John McKay, _The Welfare State:
No Mercy for the Middle Class_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until SWMBO's Birthday
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Bill Landry wrote:
>> I'm sure John might be happier to stay awake later and work on it for a
>> hour or so each night as a 'priority' *IF* Bill was willing to pay
>> John for his time, but I suspect not somehow, as it is far easier to come
>> on a mailing list and have a temper tantrum like an 5yo kid.
>
> Maybe your opinion would carry some weight if you had even a little bit of
> a clue about what you are talking about. How long have you been on this
> list? How much effort have you put into debugging this plugin issue?
A lot longer than you might think, I don't say much here, I've used this
list for years to mostly "get ideas" on rulesets when new spam arrives
(why reinvent the wheel) to whih bTW I've envr seen anything contributing
from yourself.
> Were you even remotely involed in the process of coming up with a patch
> for the issue? Do you even use the botnet plugin yourself and experienced
No because I seem to have reliable DNS and have never exhibited the issue.
> past 2 years? How many open source projects do you support directly
> yourself? Are you actually giving anything back to the community that you
> Next time get a clue before you willy nilly jump in on a thread and start
> flapping about something you really know nothing about!
Got more a clue then you it seems, but I have the same problems with
the projects I am involved with, tantrum wanking lamers like yourself
demanding we give up our lives and work JUST to satisfy something you
want, it will never happen turdbreath, get used to it, if you dont like
it, dont use it, nobody is holding a gun to your pathetic mutated little
head making you use it.
Now fuck off and go elsewhere where someone might actually want to
listen to your "I'm mightier than you" rants, you sad sad sad pathetic
excuse of man.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
>> Well I suppose you could always take the product that you dislike so
>> badly back to the store and ask for a refund of your purchase price.
>> Sometimes it really amazes me how much, and how severely, some people
>> will gripe about free products that exist only because other people
>> volunteer their time to a project.
>
>
> Exactly! Well said.
>
> I'm sure John might be happier to stay awake later and work on it for a
> hour or so each night as a 'priority' *IF* Bill was willing to pay
> John for his time, but I suspect not somehow, as it is far easier to come
> on a mailing list and have a temper tantrum like an 5yo kid.
Maybe your opinion would carry some weight if you had even a little bit of
a clue about what you are talking about. How long have you been on this
list? How much effort have you put into debugging this plugin issue?
Were you even remotely involed in the process of coming up with a patch
for the issue? Do you even use the botnet plugin yourself and experienced
the issue? How many times have you assisted new botnet users that are
facing the timeout issue and provided them a link to the patch over the
past 2 years? How many open source projects do you support directly
yourself? Are you actually giving anything back to the community that you
gain so much benefit from, or are you just an occasional lurker that
sometimes feels the need to express his opinion about something/anything
(whether you actually know anything about it or not) because you have
nothing better to do?
Next time get a clue before you willy nilly jump in on a thread and start
flapping about something you really know nothing about!
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Res <re...@ausics.net>.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Kevin Parris wrote:
> Well I suppose you could always take the product that you dislike so badly back to the store and ask for a refund of your purchase price. Sometimes it really amazes me how much, and how severely, some people will gripe about free products that exist only because other people volunteer their time to a project.
Exactly! Well said.
I'm sure John might be happier to stay awake later and work on it for a
hour or so each night as a 'priority' *IF* Bill was willing to pay
John for his time, but I suspect not somehow, as it is far easier to come
on a mailing list and have a temper tantrum like an 5yo kid.
--
Res
-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 03:17:12PM -0400, Kevin Parris wrote:
>
> Well I suppose you could always take the product that you dislike so badly
> back to the store and ask for a refund of your purchase price. Sometimes
> it really amazes me how much, and how severely, some people will gripe
> about free products that exist only because other people volunteer their
> time to a project.
Always someone comes up with this. Sure, it's a good general philosophy. But
the issue here is very simple. Hopefully the maintainer thinks a bit and
comes to the same conclusion. Whether the reason for this whole mess is lack
of knowledge, hardheadness or just taking the comments badly, some common
sense should apply. This is not a case of KDE vs Gnome or some other "view
of direction". If it is, then I've lost hope for this particular coder. Note
the word coder - nothing against or for the person itself.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Kevin Parris <KP...@ed.sc.gov>.
Well I suppose you could always take the product that you dislike so badly back to the store and ask for a refund of your purchase price. Sometimes it really amazes me how much, and how severely, some people will gripe about free products that exist only because other people volunteer their time to a project.
>>> Henrik K <he...@hege.li> 06/11/09 2:53 PM >>>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:21:18AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>
> As said elsewhere, the primary issue is how DNS is being set up, both
> by the sender and the recipient. But that's outside of the scope of
> Botnet. Within Botnet, the actual thing to be solved is moving toward
> SA's internal DNS routines, not expending effort on improving its
> interaction with Net::DNS. The latter is addressing a surface issue,
> not an actual problem.
Gee, I wonder why SA has a rbl_timeout setting then. To address a "surface
issue" in Net::DNS (which SA also happens to use)? Maybe it should just
leave such trivial things to "setup of sender and recipient". :)
We are only trying to point out a simple flaw that I'm not sure you even
understand. Lookups should have a sane timeout, in this case the default is
bad for the type of work SA does. It's fixable with a simple option. But
it's your right to make the "few" people look for silly patches when they
have a problem.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:39:58PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> But I would never guess from the package that a patch was available
>> or
>> useful.
>
> It is useful for SOME people under SOME conditions. It is not
> *universally* useful.
It's not universally useful to have some *basic* sanity checks/timeouts in
code? Well sure, not all disaster scenarios can affect all users. This
thread is getting ridiculous.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, LuKreme wrote:
>> So if I may recommend: Why not include the patch as a separate file in your
>> download,
> John explained why. This patch does not represent the direction he
> wants to go with Botnet. Remember that comment about design philosophy?
When he GOES in that direction, the function of the patch will be subsumed
by it and he can stop distributing the patch. The reason its *called* a
patch is because it provides a temporary fix to a problem that can later
be corrected 'properly' in accordance with design philosophy....
Please be clear that I was not asking that he modify his original code to
'include' the patch, but that he merely supply the patch file or even just
a link to it, as a temporary measure for people who need it. This would
not cause a 'design philosophy' problem. It would just save people the
trouble of having the problem and *finding* the patch.
But again, it's his time, he can do with it as he will. I just make the
suggestions that seem reasonable to me. :)
- Charles
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 11-Jun-2009, at 13:45, Charles Gregory wrote:
> 2) I disagree that another person could/should 'fork' the botnet
> plug-in.
> This would cause confusion even if care was taken to rename the
> plug-in
> or otherwise distinguish the two versions for the newbie looking to
> download a recommended plug-in. For something so specific, there
> *should* be an 'official' version - yours. I would only 'fork' the
> development for a major design philosophy split. The creation of
> third-party patches is the correct solution for situations like
> these.
1) there's nothing wrong with forking.
2) n00bs should not be installing SA or admining mailservers anyway
3) n00bs who do, will find a forked botnet addon the least of their
problems.
4) Sounds to me like this 'patch' *IS* a major design philosophy split.
5) Badgering someone to update on your schedule something they wrote
and released for free is rude.
> 3) It is *reasonable* to request that the main distribution of a
> software
> package have included within it any patch that has stood the test of
> time in use as a third-pary patch,
Your definition of 'withstood the test of time' does not match up with
the definition of the project developer. This is fine, there is a
solution. It's called 'forking'.
> But I would never guess from the package that a patch was
> available or
> useful.
It is useful for SOME people under SOME conditions. It is not
*universally* useful.
> So if I may recommend: Why not include the patch as a separate file
> in your download,
John explained why. This patch does not represent the direction he
wants to go with Botnet. Remember that comment about design philosophy?
--
Tina... homecoming is spelled c *O* m
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Dave Koontz <dk...@mbc.edu>.
John Hardin wrote ... (6/11/2009 4:21 PM):
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
>
>> As I've said, I don't really have a plan to incorporate the patch
>> into the main dist.
>
> You probably should. It doesn't prevent you from pursuing your design
> changes, and it would fix the problem for those who are experiencing
> the problem today.
>
> Is it truly *that* onerous to produce a 0.9 tarball that includes the
> patch, either as a standalone file or applied to the sources?
>
> As a plus, that would create a dist file with a newer date to reassure
> people that it's still an active development project.
Frankly, it seems to me that it's taken more time to argue why it won't
be incorporated into the dist than it would have taken just to have done it.
Granted I understand the vision moving forward, but I suspect many more
people have hit this issue than is reflected via complaints on this
list. I know we had this issue and never posted about it. It only
takes a couple minutes at best to fix.
John makes a very solid point about a new build / date indicating it is
still an active plugin. I've seen questions on other lists asking if it
was still actively maintained.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote:
> As I've said, I don't really have a plan to incorporate the patch into
> the main dist.
You probably should. It doesn't prevent you from pursuing your design
changes, and it would fix the problem for those who are experiencing the
problem today.
Is it truly *that* onerous to produce a 0.9 tarball that includes the
patch, either as a standalone file or applied to the sources?
As a plus, that would create a dist file with a newer date to reassure
people that it's still an active development project.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to be noble with other people's money.
-- John McKay, _The Welfare State:
No Mercy for the Middle Class_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
52 days since 9th Circuit incorporated 2nd Amdt - MSM still silent
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:45, Charles Gregory<cg...@hwcn.org> wrote:
>
> With respect, your concerns about
> required testing are at the least, exaggerated. The testing has been
> done by everyone who uses the patch.
a) thank you for your well worded thoughts
b) my statement about the time it would take is more about the
replacing of Net::DNS with the Spam Assassin internal DNS mechanism,
not with incorporating the patch itself. As I've said, I don't really
have a plan to incorporate the patch into the main dist.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Charles Gregory <cg...@hwcn.org>.
Hello all!
If I may weigh in on this botnet/dns issue....
1) John I completely respect (indeed advocate) the right of volunteers to
do as they wish with their time. In all that I say that follows, I keep
that first in mind. I speak of principles, but make NO demands on your
time.
2) I disagree that another person could/should 'fork' the botnet plug-in.
This would cause confusion even if care was taken to rename the plug-in
or otherwise distinguish the two versions for the newbie looking to
download a recommended plug-in. For something so specific, there
*should* be an 'official' version - yours. I would only 'fork' the
development for a major design philosophy split. The creation of
third-party patches is the correct solution for situations like these.
3) It is *reasonable* to request that the main distribution of a software
package have included within it any patch that has stood the test of
time in use as a third-pary patch, widely applied, tested and validated
as to function and reliability. With respect, your concerns about
required testing are at the least, exaggerated. The testing has been
done by everyone who uses the patch.
4) Mindful of the reasoning that resists 'forking', your main download
site is where a newbie would go to get the plugin. The site is strictly
a download location. I took a look in the package. clearly this is
meant for admins that 'know what they are doing'. I almost qualify. :)
But I would never guess from the package that a patch was available or
useful.
So if I may recommend: Why not include the patch as a separate file in
your download, and include a note in the 'INSTALL' readme, that tells a
user what the patch is for? It can be their business to individually
install and test the patch. By doing this, you keep new users adequately
informed, and provided what they need, while not changing the official
'direction' of the main package. Or don't include the patch. Just include
notes in the readme. Let the user find and download it. :)
All downloadable software, particularly in spamassassin, is intended to be
tested thoroughly by each end user, for their own specific needs
/environment. The very logic that allows you to say that you are not
obliged to make changes to the package because someone has problems also
allows you to include the patch as an 'option' with the same expectation.
Really, it *is* 5 minutes work. Just add the patch to the tarball and a
couple of lines of description ("use this if your DNS hangs"). Once again,
I do NOT presume upon your time. I just argue that it really isn't very
much that this would take. Your call.
- Charles
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:21:18AM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>
> As said elsewhere, the primary issue is how DNS is being set up, both
> by the sender and the recipient. But that's outside of the scope of
> Botnet. Within Botnet, the actual thing to be solved is moving toward
> SA's internal DNS routines, not expending effort on improving its
> interaction with Net::DNS. The latter is addressing a surface issue,
> not an actual problem.
Gee, I wonder why SA has a rbl_timeout setting then. To address a "surface
issue" in Net::DNS (which SA also happens to use)? Maybe it should just
leave such trivial things to "setup of sender and recipient". :)
We are only trying to point out a simple flaw that I'm not sure you even
understand. Lookups should have a sane timeout, in this case the default is
bad for the type of work SA does. It's fixable with a simple option. But
it's your right to make the "few" people look for silly patches when they
have a problem.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Sat, June 13, 2009 14:31, Bill Landry wrote:
>> However, if
>> you are willing to release something to the open source community, you
>> should also be willing to take on the responsibility of providing
>> ongoing support for it.
>
> who says that ?, i have maybe missunderstod gpl licenses ?, its far long
> since i have seen the source here and i dont even remember what licenses
> it was, but one thing for sure ongoing maintance is not part of it
I said "willing", not "required". Most people *do* commonly support
their open source projects, wouldn't you agree?
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Sat, June 13, 2009 14:31, Bill Landry wrote:
> However, if
> you are willing to release something to the open source community, you
> should also be willing to take on the responsibility of providing
> ongoing support for it.
who says that ?, i have maybe missunderstod gpl licenses ?, its far long
since i have seen the source here and i dont even remember what licenses
it was, but one thing for sure ongoing maintance is not part of it
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
John Rudd wrote:
> Further, Bill, I don't answer to you for my time constraints. Now
> quit your whining and put your money where your mouth is. If it's so
> important, then provide a fix that replaces Net::DNS with SA's
> internal DNS routines, and I'll use it. If it's not important enough
> to you to drop everything you're doing, and work on it, then you have
> no business trying badger me into it.
No, you certainly don't answer to me for your time. And I have never
expected you to "drop everything" and jump right on this. However, if
you are willing to release something to the open source community, you
should also be willing to take on the responsibility of providing
ongoing support for it.
Two years (bug reported 2007-06-08 - Bug-ID 5506) is too long to have
not provided either a permanent fix for this issue or at least have
incorporated or included the provided patch with your distribution.
Currently, botnet users are left to spend time trying to figure out what
is wrong with their systems whenever they opt to use the botnet plugin.
Then they finally give up and come to the list for answers. This
should not be the required procedure to gain proper and effective usage
of your plugin.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about this matter. Wherever you decide
go with this from here is, as always, up to you...
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:46, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
> McDonald, Dan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
>>>> Jake Maul wrote:
>>>>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
>>>>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
>>
>> The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library
>> was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic
>> the SpamAssassin code.
>>
>>>> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
>>>> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
>>>> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
>>>> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
>>>> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
>>
>> If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that
>> way about John's work.
>>> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
>>>
>>> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
>>> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
>>> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
>>> of repair.
>>>
>>> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
>>> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
>>> want to go with, etc.,
>>
>> Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing
>> resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the
>> complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know
>> I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I
>> fully sympathize with John's priorities.
>
> John has been citing other priorities for 2 years (second verse, same as
> the first), and it has been even longer than that since the plugin has
> been updated
If you're going to criticize other people, you might want to not pull
numbers out of your ass, and still to concrete realities. It has been
less than 2 years.
> And the results of this effort were reported to John and summarily
> ignored.
Not ignored. Noted. But they go in the opposite direction from the
one I plan to take.
Further, the patch is available for those who have an immediate need.
>From my observation, it's a niche need (and thus not serious, contrary
to your previous statement). Only a very few people have reported the
problem, and every time they do, the patch is immediately referenced.
In my own use, I use the stock Botnet 0.8 on servers that are scanning
10 messages per second on average, and Botnet is not slowing down
those transactions.
As said elsewhere, the primary issue is how DNS is being set up, both
by the sender and the recipient. But that's outside of the scope of
Botnet. Within Botnet, the actual thing to be solved is moving toward
SA's internal DNS routines, not expending effort on improving its
interaction with Net::DNS. The latter is addressing a surface issue,
not an actual problem.
For those who can't wait, feel it's a glaring problem, and they have
some reason why they can't address it at the DNS level, they can AND
SHOULD apply the patch. It's available. That's one of the joys of
open source, Bill. Get with the 21st century.
> This issue has been unresolved for way too long.
No, it has not.
> All of this, in my mind,
Well, there's your problem...
> Whatever, just fix it or pull it.
Use the patch it, provide an actual fix*, or fork it.
(* ie. provide an actual fix, tested under load for reliability, that
replaces Net::DNS with SA's internal DNS routines)
I have in the past incorporated fixes/contributions/suggestions that
worked with the direction I was going. I'll happily do it again,
under that same condition. While I think that exact patch is a great
resource, appreciate that someone went to the trouble to provide it,
and think it's a great thing that it's publicly available ... I will
not be incorporating that fix into the Botnet releases. It doesn't go
in the direction I want to, and it is not a significant problem that
demands an immediate update.
Further, Bill, I don't answer to you for my time constraints. Now
quit your whining and put your money where your mouth is. If it's so
important, then provide a fix that replaces Net::DNS with SA's
internal DNS routines, and I'll use it. If it's not important enough
to you to drop everything you're doing, and work on it, then you have
no business trying badger me into it.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:04:42AM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Bill Landry wrote:
> > This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
> > mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
> > Mark's patch.
>
> No matter how hard you try to improve botnet:
Not sure how any of this is relevant. Botnet has pretty standard "rules"
that many usually do directly in MTAs and whatever. But if you can't do that
or want to do scoring in SA then you can use this as just one rule amongst
others. Implementation details and default scores aside, I'm baffled at why
John just simply doesn't apply this trivial patch and do "future
development" in the next versions when he has time or will.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Rob McEwen <ro...@invaluement.com>.
Bill Landry wrote:
> This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
> mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
> Mark's patch.
No matter how hard you try to improve botnet:
(A) botnet is still dependent on third party dns servers, many of which
are poorly configured, overburdened, squeezed of bandwidth, etc.
(B) Even if that were not true, botnet:STILL won't ever "scale" that
particularly well
(C) By design, botnet is always going to be "asleep at the wheel" with
regards to correcting its own mistakes. What i mean by this is that...
consider a DNSBL which misfires on certain IPs on rare occasions due to
part poor rDNS configurations of the senders... so that the sender is
at least partly to blame.... BUT... where it is determined that listing
the IP would block little-to-zero spam, and would generate many FPs.
With a well-run DNSBL, there is a feedback mechanism to the DNSBL
operator--often the sender can get alerted to their problem--and the
sender has a means to figure out the source of their problems more
easily--and once that feedback (from senders or recipients) gets back to
the DNSBL operator, an exception can then be made for such IPs so that
they can then stay off the dnsbl. Botnet doesn't have these types of
checks-and-balances or feedback mechanisms which lead to critical and
justifiable adjustments for some of those exceptional cases.
Not that botnet isn't useful... and I think the concept is wonderful and
the author should be praised... but anyone trying to use the botnet
plugin as the "end all" replacement for DNSBLs, or the "bridge all gaps"
from their existing DNSBLs' shortcomings... should be aware of these
limitations I mentioned.
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
>>> Jake Maul wrote:
>>>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
>>>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
>
> The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library
> was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic
> the SpamAssassin code.
>
>>> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
>>> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
>>> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
>>> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
>>> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
>
> If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that
> way about John's work.
>> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
>>
>> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
>> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
>> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
>> of repair.
>>
>> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
>> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
>> want to go with, etc.,
>
> Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing
> resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the
> complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know
> I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I
> fully sympathize with John's priorities.
John has been citing other priorities for 2 years (second verse, same as
the first), and it has been even longer than that since the plugin has
been updated - despite the issues that have been reported (a simple
search (botnet timeout) of the mailing list archives will prove my point).
You can start your search here:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5506
And the results of this effort were reported to John and summarily
ignored.
http://markmail.org/message/dmqjh5haffw7vbfg#query:mark%20Martinec%20botnet+page:1+mid:dmqjh5haffw7vbfg+state:results
And still are ignored to date:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200901.mbox/%3C200901151806.07138.Mark.Martinec+sa@ijs.si%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200901.mbox/%3C8b155d900901151312h6599f2e5ra2d4fe3ffd28998c@mail.gmail.com%3E
This issue has been unresolved for way too long. All of this, in my
mind, this makes the plugin orphaned and unusable if not patched with
Mark's patch.
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by "McDonald, Dan" <Da...@austinenergy.com>.
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:40 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
> > Jake Maul wrote:
> >> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
> >> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
The patch was originally developed when SpamAssassin's resolver library
was patched to shorten the timeouts. I suggested the changes to mimic
the SpamAssassin code.
> > Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
> > for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
> > opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
> > the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
> > orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
If you feel that way about it, fork it. I personally don't feel that
way about John's work.
>
> That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
>
> The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
> priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
> are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
> of repair.
>
> Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
> release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
> want to go with, etc.,
Correct. A more elegant solution would be to use the parallelizing
resolver library built into SpamAssassin, but that would increase the
complexity significantly, and take a lot more time to get right. I know
I don't have the time to do that sort of development properly, and I
fully sympathize with John's priorities.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
www.austinenergy.com
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 21:11, Bill Landry<bi...@inetmsg.com> wrote:
> Jake Maul wrote:
>> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
>> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>>
>> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
>
> Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
> for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
> opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
> the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
> orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
That's a rather presumptuous statement to make.
The plug-in works in the vast majority of cases, and I've had higher
priority things to work on. But the plug-in has not been abandoned (no
are you qualified to make that statement), nor is it in _serious_ need
of repair.
Nor do you know how much pre-release work (testing, etc.) I put into a
release, whether or not that's the solution to the specific problem I
want to go with, etc., so you're also unqualified to state how much
time it would take to resolve it.
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
Jake Maul wrote:
> Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
> Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
>
> Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
Even though Mark Martinec had provided John Rudd with a nice, neat patch
for botnet.pm well over a year ago to resolve this issue, John has not
opted to take the 5 minutes that is necessary to fix botnet by applying
the patch. He is no longer maintaining botnet, and it has become an
orphaned plugin that is in serious need of repair.
Bill
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Jake Maul <ja...@gmail.com>.
Interesting that I'm just now running into this... I've been using
Botnet on this server for several months without issue.
Thanks for the link, shorter timeouts should cure it. :)
Jake
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Jason Haar<Ja...@trimble.co.nz> wrote:
> On 06/11/2009 07:05 AM, Jake Maul wrote:
>> Howdy all,
>>
>> The last couple days I've been seeing a lot of Botnet-related
>> timeouts. Obviously the Botnet plugin itself hasn't changed...
>>
>> DNS problems maybe? Anyone else seen this? It's causing my SA children
>> to hang and for the server to hit the max-children setting. I had to
>> disable Botnet to get things up and running reliably again.
>>
> Known bug with Botnet. See:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg53371.html
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Jason Haar
> Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
> Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
> PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
>
>
Re: BOTNET timeouts?
Posted by Jason Haar <Ja...@trimble.co.nz>.
On 06/11/2009 07:05 AM, Jake Maul wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> The last couple days I've been seeing a lot of Botnet-related
> timeouts. Obviously the Botnet plugin itself hasn't changed...
>
> DNS problems maybe? Anyone else seen this? It's causing my SA children
> to hang and for the server to hit the max-children setting. I had to
> disable Botnet to get things up and running reliably again.
>
Known bug with Botnet. See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@spamassassin.apache.org/msg53371.html
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1