FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-03-2009, 11:13 AM
Odd
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Nils Kassube wrote:
> Paige Thompson wrote:
>> Not my fault or problem :/
>
> Yeah - that's what all spammers say.

Paige should be kicked off this group, IMO. I think it's the
height of egoism to admit being lazy and clueless, then
blame the _list_ for the consequences.

Odd.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:42 PM
Nils Kassube
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Paige Thompson wrote:
> read this.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework

This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is interesting:

| Qualifiers
| Each mechanism can be combined with one of four qualifiers:
| + for a PASS result. This can be omitted; e.g., +mx is the same as mx.
| ? for a NEUTRAL result interpreted like NONE (no policy).
| ~ for SOFTFAIL, a debugging aid between NEUTRAL and FAIL.
| - for FAIL, the mail should be rejected (see below).

And this is your setup:

> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> devel.ws. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:aspmx.googlemail.com ~all"

So according to the article you listed as reference, your setup
with "~all" doesn't request a rejection but is merely a debugging
entry.

> Not my fault or problem :/

Well, I think it is your fault (and our problem).


Nils

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:57 PM
Rashkae
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Paige Thompson wrote:
> read this.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @localhost devel.ws TXT
> ; (2 servers found)
> ;; global options: printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 62695
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;devel.ws. IN TXT
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> devel.ws. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:aspmx.googlemail.com ~all"
>
> ;; Query time: 277 msec
> ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
> ;; WHEN: Tue Mar 3 07:10:07 2009
> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 79
>
> See that? That says mail from *@devel.ws can only be mailed by
> aspmx.googlemail.com IE: not aspmx.facebook.com
>
> Not my fault or problem :/
>

2 things before I wash my hands of this.

1. You don't understand as much of SPF as you think you do. A sender
need only insert an appropriate Return-Path: header, and they can send
messages as From: you without triggering SPF blocking at all. SPF is
only useful to prevent backscatter. (That is, a mail server that honors
SPF will not send bounce messages to a forged From: address.)

2. You lie with dogs, you get fleas. I understand you had no malicious
intent sending your contact list to spammer scum like Linked-In, but if
you can't acknowledge the basic err in netiquette of sending off other
people's contact info like that, you fail.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 03:17 PM
CLIFFORD ILKAY
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Odd wrote:
> Nils Kassube wrote:
>> Paige Thompson wrote:
>>> Not my fault or problem :/
>> Yeah - that's what all spammers say.
>
> Paige should be kicked off this group, IMO.

I would hope that the list is run by people who are more competent and
more forgiving of human error than you so that they would do no such thing.

> I think it's the
> height of egoism to admit being lazy and clueless, then
> blame the _list_ for the consequences.

And I think it is the height of being narcissistic and clueless on your
part to think that *one* email sent to the list inadvertently injured
you sooo much that it justifies someone kicking off this "group". (By
the way, this is a list, not a group.)
--
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 03:17 PM
CLIFFORD ILKAY
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Nils Kassube wrote:
> Paige Thompson wrote:
>> read this.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
>
> This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is interesting:
>
> | Qualifiers
> | Each mechanism can be combined with one of four qualifiers:
> | + for a PASS result. This can be omitted; e.g., +mx is the same as mx.
> | ? for a NEUTRAL result interpreted like NONE (no policy).
> | ~ for SOFTFAIL, a debugging aid between NEUTRAL and FAIL.
> | - for FAIL, the mail should be rejected (see below).
>
> And this is your setup:
>
>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> devel.ws. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:aspmx.googlemail.com ~all"
>
> So according to the article you listed as reference, your setup
> with "~all" doesn't request a rejection but is merely a debugging
> entry.
>
>> Not my fault or problem :/
>
> Well, I think it is your fault (and our problem).

So now you're becoming nitpicky and changing your story to justify your
aggression. Originally, you were saying that she was a spammer, which
made a bunch of bozos pile on. (*Odd* how that works.) Now you're saying
that instead of an error in commission, it was an error in omission.
There is a big difference and even if it was an error of omission on her
part, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference if Canonical's servers
don't care about SPF, assuming SPF worked the way she thought it did. I
think you owe Adele an apology or at the very least acknowledge that
there was no intent to spam as you so fervently alleged earlier in this
thread.
--
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 04:47 PM
Nils Kassube
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
> So now you're becoming nitpicky and changing your story to justify
> your aggression. Originally, you were saying that she was a spammer,

I think you are mixing up things. Yes, I said she is a spammer, and I
stand by that allegation. But the main complaint is the rudeness of
blaming the list for receiving her spam.

> it wouldn't have made one bit of difference if
> Canonical's servers don't care about SPF, assuming SPF worked the way
> she thought it did.

How do we know if Canonical's servers care about SPF? If her setup is
faulty anyway, it is a very lame excuse for blaming the wrong people.

> I think you owe Adele an apology or at the very
> least acknowledge that there was no intent to spam as you so
> fervently alleged earlier in this thread.

I never said she sent it intentionally. In my first mail in this thread
I wrote:

| We will receive more of that junk from linkedin when the next clueless
| user authorizes them to send spam to everybody in their address book.

IMHO, "clueless" doesn't mean "intentional".


Nils

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 04:59 PM
Chris
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:47:21 +0100
Nils Kassube <kassube@gmx.net> wrote:

> CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
> > So now you're becoming nitpicky and changing your story to justify
> > your aggression. Originally, you were saying that she was a spammer,
>
> I think you are mixing up things. Yes, I said she is a spammer, and I
> stand by that allegation. But the main complaint is the rudeness of
> blaming the list for receiving her spam.
>
> > it wouldn't have made one bit of difference if
> > Canonical's servers don't care about SPF, assuming SPF worked the
> > way she thought it did.
>
> How do we know if Canonical's servers care about SPF? If her setup is
> faulty anyway, it is a very lame excuse for blaming the wrong people.
>
> > I think you owe Adele an apology or at the very
> > least acknowledge that there was no intent to spam as you so
> > fervently alleged earlier in this thread.
>
> I never said she sent it intentionally. In my first mail in this
> thread I wrote:
>
> | We will receive more of that junk from linkedin when the next
> clueless | user authorizes them to send spam to everybody in their
> address book.
>
> IMHO, "clueless" doesn't mean "intentional".
>
>
> Nils
>

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clueless

clueless, adjective
Totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from
which to infer what is occurring

I think you nailed it correctly, Nils.


--
Best regards,

Chris

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

"There's no place like 127.0.0.1"


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 08:58 PM
CLIFFORD ILKAY
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Chris wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:47:21 +0100
> Nils Kassube <kassube@gmx.net> wrote:
>> IMHO, "clueless" doesn't mean "intentional".
>>
>>
>> Nils
>>
>
> From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clueless
>
> clueless, adjective
> Totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from
> which to infer what is occurring
>
> I think you nailed it correctly, Nils.

So spammers are merely "clueless"? Calling someone a spammer implies
intent. I think you're both dancing on the head of a pin and just can't
admit that you shot first and asked questions later. As it turned out,
she was not a spammer. She overlooked the fact that she had the list's
address in her address book and wasn't aware, as I wasn't and I'm sure
many other aren't, that LinkedIn sends the invitation using the "From"
address of the account holder. That doesn't make LinkedIn a spammer, as
someone implied earlier in this thread. The person who made that silly
comment earlier in this thread is the really clueless one for being so
ignorant about the purpose of LinkedIn.

The frenzied outraged howls from the self-appointed list "moderators"
(you're nothing like the word "moderate") is just crazy. Granted, Adele
could have reacted differently but I can understand why someone would
get their back up when a bunch of people start piling on with their
silly comments about how she was a spammer and she should be kicked off
the list.

Perhaps we all need to be reminded occasionally about the Golden Rule.
If you have never screwed up and sent the wrong email to the wrong
person or to the wrong list, you haven't been using email long enough.
You will. You'd better hope that the recipients of that unintentionally
sent email are more generous than you are.

What is more ridiculous? One email sent to the list in error, no matter
how it got there, or 30+ emails complaining about it?
--
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 09:09 PM
Norberto Bensa
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

Hello guys,

can you please move this conversation to private? It doesn't have
anything to do with Linux nor {U,Ku}buntu.

Thanks,
Norberto

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-03-2009, 09:35 PM
"Cybe R. Wizard"
 
Default Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay@dinamis.com> said:
> That doesn't make LinkedIn a spammer, as
> someone implied earlier in this thread.

Sure it does. Spam is unwanted email. From a company, no matter the
company or the intent of the user, unsolicited email /is/ spam by
definition.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org