Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

All,

Pardon the bandwidth, but can anyone provide a clue toward explaining
the situation regarding my email bounce below?

RF
________________________

Email to: :
85.158.139.19 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 Invalid recipient (#5.1.1)
Giving up on 85.158.139.19.

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 32495 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2007 22:29:46
-0000
Message-ID: 00db01c824b2$5b318610$4601a8c0@Dell530
Reply-To: "Richard Fry"

From: "Richard Fry"
To:

Subject: NG Invisibility?
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:29:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198

Hi Stefan -

For some reason I'm not seeing your posts on r.r.a.a. The only way I
know you've posted anything is when someone else quotes some of it in
a response.

A few months ago I could see your posts using my Outlook Express NG
reader and normal NG server, but lately they are not showing up.

Do you know why this is happening, and how it can be fixed?

Thanks,

Rich (RF)

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Richard Fry wrote:
All,

Pardon the bandwidth, but can anyone provide a clue toward explaining
the situation regarding my email bounce below?

RF
________________________

Email to: :
85.158.139.19 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 Invalid recipient (#5.1.1)
Giving up on 85.158.139.19.
. . .

I believe this means that there is an eml.com domain, but they have no
customer with user name of stefan.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:56:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

One would be rather naive to allow his true email id appear in any
header or even the message body on usenet. You know how the software bots
harvest email id's from usenet for spamming and other purposes.

I've been transmitting in the clear, here, for 12 years.

My inbox gets about 3 SPAM a week.

My professional email has been published by the Government as a
registered contractor. THAT inbox gets 60 SPAM a day.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Hi Rich

A further thought.. (Seeing that you have two issues)

Yes a 550 errmsg basically means no mailbox found for that user. This is
a common thing when reply to newsgroup addresses for reasons outlined by
others.

The reason for the non visibility of the post could be a slow NNTP
(news) server as Stefan mentioned. It might also be possible that your
server (or a feed to) is validating the senders reply address. This
would be highly unusual as using a valid reply address on a newsgroup is
generally asking for spam trouble.

Validating a reply address for normal email is used in quite a few
systems as a spam prevention method. Maybe the sysop of the news server
has tried to employ this on their news server? You could ascertain this
by checking if any other posts from rr.com (the same server as Stefan's)
are coming through.

Another possibility is that your newsgroup server completely blocks
feeds from certain others that are known to be spam etc sources.
Blacklisting mails servers is quite common so I expect (but haven't
checked) the same applies to news servers. I haven't looked into any of
this but it would be fairly easy to research.

Apologies for the length.

Cheers Bob VK2YQA






Richard Fry wrote:
Pardon the bandwidth, but can anyone provide a clue toward explaining
the situation regarding my email bounce below?

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

I believe this means that there is an eml.com domain, but they
have no customer with user name of stefan.

That I knew, but thanks.

The real question was contained in the bounced email - why are Stefan
Wolfe's r..r.a.a. posts not appearing for me lately, when they did before?

I have "plonked" nobody (so far).

RF

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:56:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

One would be rather naive to allow his true email id appear in any
header or even the message body on usenet. You know how the software bots
harvest email id's from usenet for spamming and other purposes.

I've been transmitting in the clear, here, for 12 years.

My inbox gets about 3 SPAM a week.


I've been running bareback since I've been on the net also.

"Anonymous" people so often have a reason for it, and it usually isn't
the one they tell you. And this presumed anonymity is usually
accompanied by a degree of obnoxiousness

If a person posts, they can be found. If it is so important to a person
to not be found, they should not ever post. Simple. And a person
interested in privacy should never ever be a ham. Our info is spread all
over the world and open for all to see.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Richard Fry wrote:
I believe this means that there is an eml.com domain, but they
have no customer with user name of stefan.

That I knew, but thanks.

The real question was contained in the bounced email - why are Stefan
Wolfe's r..r.a.a. posts not appearing for me lately, when they did before?

I have "plonked" nobody (so far).


Ahh, maybe you're just lucky? ;^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Even more off topic.. Sorry!

I have to disagree with you Mike. Depending on how you publish your
email address you *may* attract machine generated email trash. My view
is that it isn't worth being blase about and steps should be taken to
minimize the risk. Farming of news articles is only source of such data
so whatever steps one takes has to cover other possibilities.

I personally use throw away addresses that when they attract too much
spam I simply change them. Many ISP's nowadays will let you have a
number of addresses so it is relatively easy to maintain a set of
"public" and "private" ones. At my place of work it is even easier as we
run our own SMTP/25 mailserver. I generate addresses whenever someone
needs to register or subscribe to something on line and dump them when
their persistent advertising gets irritating to us!

I agree however with your comment about hams and privacy. The VK
equivalent of the FCC also has an online database complete with full
address details! I am not hard to find, just difficult to get to!

Lets face it though, obnoxious people do need to be anonymous. I
certainly don't want to now them! grin

Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA



Michael Coslo wrote:

"Anonymous" people so often have a reason for it, and it usually isn't
the one they tell you.
----
And a person interested in privacy should never ever be a ham.

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

The abhorrence of anonyminity by those of us who live in, or come from, a
rural society (or an academic society) is palpable. One who tries to hide
must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM avoidance is a make-weight
reason. ... my opinion. Mac N8TT

--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:56:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

One would be rather naive to allow his true email id appear in any
header or even the message body on usenet. You know how the software bots
harvest email id's from usenet for spamming and other purposes.

I've been transmitting in the clear, here, for 12 years.

My inbox gets about 3 SPAM a week.

My professional email has been published by the Government as a
registered contractor. THAT inbox gets 60 SPAM a day.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
...
snip

One who tries to hide must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM
avoidance is a make-weight
reason.

I'm happy for you that you have the courage of your convictions. Sure, I
"hide" for spam avoidance but I add my callsign a couple of times a month
for anybody who cares to do a lookup.

73,
Sal M. "Not a nefarious bone in my body" O'Nella

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Bob Bob wrote:

I agree however with your comment about hams and privacy. The VK
equivalent of the FCC also has an online database complete with full
address details! I am not hard to find, just difficult to get to!

Lets face it though, obnoxious people do need to be anonymous. I
certainly don't want to now them! grin


Toouche', Bob!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
The abhorrence of anonyminity by those of us who live in, or come from, a
rural society (or an academic society) is palpable. One who tries to hide
must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM avoidance is a make-weight
reason. ... my opinion. Mac N8TT



I get huge amounts of spam at this address, but it is because it has the
dread initial/number/domain combo, not because I post to newsgroups with
my real name. The spammers simply send out mail with a gazillion
combinations of initials/numbers/domains, and hope something hits.

In my other address, I post with real address and name too, and get very
little spam.

I wonder just how much newsgroup harvesting is doen these days. It
wouldn't be very efficient.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
...
snip

One who tries to hide must have a nefarious reason to do so. SPAM
avoidance is a make-weight
reason.

I'm happy for you that you have the courage of your convictions. Sure, I
"hide" for spam avoidance but I add my callsign a couple of times a month
for anybody who cares to do a lookup.

Your posting history indicates that you're a good egg, Sal. But the
company you end up being lumped in with is a big price to pay.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Stefan Wolfe (semi-OT)
 

Hi Mike

Well if I was creating a databases of addresses to SPAM (shudder!) I
would add on an SMTP engine that tries to connect to the host. If I got
a "550 mailbox not found" or something similar I wouldn't ever bother
trying again. It would be fairly easy then to have a known vs invalid
addresses. That along with (say) grabbing names from telephone books and
creating addresses with it for every domain that could be found would
build up a credible database to work with. Once the engine is perfected
a 95% failure rate is still a success..

I am sure there are institutions around that do this, if just to sell a
useful database to their customers. There are however far better and
more slimy programmers around than me!

I would suspect (but don't know) that ISP SPAM mitigation processes are
helping a lot nowadays. There have also been laws passed and ISP
acceptable use policies that are making things a little bit harder for
the SPAM creators... Most mail servers also have a lot of lookup/checks
that go on nowadays when they receive a connection. I think about half
at the place I work fail to connect because they are requesting relay,
have an invalid source domain/reverse lookup or something else that
prevents the chaff getting through. Those that do then have the SPAM
pattern filter trounce about 95% of.

Cheers Bob VK2YQA

Michael Coslo wrote:

I wonder just how much newsgroup harvesting is doen these days. It
wouldn't be very efficient.