AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd) - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd) - SpamAssassin ; ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

  1. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


  2. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


  3. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


  4. AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!) features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure it is I who has to do the researching?

    Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having to slow down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing up ressources. But honestly I do not think this leads to anything. You obiously like their product and some of us fail to understand what is so special about it. Use it and be happy. I am more than fine with that.

    But please do not accuse me or others of not doing research if you are not sure. I did quite a bit of research and even asked for more information (which has not been provided yet). I have not said "it lacks feature x" while you incorrectly claim lacking "features" of other products.


    Regards JP

    -- Urspr. Mitt. --
    Betreff: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
    Von: "Jo Rhett"
    Datum: 21.05.2008 20:31

    May I suggest that you redo your research? BarricadeMX has no feature
    at all that even attempts to address the issue MailChannels is
    addressing, ie slowing down the TCP channel.




  5. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
    > It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!)
    > features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure
    > it is I who has to do the researching?


    I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
    feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here
    to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
    everyone read the information available.

    > Moreover BMX can do quite a lot of what you describe without having
    > to slow down the TCP channel too much thereby freeing up ressources.
    > But honestly I do not think this leads to anything.


    Look at testing results. Try it out. It's been 99% effective against
    the botnets on a test system I enabled.

    > But please do not accuse me or others of not doing research if you
    > are not sure. I did quite a bit of research and even asked for more
    > information (which has not been provided yet). I have not said "it
    > lacks feature x" while you incorrectly claim lacking "features" of
    > other products.



    People said specifically that mailchannels was doing "nothing more
    than qmail does" which is clearly not true with even some basic
    reading. This clearly indicates a lack of research.

    I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me
    to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP
    sessions. I can't find it.

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  6. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    mouss wrote:

    [snip]
    >> I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me
    >> to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP

    -----------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> sessions. I can't find it.
    >>

    >
    > and this is the guy who is trying to teach me research?
    >
    > - try searching their web site for a document that contains this:
    > "MailChannels has developped ... SLOW email traffic ..."
    > on their site. (the capitals in "SLOW" are mine).

    [snip]

    Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX, you answer with
    more of your dumb messages.
    --
    René Berber


  7. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


    On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
    >> I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
    >> this feature.

    >
    > if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
    > them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.


    There's nothing on that site. It's on another site nobody mentioned.
    It's not my job to find all references. And I'm not saying people
    should find *ALL* references, I'm saying that people should taking 1-2
    minutes to read what the person is actually suggesting/implementing,
    rather than disregarding the product/idea/whatever publically without
    any clear understanding of what it does.

    > before suggesting what others should do, try improving your search
    > and navigation skills. (I am serious here. I am sure you will thank
    > me in few years).


    *snip other insults*

    Lose the attitude. I was suggesting people actually read what's right
    in front of them, not even asking that they search around. Your
    insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with it.

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  8. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On May 21, 2008, at 3:18 PM, mouss wrote:
    >> Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX,

    >
    > No problem, search for "Slow Replies" in the 2.0 release notes.


    And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
    trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
    responses. Bots already deal with slow replies, it's non-effective.

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  9. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:

    > Your insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with
    > it.


    ....I thought you plonk'd him?

    --
    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
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the liberty of a
    free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Read Books shall
    not be infringed.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today: the 4th anniversary of SpaceshipOne winning the X-prize


  10. RE: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    > And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
    > trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
    > responses.


    FYI: So are other products (at least one). And slowing down TCP sessions
    will hit ISPs as well btw. but that's a different stories.

    Oh and btw: Putting me on your personal blacklist is really mature! :-)
    It shows how interested you are in a discussion.


  11. Re: AW: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


    On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
    >>>> I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
    >>>> this feature.
    >>>
    >>> if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
    >>> them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.

    >>


    > Jo Rhett wrote:
    >> There's nothing on that site. It's on another site nobody
    >> mentioned. It's not my job to find all references. And I'm not
    >> saying people should find *ALL* references, I'm saying that people
    >> should taking 1-2 minutes to read what the person is actually
    >> suggesting/implementing, rather than disregarding the product/idea/
    >> whatever publically without any clear understanding of what it does.


    On May 22, 2008, at 1:18 AM, mouss wrote:
    > and who told you I did not check what they do?
    >
    > I may have got it wrong as I said before, but this is no reason for
    > you to jump into insults.



    mouss, read your own words. You threw insults ("there's a word for
    this"). There isn't a single insult in what I said?

    I'm sorry, but you are effing nuts. Not an insult, a factual
    observation of your psychopathic behavior.

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


+ Reply to Thread