Dodgy “bulk email” operators

I’m forever receiving emails from “bulk email” companies that claim to be “opt-in” but are using addresses that are culled from elsewhere. The elsewhere basically means they’re not real email addresses and could not possibly have been the subject of an opt-in.

After replying to these with an unsubscribe request (on the assumption that they might be legitimate, but have accidentally purchased a dodgy list) I though I’d list them here if the emails don’t stop.

If your name is on this list and you think you’re innocent and can prove it, it will, of course, be removed. If the mail header shows it’s coming from your server and you’ve ignored unsubscribe requests you can explain why. Your protestations will be published along with the other evidence, and Internet users can decide your innocence or guilt.

05th June 2012 Tech Users Centre, Inc. 60 Cannon St. London
05th June 2012
05th June 2012 Simply Media Network, LTD., 48 Charlotte St, London (aka Comunicado Limited 6/43 Bedford St)
03rd June 2012
02nd June 2012 Marketing Empire UK (
01st June 2012 (Smilepod, 23 Rose Street
Covent Garden )
01st June 2012 Comunicado Limited 6/43 Bedford St
01st June 2012 domainmail (on behalf of Insured Health)
31st May 2012 National Training Resources Limited
31st May 2012, PO Box 4380 Tamworth.
31st May 2012 Comunicado Limited 6/43 Bedford
29th May 2012 Nuance Communications
25th May 2012 Comunicado Ltd, 6/43 Bedford Street
24th May 2012 Oxeta
24th May 2012
24th May 2012 Comunicado Limited
22nd May 2012, 199 New Road, Skewen
16th May 2012 Consulmax (
16th May 2012 domainmail (
11th April 2012

Government’s red-herring email law

The government (UK) launched a red herring at the Internet today, and the news media has lapped it up. “We’re brining in a new law to allow security services to monitor email and other Internet traffic.” This is actually referring to the fact of the communication; not its content.

The TV news has subsequently been filled with earnest spokespersons from civil liberties groups decrying the worst Big Bother laws since New Labour got the boot – anything to get their silly mugs in front of a camera. Great news drama – the Conservatives moving over to the dark side.

Wake up people! What they’re proposing is just not possible. Blair already tried it in a fanfare of announcements and publicity, but anyone who knows anything about how email and the Internet function can tell you that it’s not even technically possible on so many levels.

1) Email does not necessarily use an ISP’s mail server or web mail service. Home users probably do; any company or organisation will most likely use their own. If anyone wanted to avoid snooping, they would too.

2) Users of commercial mail services are anonymous if they want to be. With a few minutes effort it’s possible to hide your IP address, or use an untraceable random one, and there’s no other trail leading back to an individual. The international criminals being targeted will know the tricks, for sure.

3) The security services already have the powers to do this, and do use them.

4) If the ISP is outside the UK, then what?

When the Blair government announced something similar I had to write to the government department concerned asking for the details. I heard about it from the general news. Apparently I, as an ISP, needed to keep records for a year – but records of what, exactly? They didn’t contact me to warn me it was happening; they can’t as there is no register of ISPs. There’s no definition of what counts as an ISP either. And needless to say, the government department concerned didn’t write back with the details.

So why is the current government making this announcement about an announcement now? Could they be wanting to change the news agenda? As usual they can rely on the media types to completely miss the fact it’s nonsense. Eventually the BBC got Andrew Mars on to comment, but I suspect his interview snippet was severely edited to suit their agenda.

Fetchmail, Sendmail and oversized emails

There’s a tendency for lusers to try to email anything these days. If you though a few Gig of outgoing mail queue was enough you haven’t come across the luser who decided to email the contents of a CD (uncompressed) to all her friends. Quite what they’d have made of their iPhone trying to download it I’ll never know.

Sendmail has a method for limiting emails to a sensible size. As a reminder, inside you need to add:

# The following sets the maximum message to 5Mb - otherwise it's infinite
define(`confMAX_MESSAGE_SIZE', `5242880')

Then run “make” and “make install” and “make restart”. This will generate the (and any hashmaps) before restarting. The bit you always forget when changing .mc files is the “make install”. This is all for FreeBSD – Linux types, please do it your own way.

So this is great – anyone sending an over-sized email is bounced from their server, and local users submitting email will be similarly clipped into the world of sane and sensible (if you regard something as large as 5Mb as sensible for an email).

But I came across one interesting issue recently and it could happen to you, too, if you’re using fetchmail.

For those who haven’t come across it before, fetchmail pulls emails from a POP3 box and delivers them to local users – dropping them into your local MTA by default. This is reasonable, as everything then goes through the spam filtering, procmail and anything else you have defined. It’s really useful for legacy situations where someone’s ended up with a POP3 box somewhere and you need to integrate it with the rest of their mail.

Fetchmail does plenty more besides, and has a config file to match the functionality. Presumably as a reaction against the complexity of the syntax, this one tries to operate in plain English. I’ve never quite figured out the full syntax, but it’s designed to be “flexible” and figure out what you’re trying to say. Personally I don’t think it succeeds in being any more friendly then in spite of being on the other end of the spectrum.

Anyway, the fun comes when fetchmail downloads an over-sized email from the POP3 box and delivers it locally via Sendmail. Sendmail will reject it, and send a bounce back to the original sender. So far, so good but f Sendmail is running as a cron job every five minutes, the luser gets a bounce back every five minutes because the outsized mail is stuck in the POP3 box. Opps! It may serve them right, but they shouldn’t be allowed to suffer for too long.

Fortunately one of fetchmail’s many options allows you to control the maximum download size, if you could figure out the syntax. It’s available as a command-line option –l , but if you prefer to keep things in the .fetchmailrc file (the best plan) you’ll need to proceed as per the following example. They keywords are “limit” and “limitflush”.

  • local-postmster-account is the login for your local postmaster – undelivered emails go there.
  • – mail server with the POP3 box
  • – Domain name who’s email ends up in POP3 box above
  • pop3-username, pop3-password – what you use to log into the POP3 box
  • Tom, Dick and Harry are local mailboxes, with tom being the default.
    set postmaster local-postmster-account

    poll proto pop3 aka no envelope no dns:
    user "pop3-username", with password "pop3-password",
    limit 5242368 limitflush to

    " " = dick
    " " = dick

    " " = harry

    "" = tom
    "*@ " = tom


    This isn’t intended as a tutorial in writing .fetchmailrc files – only an example of the use of limit and limitflush.

    So what’s going on? The limit keyword must be part of the poll statement, and is followed by the size (in bytes) of the maximum email to be retrieved. In the example it’s 512 bytes less than the 5Mb used in Sendmail (I feel I need a bit of slack on a boundary condition; it may be okay if they’re identical but I why push your luck?)

    Please read the fetchmail documentation for full details (although it’s light on examples). With just the “limit” keyword in use, over-sized mails will be left I the POP3 box. The following “limitflush” keyword will silently delete over-sized emails so they don’t bother you again. You may not want to do this! If you don’t, someone will have to retrieve or delete the emails form the POP3 box manually.

    Note that putting a limit on the download will prevent the bounce messages going to the original sender as it won’t get as far as sendmail.

How to prevent spammers getting your email address

Everyone knows this one, right? Just obey the following rules:

  1. Don’t give your email address to strangers
  2. Never post your email address on newsgroups
  3. Don’t leave your email address lying about on web pages.
  4. Don’t reply to spam – they know you’re reading it.

Unfortunately this advice is seriously out-of-date, although some emails are still harvested by spammers this way. People keep asking the question “I didn’t do any of the above, so how come I’m getting all this spam?”

What the American spammers are actually doing is using malicious software on innocent computers (installed using the normal virus channels). Amongst other things, this software searches the victim’s hard disk for all the email addresses it can find. It then sends the results back to be added to their spamming list. In order to have your email address added to a spamming list, all you need do is exchange an email with an infected PC – or a PC that becomes infected in the future.

As to item four, about never responding to spam, this is no longer the case. Spammers don’t use their real return address anyway. They track who’s reading their wares by embedding a reference to an image in an HTML email. When the message is displayed the image is downloaded from their server; when this happens they know who it was. Microsoft Outlook allows this to happen; Microsoft doesn’t appear to be in any hurry to fix it.

So what can you do? Not much! If you can, use disposable emails. For example, if you’re the secretary of a club and you correspond with a large number of people, some of whom are likely to be hijacked, make your email address ’secretary1@…’. When this is compromised, change it to ’secreatry2@…’ and so on.

A proper solution is needed, but there’s no political will to solve it. The identity of the criminals doing this is well-enough known; the American’s just let them operate virtually unhindered. Something to do with ‘freedom of speech’!