uol.com.br is now banned from this list

[Paul Howarth]

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:00 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:41 -0700, kwhiskers wrote:
> > I've so far gotten 55 of their spams for the 6 messages I posted
> > last night. I simply ignore them - well, actually I have both those
> > AntiSpam UOL messages blocked in procmail with a moderately specific
> > test but also a more general from uol.com.br at the moment.
> > 
> > It's hard to igore them, I'd say.
> > 
> > There are so many of them that it is impossible to see the actual
> > thread one's following.
> > 
> > I don't know why google/gmail isn't picking it up as spam. It is very
> > successful withthe rest of it.
> ----
> because it is an official bounce-back error type message.

No, it isn't. If it was a real bounce, it would go back to redhat's mail
system because the envelope sender address for list messages (which is
where bounces go) is fedora-list-bounces at redhat.com. On a list of this
size there will be lots of bounces for each outgoing message simply as a
result of email address churn, temporarily broken mail systems etc.

This message is a challenge to the originator of the email, which is
sent to the header sender address, hence people posting to the list are
getting them. Such challenges are widely regarded as spam, and therefore
it's reasonable to ask why why google/gmail isn't picking it up as spam.

> The problem is that someone is subscribing with a mail account, bouncing
> it to an account at uol.com.br which has severe anti-spam restrictions
> which is bombarding any sender to this list.

s/bouncing/forwarding/

> Self defense dictates that we filter them to /dev/null using
> procmail/sieve on the server, rejects on the server or mail filters in
> your mail program.

Yep. Rejects on the server here for any uol.com.br address.

> Under the banner of a good offense makes a great defense, I proposed
> some type of tar pit set up by a number of fedora users and within
> minutes, the smtp servers at uol.com.br will be shut down and they will
> investigate the issue.

But anyone clueless enough to set up a challenge-response "anti-spam"
system may be too clueless to figure out what's going on too...

Paul.
-- 
Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org>