Henne Vogelsang wrote: > Hi, > > On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 09:17:13, Rajko M wrote: >> Henne Vogelsang wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 06:16:32, Rajko M wrote: >>>> jdd wrote: >>>>> Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> If not, the lists will run into the desert because too much answers go >>>>>> wrong, or they will run into starvation because people start >>>>>> unsubscribing because they feel penetrated by double answers (list and >>>>>> private). >>>>> wether or not you like the new setup you may be aware that it's the very >>>>> same setup of the suse-e mailing lits, one of the heaviest traffic suse >>>>> one, so no, people wont go away (not for this reason, at least) >>>> The same as "one old list" that was set and software configured in times >>>> without privacy concerns doesn't mean it is good. Now they are trying to >>>> patch holes with a Spam Assassin, but what this can cover is just a part >>>> of the problem. >>> What the heck are you talking about? Why would a reply-to field that is >>> pointing to the list address prevent spam? Youre not making any sense. >>> Please explain. >> If you wouldn't be focused to reaction on recent changes, than my >> posting will make sense. Reply to filed will prevent nothing, and I >> didn't refer to that at all in a quoted paragraph. >> >> The recent change is inconvenience as I have to edit header for every >> posting. I really don't want to reply to anybody privately and the TB >> that has well solved privacy protection, has 2 options: >> 1. Reply to Sender >> 2. Reply to All >> They work both as the name tells for peer to peer mails. >> With list 1. gives a private email and the 2. all private and the list. > > I got that. Thunderbird has no list-reply. Thats the fault of > Thunderbird. There even are bugreport about it in the mozilla bugzilla. > >> The Spam Assassin protects the lists from the spam that some might post >> to > > There is no single spam mail going trough any of our lists. This is not > because they are protected by filtering but because spammers dont > subscribe to mailinglists. They need a valid email account to subscribe > to the list because subscribing is interactive and this is costing them > more than they get out of one mail they get to send to the list > subscribers (because they know for sure that the email address will be > unsubscribed/blocked once they did send spam). So its simply to costly > for them to send spam to subscribers only mailinglists.
I've seen one try, but it never happened again. >> but contributors are not protected from harvesters. That is what I >> meant as partially solved problem. > > I see. Now youre making sense :) Did I? Yoopie :-D >> What I would like to see is something like what you applied in the mail >> list archives, overwriting of private mail addresses with xxxxxxxxxx, >> which is excellent. If that would be possible for mails that list server >> sends to subscribers, than is solved the second problem of protecting >> the subscribers. > > This is not possible. I dont know any mailinglist software that does > this. And im even not sure if i would be willing to pay the price of > total anonymity on our mailinglist to protect subscribers from address > harvesting. > > Henne > I've seen Christian's comment moments before so I can agree that anonymity and functionality need balance. I'm just upset when I see how much effort is used to avoid spam filters in the mails I get. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
