On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:05:38PM -0600, Drew Raines wrote: > Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I'll be blunt: I considered the issue of posting from non-reading addresses > > and then wait "Wait. What am I *thinking*? Hotmail gives out *free* email > > addresses. Why should I have to deal with *more* spam just so these folks > > can have chronically broken setups?" > > This isn't the only reason people post with addresses differing from their > subscription address.
Nobody has given me any more valid reason, to date. > *You* control the spam entering your mailbox. It is not the list's > responsibility, which the spam could easily have circumvented. Obscurity is > not security. Yes, I do. And that means that if it's not turned off at the list, my options basically become "leave the list". See, just as *I* control whether the list enters my mailbox, *the list* controls whether messages enter it. If I'm responsible for letting myself be spammed, the list is just as responsible, for letting itself be spammed. I run procmail and filters to avoid most of it. Now it's time for the list to run at least the most basic of filters, in my opinion, to avoid most of it. > > I vote for closing it off. I guarantee it will reduce the spam to just > > about nil. > > Until spammers start forging harvested subscriber addresses. When they start bothering, I'll worry about it. As I said - I've run lists in such modes for some years now. To date, *not one* spammer has *ever* gone to such lengths just to get the spam across. It isn't that they aren't capable of it - but it is an issue which I will worry about if, and when, it comes to pass. Until then, I'd really like to not have 90% of all the traffic on any Debian list I read be spam. The other 10% is rapidly losing it's worth to me because of this. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
