munging email - Mandriva

This is a discussion on munging email - Mandriva ; How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address. If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont. It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found" How can an address be munged to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: munging email

  1. munging email

    How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.

    If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"

    How can an address be munged to slow spam

    --
    faeychild

  2. Re: munging email

    faeychild wrote:
    > How can an address be munged to slow spam


    If people want to receive email in response to Usenet posts, a common
    anti-spam strategy is to use an email address that is a throw-away
    email address so it can be abandoned after being spammed.

    IMHO, the best way to avoid email spam is to use an ISP that is
    strongly anti-spam, and the best way to avoid usenet spam is to use
    a news server whose admins are strongly anti-spam.

  3. Re: munging email

    On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    > How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.
    >
    > If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    > It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >
    > How can an address be munged to slow spam


    Why do you want to send an email from an address that doesn't exist (or
    belongs to someone else)?

    You can get 'disposable' email addresses by using the various free webmail
    services, if you want to have an email address for 'registering' with
    on-line services you don't quite trust. If the address gets 'spammed up',
    just dump it.


    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~

  4. Re: munging email

    Whiskers wrote:
    > On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    >> How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.
    >>
    >> If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    >> It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >>
    >> How can an address be munged to slow spam

    >
    > Why do you want to send an email from an address that doesn't exist (or
    > belongs to someone else)?


    The answer to that question is a properly munged email address is
    constructed not to fool humans but to discourage the bots that are designed
    to harvest email addy's. Look at mine, it's pretty easy to see which parts
    to remove.



    Cheers,
    Thai

  5. Re: munging email

    faeychild wrote:
    > How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.


    Your Knode is configured with a munged From and your newsserver is
    configured to accept such a munged From addy.

    > If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.


    How a mail server accepts or doesn't accept an invalid address in the
    kmail From depends on the mailserver. Examples of gmail and EL earthlink
    below.

    > It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >
    > How can an address be munged to slow spam


    If I configure kmail in the identity section to have a bogus From, such as
    MikeE@ster.invalid, but to have a good user/pass, then when kmail
    transacts with the earthlink smtpauth mailserver, the mailserver rejects
    the mail message based on the invalid From.

    However, if I similarly configure kmail for the gmail server, gmail's
    secure smtpauth server will accept the message and transmit it, but gmail
    will populate the email's From with the username, which is the real gmail
    address.

    In the sent folder, the sent gmail shows the From to be the invalid addy.

    Gmail's webmail functions differently from the smtp server about how you
    are able to control the From content address.


    --
    Mike Easter


  6. Re: munging email

    On 2008-10-22, Thai C. Stacy wrote:
    > Whiskers wrote:
    >> On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    >>> How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.
    >>>
    >>> If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    >>> It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >>>
    >>> How can an address be munged to slow spam

    >>
    >> Why do you want to send an email from an address that doesn't exist (or
    >> belongs to someone else)?

    >
    > The answer to that question is a properly munged email address is
    > constructed not to fool humans but to discourage the bots that are designed
    > to harvest email addy's. Look at mine, it's pretty easy to see which parts
    > to remove.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Thai


    Yes, but that's in usenet. The OP specifically asked about doing it in
    email, using KMail (which only does email).

    Incidentally, if you must munge your email address, munge the domain name
    part so that your email service provider isn't plagued with undeliverable
    spam (or spam which ends up in your inbox anyway). The safest approach is
    to put invalid.invalid to the right of the @ - and nothing else. Put your
    'real' email address in the Reply-to header, or in your sig (where you can
    make it a puzzle that you hope only worthy humans can solve). Your
    existing munge is ineffective at protecting the runner of roads.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~

  7. Re: munging email

    Whiskers wrote:

    > On 2008-10-22, Thai C. Stacy wrote:
    >> Whiskers wrote:
    >>> On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    >>>> How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.
    >>>>
    >>>> If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    >>>> It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >>>>
    >>>> How can an address be munged to slow spam
    >>>
    >>> Why do you want to send an email from an address that doesn't exist (or
    >>> belongs to someone else)?


    I send emails to a couple of people and I've noticed the return headers are
    populated with 10 to 15 other email addresses ( all CC ) and , of course, if
    those people send to their correspondents and they to theirs, my email address
    is copied millions strong.
    They are all windows users and we know how secure that is from address
    harvesting, etc

    I am seeing new spam starting to arrive and though I would, at least try to
    cover my ID

    >>
    >> The answer to that question is a properly munged email address is
    >> constructed not to fool humans but to discourage the bots that are designed
    >> to harvest email addy's. Look at mine, it's pretty easy to see which parts
    >> to remove.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Thai

    >
    > Yes, but that's in usenet. The OP specifically asked about doing it in
    > email, using KMail (which only does email).
    >
    > Incidentally, if you must munge your email address, munge the domain name
    > part so that your email service provider isn't plagued with undeliverable
    > spam (or spam which ends up in your inbox anyway). The safest approach is
    > to put invalid.invalid to the right of the @ - and nothing else.

    Done
    > Put your
    > 'real' email address in the Reply-to header,

    and done

    I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid

    (The server responded: "4.1.8 : Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    This is a temporary failure. You may try again later.)

    still wont accept the munged address

    > or in your sig (where you can
    > make it a puzzle that you hope only worthy humans can solve). Your
    > existing munge is ineffective at protecting the runner of roads.
    >


    --
    faeychild

  8. Re: munging email

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:19:49 +1100, faeychild wrote:

    >> to put invalid.invalid to the right of the @ - and nothing else.

    > Done
    >> Put your
    >> 'real' email address in the Reply-to header,

    > and done
    >
    > I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid
    >
    > (The server responded: "4.1.8 : Sender address rejected: Domain not
    > found"
    > This is a temporary failure. You may try again later.)


    That's broken. The spec for .invalid is such that no further lookups
    should proceed after encountering it:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606

  9. Re: munging email

    faeychild wrote:

    > I send emails to a couple of people and I've noticed the return headers
    > are populated with 10 to 15 other email addresses ( all CC )


    I consider it to be very poor netiquette for email correspondents to put
    multiple addressees into the To or CC fields and I would not give a
    'private' email address out to some correspondent who would/might share my
    email address with other correspondents in that way or in other ways.
    That is, someone should not tell someone else your email address, either
    directly or by putting it into the To or CC which is exposed to other
    addressees.

    Whenever /I/ email 'several' addressees who may (or may not) know each
    other or each other's email addresses, I put all of the addresses into the
    BCC field, which is not exposed to the others. In addition, I consider it
    to be suboptimal netiquette to not let some multiple correspondents know
    'something' about who else was mailed the missive. If it were say 3
    people, in the first line of the mail I might say - 'sent to Jack, Linda,
    and Sue' and/or my To might have the handle 'Jack, Linda, & Sue' but the
    handle's address would be my own, and the email addresses of Jack, Linda,
    & Sue are used to populate the BCC field, not the ToCC.

    If you are going to be giving out your email address to a friend
    (including by emailing them), and you don't know whether or not the friend
    is the type who doesn't know any better than putting multiple addressees
    into a ToCC, then you shouldn't give them a private email address, but
    instead you should give them an address which is 'less private'. I don't
    call that a 'throwaway' address, but it may be an address which is liable
    to get 'spread around' and therefore vulnerable to more spam and more
    viral propagations -- because that is what happens to the address which is
    abused in that manner.

    If I'm emailing a larger group, such as a Christmas Letter list or the
    attendees of a 'group', I wouldn't name all of the individuals, but I
    would still indicate the nature of the distribution in the To or first
    line of the missive and all of the addressees would be in the BCC.

    If someone1 emails me asking me for the address of someone else2, then I
    email else2 the request of someone1 so they2 can give someone1 whatever
    kind of address they want to give them (or not). It is not my
    'responsibility' to decide to give a particular address I have for else2
    to someone else1. If you know someone's email address, you should respect
    its privacy.

    > and , of
    > course, if those people send to their correspondents and they to
    > theirs, my email address is copied millions strong.
    > They are all windows users and we know how secure that is from address
    > harvesting, etc


    Those problems are not at all appreciated by the millions of email
    correspondents who don't respect the concept of 'social spam' and who send
    around jokes and virus warnings to scores of people in the To & CC and of
    course the same people they email in large groups of ToCC are prone to add
    those addresses to their addressbook and then they send out even more such
    inane jokes and retarded 'alerts' and propagate last year's urban myths
    and misinformation.

    You don't need to have a lot of email addresses to have to manage, but you
    need a private address which won't be misused by those correspondents who
    have it, and you need a less private address which /might/ be misused but
    which you /aren't/ going to throwaway, and sometimes you might need a true
    throwaway address.

    And, you also need to be able to be frank/ educational/ with the people
    who are so uninformed as to put your address in with a bunch of other ToCC
    and tell them that it is both rude and 'dangerous' to the multiple
    recipients to be exposing multiple addressees like that.

    > I am seeing new spam starting to arrive and though I would, at least
    > try to cover my ID




    --
    Mike Easter


  10. Re: munging email

    On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    > Whiskers wrote:
    >> On 2008-10-22, Thai C. Stacy wrote:
    >>> Whiskers wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-10-22, faeychild wrote:
    >>>>> How is it possible to get Kmail to accept a munged address.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If Kmail mail does accept it then the receiving mail server wont.
    >>>>> It responds with Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How can an address be munged to slow spam
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you want to send an email from an address that doesn't exist (or
    >>>> belongs to someone else)?

    >
    > I send emails to a couple of people and I've noticed the return headers
    > are populated with 10 to 15 other email addresses ( all CC ) and , of
    > course, if those people send to their correspondents and they to theirs,
    > my email address is copied millions strong.
    > They are all windows users and we know how secure that is from address
    > harvesting, etc
    >
    > I am seeing new spam starting to arrive and though I would, at least try
    > to cover my ID


    If you can't persuade those people to stop spreading private email
    addresses to all and sundry, consider your existing email address
    'compromised' and get a new one for serious use - your email service
    provider may well have a facility for adding extra addresses to your
    present account. Don't let the address-spreaders have your new address
    (let them write to the old one, and only write to them from the old one,
    but assume that that address will get a lot of spam, if not worse, thrown
    at it).

    Or just put up with the problem - as a Linux user you are much better set
    to deal with either spam or malware that comes your way. If your email
    service provider offers a server-side spam filter, use it (and learn how
    to get a look at stuff that it puts into the spam folder so that you can
    check for false positives from time to time).

    >>> The answer to that question is a properly munged email address is
    >>> constructed not to fool humans but to discourage the bots that are
    >>> designed to harvest email addy's. Look at mine, it's pretty easy to see
    >>> which parts to remove.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> Thai

    >>
    >> Yes, but that's in usenet. The OP specifically asked about doing it in
    >> email, using KMail (which only does email).
    >>
    >> Incidentally, if you must munge your email address, munge the domain name
    >> part so that your email service provider isn't plagued with undeliverable
    >> spam (or spam which ends up in your inbox anyway). The safest approach is
    >> to put invalid.invalid to the right of the @ - and nothing else.

    >
    > Done
    >
    >> Put your 'real' email address in the Reply-to header,

    >
    > and done
    >
    > I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid
    >
    > (The server responded: "4.1.8 : Sender address rejected: Domain not found"
    > This is a temporary failure. You may try again later.)
    >
    > still wont accept the munged address


    [...]

    Those munging suggestions were aimed at Thai C. Stacy for use in
    newsgroups. They won't work for sending email.

    Generally, email programs and servers these days are very fussy about
    insisting that only working email addresses can be used to send 'From'.
    Likewise, a fake or missing From address is one of the things almost
    certain to get your message dumped into a spam trap if it ever does escape
    from your own email server.

    Email only works properly if you use a genuine email address (and these
    days, mostly, send it via an email server that recognises it as genuine).
    The proliferation of spam has forced reputable email service providers to
    be careful about what they let their customers do.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~

  11. Re: munging email

    Mike Easter wrote:


    >
    > And, you also need to be able to be frank/ educational/ with the people
    > who are so uninformed as to put your address in with a bunch of other ToCC
    > and tell them that it is both rude and 'dangerous' to the multiple
    > recipients to be exposing multiple addressees like that.


    The success of educating my sister depends entirely upon the mood she is in at
    the time.

    Fraught with some peril.

    >
    >> I am seeing new spam starting to arrive and though I would, at least
    >> try to cover my ID

    >
    >
    >


    --
    faeychild

  12. Re: munging email

    On Thursday 23 October 2008 20:56, someone identifying as *faeychild* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > Mike Easter wrote:
    >
    >> And, you also need to be able to be frank/ educational/ with the people
    >> who are so uninformed as to put your address in with a bunch of other
    >> ToCC and tell them that it is both rude and 'dangerous' to the multiple
    >> recipients to be exposing multiple addressees like that.

    >
    > The success of educating my sister depends entirely upon the mood she is
    > in at the time.


    Humans tend to only recognize the error of their ways when they come around
    the track to bite them in the ass with a vengeance. ;-)

    > Fraught with some peril.


    Yes, you've fought with some devil.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  13. Re: munging email

    Aragorn wrote:

    > On Thursday 23 October 2008 20:56, someone identifying as *faeychild* wrote
    > in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >> Mike Easter wrote:
    >>
    >>> And, you also need to be able to be frank/ educational/ with the people
    >>> who are so uninformed as to put your address in with a bunch of other
    >>> ToCC and tell them that it is both rude and 'dangerous' to the multiple
    >>> recipients to be exposing multiple addressees like that.

    >>
    >> The success of educating my sister depends entirely upon the mood she is
    >> in at the time.

    >
    > Humans tend to only recognize the error of their ways when they come around
    > the track to bite them in the ass with a vengeance. ;-)
    >



    I detect some Karmic philosophy, Aragorn. You are correct


    >> Fraught with some peril.

    >
    > Yes, you've fought with some devil.
    >


    --
    faeychild

  14. Re: munging email

    faeychild wrote:

    >I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid


    Did you just put invalid.invalid? It commonly needs to be in the "form"
    of a real email address. Try x@x.invalid

    --
    Dave Farrance

  15. Re: munging email

    Dave Farrance wrote:
    > faeychild wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid

    >
    >
    > Did you just put invalid.invalid? It commonly needs to be in the "form"
    > of a real email address. Try x@x.invalid


    What about me@mouse-potato.com ? Is that regarded as a nasty thing to
    do? mouse-potato.com resolves to 127.0.0.1.

    Frank

  16. Re: munging email

    On Friday 24 October 2008 11:45, someone identifying as *Frank Peelo* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > Dave Farrance wrote:
    >
    >> faeychild wrote:
    >>
    >>>I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid

    >>
    >> Did you just put invalid.invalid? It commonly needs to be in the "form"
    >> of a real email address. Try x@x.invalid

    >
    > What about me@mouse-potato.com ? Is that regarded as a nasty thing to
    > do? mouse-potato.com resolves to 127.0.0.1.


    With my personal set-up here - read: "my ISP" - /KNode/ will work with that
    set up as the sender domain, or with nomail.afraid.org, but it will not
    work for sending e-mails from either /KNode/ or /KMail./

    The reason is plain and simple...: My ISP's SMTP server does a DNS lookup on
    both the sender domain and the IP address of the sender. The sender domain
    must be valid, and the IP address must be one from within the range of
    addresses that are allowed to use it.

    As an example, I created a POP3 mailbox under my ISP account for use by my
    South African friend, and while she has her Thunderbird set up with that
    telenet.be address and the correct password and login, the SMTP refuses to
    allow her to send anything through it, so as to avoid abuse as an open
    relay for spam.

    So I suspect that aside from this, 127.0.0.1 will also not be accepted by
    most ISP SMTP servers.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  17. Re: munging email

    On 2008-10-24, Frank Peelo wrote:
    > Dave Farrance wrote:
    >> faeychild wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I though you may have been onto it then. but it bounces invalid.invalid

    >>
    >>
    >> Did you just put invalid.invalid? It commonly needs to be in the "form"
    >> of a real email address. Try x@x.invalid

    >
    > What about me@mouse-potato.com ? Is that regarded as a nasty thing to
    > do? mouse-potato.com resolves to 127.0.0.1.
    >
    > Frank


    It's inconsiderate to use a domain name that belongs to someone else, or
    might do at some time. However improbable you might think a paricular
    name is.

    That parpticular one has in fact been registered:

    $ whois mouse-potato.com

    Whois Server Version 2.0

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
    for detailed information.

    Domain Name: MOUSE-POTATO.COM
    Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
    Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
    Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
    Name Server: NS2.SIMS.CC
    Name Server: NS3.SIMS.CC
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Updated Date: 02-apr-2008
    Creation Date: 08-apr-1997
    Expiration Date: 09-apr-2009

    >>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:49:36 EDT <<<


    But munging of email addresses is only tolerated in usenet - not for
    sending emails, which is what the OP asked about.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~

  18. Re: munging email

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Whiskers wrote:

    > It's inconsiderate to use a domain name that belongs to someone else, or
    > might do at some time. However improbable you might think a paricular
    > name is.


    Just fyi. I registered nomail.afraid.org back when the swen email worm
    was making it's rounds. I've given blanket permission to anyone who
    want's to use it, for usenet. Be aware, that any mail sent to an
    address@nomail.afraid.org (via MX, not A record) goes to a spamtrap.

    With multiple people using it in usenet, for over 4 years, it's attracted
    lots of spam.

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  19. Re: munging email

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:57:35 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
    >
    > It's inconsiderate to use a domain name that belongs to someone else, or
    > might do at some time. However improbable you might think a paricular
    > name is.
    >
    > That parpticular one has in fact been registered:
    >
    > $ whois mouse-potato.com


    Yes, but the mouse-potato.com owner enjoys seeing people using
    mouse-potato.com since that is why he registered it.

    Do a ping -c1 mouse-potato.com and check out the ip address.

  20. Re: munging email

    On 2008-10-24, David W. Hodgins wrote:
    > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Whiskers wrote:
    >
    >> It's inconsiderate to use a domain name that belongs to someone else, or
    >> might do at some time. However improbable you might think a paricular
    >> name is.

    >
    > Just fyi. I registered nomail.afraid.org back when the swen email worm
    > was making it's rounds. I've given blanket permission to anyone who
    > want's to use it, for usenet. Be aware, that any mail sent to an
    > address@nomail.afraid.org (via MX, not A record) goes to a spamtrap.
    >
    > With multiple people using it in usenet, for over 4 years, it's attracted
    > lots of spam.
    >
    > Regards, Dave Hodgins


    Some people like Spam )

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast