Ron and others,
I am sure that Legacy staff is well aware of the problems and are
working with their vendors to resolve the issues, but it takes time.
I assume that we want the Legacy Staff to focus on Legacy, not Email.
Their Email vendors should be resolving those problems.
So... I suggest patience and an active use of the delete key until
these issues get resolved.
As to the HTML vs. Plain Text war...
Using Plain Text only on email for PUBLIC mailing lists is courtesy
both to the rest of the subscribers and to the list operator. List
subscribers benefit by smaller messages, and list operators benefit
by more effective list management.
RootsWeb has had a policy for 10+ years that all of the messages in
their email list system be plain text only with no attachments. I
suspect most online genealogists subscribe to one or more of those
lists. If they do, they have learned both how to send and how to
receive messages to their list with whatever email client they have.
Administrators (I admin dozens of lists) get all of the bad messages
sent to the list - messages from non-subscribers, HTML, messages with
attachments, messages too long, etc. and have to review them.
The only times that garbage gets to the lists is when a spammer
subscribes to the list or hijacks a legitimate subscriber email address.
As an admin, I can put a spammer on moderate mode or unsub them. I
can also moderate new subscriptions for a while to prevent a spammer
from continually trying to subscribe from a new address.
But that is for RootsWeb lists. RootsWeb maintains 1000s of lists
with likely millions of messages every month. They need to be on top
of their game and have highly customized it for the RootsWeb environment.
What we are talking about with the LUG list is a list maintained by a
private server, likely using some type of commercial, off-the-shelf,
mailing list software. It may not have all of the bells and whistles
that RootsWeb has.
And obviously, the LUG list has come under continuing attack, and, as
such, the problems mount.
We just need patience...
john.
At 06:27 AM 12/3/2008, ronald ferguson wrote:
This is not possible for many web based email senders, and I, for
one will only use this type on for public emails.
Ron Ferguson
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:06:30 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Listserv spam/HTML issues (Was: Legacy Question)
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>
> Sorry, but ALL users ahould have their e-mail client set to send
ONLY in text. HTML should never, Never, NEVER, be used in
e-mail-for *any* reason-period.
>
> Truth be told, Emails clients shouldn't even recognize HTML.
Browsers yes- E-Mail clients no.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 12/2/08, Steve Voght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Steve Voght <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Listserv spam/HTML issues (Was: Legacy Question)
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 10:13 PM
> > With all due respect to everyone who keeps arguing that HTML
> > messages
> > are the bane of the world and the cause of problems on this
> > list, the
> > two biggest issues with the spam flagging are undoubtedly
> > the
> > onslaught of repetitive error messages about not being
> > subscribed to
> > the list (spam heuristics look for frequent message
> > repetition as a
> > sign of spam), and the spamming issue last month when
> > someone hijacked
> > Geoff's Legacy email address and was using it to send
> > fake Rolex
> > messages to the list. As people kept tagging those
> > messages as spam,
> > filters were learning that messages originating from LUG
> > were likely
> > to be spam and thus the spam score goes up on all LUG
> > messages.
> >
> > Whoever maintains this list needs to deal with the error
> > messages
> > because it is dramatically adding to the burden on end
> > users
> > downloading the messages, and it is also adding extra
> > messages as
> > people keep responding asking why they are receiving them
> > in the first
> > place and what they did wrong.
> >
> > With regard to HTML messages, virtually every mailing list
> > management
> > program has an option to strip the HTML from messages
> > before passing
> > them on, and if a list actually wants to implement a
> > 'no HTML' policy
> > then that is really the only way to do it properly.
> > Expecting end
> > users to maintain compliance is asking for trouble, both in
> > terms of
> > new users getting regularly chided by seasoned listers when
> > they make
> > a mistake by sending an HTML message, and additionally
> > because one of
> > the stated concerns about HTML email is that it might
> > contain a virus
> > (an extremely remote possibility, but still of potential
> > concern to
> > some people.) In that case, having the list server strip
> > HTML is the
> > *only* way to ensure this is prevented. Otherwise you give
> > end users a
> > false sense of security because they think they are on a
> > list that
> > bans HTML, yet it still comes through with high frequency
> > (I know I've
> > been guilty of sending an HTML message or two by mistake!)
> >
> > Furthermore concerning the other, more legitimate, issue
> > with HTML
> > messages (file size), having the list software strip it out
> > before
> > sending has the added advantage of decreasing the size of
> > the messages
> > before passing them to the end users, which improves the
> > speed they
> > are downloaded for dial-up users.
> >
> > I don't know what program Millennium uses to maintain
> > this list so I
> > can't be absolutely certain such a feature is included,
> > but if it
> > isn't then perhaps it's time to switch us to
> > something more robust and
> > better able to deal with these frequent errors that crop
> > up. In the
> > end we'll all be able to talk more about genealogy
> > research and spend
> > less time discussing the mailing list itself.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Mike Fry
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hope Bagot Bees wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Has your spam or antivirus blocked Legacy
> > postings? I keep getting a
> > >> message from Thunderbird suggesting that Legacy
> > postings are a scam, which I
> > >> have to refute.
> > >
> > > That's because people insist on using HTML and
> > they express the latest
> > > version as 7.0.0.76 which in HTML looks like an IP
> > address. The implication
> > > according to Thunderbird, is that the message wants
> > you to go to that web
> > > site. Hence, a possible scam!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike Fry
> > > Johannesburg.
*** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit
http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. ***
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
