Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-18 17:39:26, schrieb Gene Heskett:

> >"Oh, I need a mail fil..."
> >
> >"Procmail."
> >
> >"...ter which can check on different hea..."
> >
> >"Yeah, Procmail."
> >
> >"..ders and run it through a bayes..."
> >
> >"Procmail, yea, Procmail..."
> >
> >"..ian filter.  Since Exim has filtering, could it be done in that?"
> >
> >"Procmail...  Procmail..."
> >
> And you point is?  (ducks and runs) :)

Install procmail!  ;-)

Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Michelle Konzack wrote:
> It make it impossibel, because the are automaticly cutted...
> So I will not see the signature...

Which is not a universal behavior.  The irony your statement, however, is
evident below...

> Greetings
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

You have a portion of your signature prior to the sigdash so other people
who wish to have the same behavior (sig culling/hiding) are unable to do it
with your message.  Meanwhile you have a slew of information after it:

> Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
> # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
> Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
>50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
> 0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

All told, 5 lines after, 5 lines prior.  Where's my rolled up newspaper?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-03-13 00:41:37, schrieb Andrei Popescu:

> It was suggested to put the real address (masked) in the sig. This
> does make private replies more difficult, but not impossible.

It make it impossibel, because the are automaticly cutted...
So I will not see the signature...


Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Dave Sherohman]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:16:39PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> > That's beside the point, IMO.  All the documentation and syntax
> > checkers in the world aren't going to change the fact that procmail's
> > 
> > :0:
> > * ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > /dev/null
> > 
> > (stolen from one of Gene Heskett's recent posts) is more cryptic and
> 
> Your opinion.  You like tools that speak English.  I like tools that
> work; I don't care what language they speak.

I like tools that work and prefer that they speak something similar
to English and/or another, standardized language (preferably one that
I know, such as C).

Which brings us right back to the question I initially asked when I
started this subthread:  Is there anything that procmail can do which
exim filters cannot?  Does procmail have any real advantage over exim
filters other than being a widely-used legacy application, within the
context of talking about a system (i.e., Debian) in which exim is the
default MTA?  So far as I am aware, procmail's only advantage is that
it can be used with any MTA.  If this is correct (and it quite
certainly may not be), then I question whether people who are being
given their first introduction to config-file-based mail filtering,
and are doing so on a system which uses exim as its MTA, should be
immediately directed to a solution which requires them to either
learn a unique, special-purpose language for that one purpose or else
blindly cut-and-paste text from recipes provided by other people with
little or not understanding of what it means.

I have nothing against complexity, but I have a dim view of pointless
complexity.  Does the additional complexity of learning procmail
bring along an additional benefit or is it just pointless complexity?

-- 
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
  - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out
> > there, considering all those writing about its usage.  The tiny-tools
> > project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for rc files
> 
> That's beside the point, IMO.  All the documentation and syntax
> checkers in the world aren't going to change the fact that procmail's
> 
> :0:
> * ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /dev/null
> 
> (stolen from one of Gene Heskett's recent posts) is more cryptic and

Your opinion.  You like tools that speak English.  I like tools that
work; I don't care what language they speak.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling  Please don't Cc: me.
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Dave Sherohman]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out
> there, considering all those writing about its usage.  The tiny-tools
> project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for rc files

That's beside the point, IMO.  All the documentation and syntax
checkers in the world aren't going to change the fact that procmail's

:0:
* ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
/dev/null

(stolen from one of Gene Heskett's recent posts) is more cryptic and
requires more effort for the average speaker of English to understand
than exim's equivalent

if $h_From contains "AntiSpam UOL" then
  seen finish
endif

Granted, the exim version still requires a little bit of learning to
fully understand or to create new rules based on it, but most seem to
find it easier than procmail syntax.

-- 
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
  - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Steve Lamb]

Gene Heskett said:
> And you point is?  (ducks and runs) :)

No point, just wanted to make a Rainman joke on D-U.  The opportunity
comes up so rarely.  :D

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 18 March 2006 15:35, Steve Lamb wrote:
>s. keeling said:
>> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing
>> procmail.
>
>Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of
> times any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to
> the status of a geek icon when other, bettern designed, just as
> useful and widely propigated tools are available.  Uttering FORTRAN's
> name in a Rainman like reaction at every possible utterance of a mail
> problem and you'll see the same reaction.
>
>"Oh, I need a mail fil..."
>
>"Procmail."
>
>"...ter which can check on different hea..."
>
>"Yeah, Procmail."
>
>"..ders and run it through a bayes..."
>
>"Procmail, yea, Procmail..."
>
>"..ian filter.  Since Exim has filtering, could it be done in that?"
>
>"Procmail...  Procmail..."
>
And you point is?  (ducks and runs) :)

>--
>Steve Lamb

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

s. keeling said:
> Incoming from Steve Lamb:
>> Like, say, received multiple email accounts through IMAP/POP and
>> keep the entire exchange separate for every account without having the
>> overhead of multiple email clients.

> That doesn't sound too difficult a problem for procmail (or
> mailfilter) to sort out.

Actually it is impossible for those tools alone to sort out.

> Perhaps your idea of a solution to the problem needs rethinking.  Why
> are you insisting on using such a complex system?

Uh, because it is simplier than the simple system?  It's like asking why
people use a calculator after their had batteries have run out and
pointing out the far simpler pencil and paper has no batteries to run
out.

The key phrase above is "keep the entire exchange separate for every
account."  ENITRE...  EXCHANGE.  Procmail and mailfilter do not to my
knowledge operate on outbound mail, only incoming mail.

About a decade ago I grew quite accustomed to havin my work and home
mail checked by a single client (then PMMail) and having each account
completely separate within the clint.  They are so compartmentalized
that I could move one directory and the account disappears.  I move that
directory back and the account reappears.

What I mean is that incoming mail comes from the appropriate server,
outboung mail goes to the approriate server, the sent mail is stored
separately, the filters do not act upon any mail but mail destined for
that account, and amazingly enough I can create a folder under one
account and that's the beginning and end of the configuration for that
account.

Now, what's the similar hoops for the current mail chain de jour? 
Fetchmail, Exim, Procmail, Mutt.  First off I have to configure
Fetchmail to get the mail for each account.  Mind you this is completely
worthless for IMAP accounts by reducing them to glorified POP accounts. 
Then I have to cram it through Exim, mering the two mail streams and
ignore it's filtering for the almighty Procmail.  I have to then
configure Procmail to split out the mail streams and on every filter put
in checks to ensure that one account's filter doesn't act on another
account's mail.  Once I've jumped that hoop I now have to configure mutt
*per folder* to use the correct from: address, put the outbound
sent/postponed mail in the proper folders.  After that I have to go back
to Exim and configure it for separate smart hosts based on the from
field put into mutt.  If I want to add a folder for mail I can't just
add it.  I have to add it and mess with mutt's configuration all over
again.

Any time I want to add an account I need to tell PMMsail (now
Thunderbird) exactly 3 things.  Incoming server, outgoing server, email
adress associated with that account.  From that all other settings work
as desired.

Any time I want to add an account to the mail chain I have to configure
fetchmail, exim incoming, procmail, mutt (more folder hooks galore!),
then exim outbound.

Sorry, but the mail tool chain isn't the simple tool, it's the complex
one.  I much prefer my calculator to your pen and paper, even if every
now and again I have to replace the batteries.

> Perhaps that's what needs re-working, not Debian list posting rules.

No.  The Debian rules need the re-working because the list maintainers
are being irresponsible and careless with the addresses in their care. 
My problems are ancilliary to that basic fact.

> Yes, I am suggesting
> you change.  You're insisting your system isn't working for you.

Might help if you suggested something comparable in usefulness instead
of a huge step backwards.  For the relatively few warts Thunderbird
poses to me your alternative would take hours of configuration (compared
to TBird's minutes initially), lots of upkeep (compared to TBird's
virtually none) as time went by and would not come close to what TBird
offers me.  IMAP accounts where *all* mail (postponed, sent, incoming,
filtered) is stored and access from server side & sensible defaults
based on accounts instead of forcing mail to remain stangnate in the 1
user-account, 1 mail-account '80s.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Steve Lamb]

s. keeling said:
> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing procmail.

Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of times
any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to the
status of a geek icon when other, bettern designed, just as useful and
widely propigated tools are available.  Uttering FORTRAN's name in a
Rainman like reaction at every possible utterance of a mail problem and
you'll see the same reaction.

"Oh, I need a mail fil..."

"Procmail."

"...ter which can check on different hea..."

"Yeah, Procmail."

"..ders and run it through a bayes..."

"Procmail, yea, Procmail..."

"..ian filter.  Since Exim has filtering, could it be done in that?"

"Procmail...  Procmail..."

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> s. keeling said:
> > I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> > any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> > get that way.  Procmail is no exception.
> 
> This is not true.  Some languages are designed in such a manner that
> readability isn't high on the list.  Do a Google on mindfuck and tell me

No need to go that far.  Try "dict fortrash".  And:

  Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about
  the tenth century A.D., and lasted until about 1957, when FORTRAN
  abandoned the practice.
   -- Sun FORTRAN Reference Manual

I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing procmail.
I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out
there, considering all those writing about its usage.  The tiny-tools
project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for rc files
(http://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/pm-tips-body.html).


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Gnu-Raiz said:
> Also if it throws off your filters then one should
> really check into the problem, and file the proper bug reports, or
> adjust the filter to suit.

You're not familiar with Bayesian filters, are you?

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Steve Lamb]

s. keeling said:
> I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> get that way.  Procmail is no exception.

This is not true.  Some languages are designed in such a manner that
readability isn't high on the list.  Do a Google on mindfuck and tell me
that it is readable.

The above is the common defense against people who are upset with Perl's
implicit syntax.  AFAIK, however, there is no expanded syntax for
procmail.  You get single-character special meaning all over the place. 
There's a far cry from that and exim's (for example) $h_from.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Gnu-Raiz]

> From: Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>What is so hard about sending an email to 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject 
>subscribe anyway?

I don't think the problem is really the subscribing part, its the 
unsubscribing part that is the problem.  I do agree with you, is it 
really that hard to read the bottom of email posted to learn how to 
unsubscribe?  Their is even a website that provides this as well.

I was thinking about posting the munging link you provided, but I 
thought everyone was aware of it since the last time we had this 
discussion. 

As far as a correct email address, I assume that to me that is 
totally up to the individual. If the person is smart enough to post 
to the list, or subscribe, I assume that they should know that the 
message is available to all the world, as well as his email 
address. After all is it that hard to read the headers to find 
where it came from, we all know or should know how to read headers.

If you consider Usenet do you really believe a person's name and 
email address? Also I much prefer to post to a list then do off 
list, or off Usenet email.  That way people can follow up on the 
solution, or the thread.  This I have to protect my email from spam 
thing is a little old. If it means that much to people in general 
then don't post. Also if it throws off your filters then one should 
really check into the problem, and file the proper bug reports, or 
adjust the filter to suit.

One thing I do agree on, is delaying the posting on a certain thread 
is not a good idea I agree with the other posters on its problems 
and suggest his idea's about its solution.

Gnu_Raiz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > > email was.  And procmail?  Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
> > 
> > than do without.  There are alternatives to procmail if you're that
> > averse to it.
> 
> Yes, there are alternatives, such as the filtering capabilities built
> into Debian's default MTA, exim.  (Which Steve mentioned in one of

I was thinking of equivalents to procmail, sans "line noise" syntax,
such as mailfilter.  You're welcome to use the tool you prefer.

I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
get that way.  Procmail is no exception.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:06, Tim Connors wrote:
> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:16:45 -0800:
> > On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > > As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe
> > > as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], while receiving
> > > the posts as [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is my real
> > > e-mail address. No e-mail would be sent to the alias, which would
> > > be used only to permit posting, but would not be subscribed as
> > > a recipient.
> >
> > Email address munging is considered harmful.  It serves only to hinder
> > legitimate replies to your email, and utterly ignores the very problem it
> > supposedly "resolves."  Debian's lists are also open to all posters and
> > acccessable via gmane, etc. and those readers do like to post, too.  Not
> > to mention people replying to list archives.
> >
> > http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
>
> Unfortunately, that article was written in 1998, and ignores the
> reality of the current situation.

The situation that document describes is a constant.  If it wasn't, email 
wouldn't work as a whole.

> Zombie machines just aren't being disconnected at the rate they
> appear.  Get microsoft to fix their bugs (hah!), and the zombie
> problem will go away, and spam will become managable again.

Your experience must be atypical.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Ritesh:
> 
> Yeah,,
> 
> The rest of the lists (redhat-* or name most others) are stupid and don't
> want their users to get help from the list.

What are you talking about?!?

> --

Your sigdash is malformed.

> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-change-for-subscriptions...-t1263446.html#a3442563

Ritesh, don't be stupid.  If you'd bothered to include context in your
reply, we'd know what it was.  If I cared to find out, I'd go to
lists.debian.org, not some fool's web forum.

> Sent from the Debian User forum at Nabble.com.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> s. keeling wrote:
> >"Do one thing, but do it well."  That means MTA + MUA + procmail +
> >bogofilter + ..., not Thunderbird which does all/some of that
> >marginally and is designed for Windows users who can't be bothered to
> >learn The Unix Way.
> 
> Actually, as I have explained many times in the past the tried and true 
> chain of email tools falls flat on it's face when it tries to do anything 
> complex.  Like, say, received multiple email accounts through IMAP/POP and 
> keep the entire exchange separate for every account without having the 
> overhead of multiple email clients.

That doesn't sound too difficult a problem for procmail (or
mailfilter) to sort out.

Perhaps your idea of a solution to the problem needs rethinking.  Why
are you insisting on using such a complex system?  Perhaps that's what
needs re-working, not Debian list posting rules.  Yes, I am suggesting
you change.  You're insisting your system isn't working for you.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Tim Connors]

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:16:45 -0800:
> On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe
> > as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], while receiving
> > the posts as [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is my real
> > e-mail address. No e-mail would be sent to the alias, which would
> > be used only to permit posting, but would not be subscribed as
> > a recipient.
> 
> Email address munging is considered harmful.  It serves only to hinder 
> legitimate replies to your email, and utterly ignores the very problem it 
> supposedly "resolves."  Debian's lists are also open to all posters and 
> acccessable via gmane, etc. and those readers do like to post, too.  Not to 
> mention people replying to list archives.
> 
> http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

Unfortunately, that article was written in 1998, and ignores the
reality of the current situation.

 "That is, by having the accounts from which the spam originates
 canceled quickly"

Given that almost every peice of spam comes from a different zombie,
of which there are orders of magnitudes more zombies than there were
ever open relays, and their IPs keep on changing because of dynamic
IPs, and then combine this with the majority of abuse departments at
ISPs with originating spam not caring about abuse reports, or even
having a working abuse@ email address.

Zombie machines just aren't being disconnected at the rate they
appear.  Get microsoft to fix their bugs (hah!), and the zombie
problem will go away, and spam will become managable again.

I like the argument given in "Additional Hassle for You".  The author
hasn't heard of automation, has he?

And then "The end result is that all of the effort you put in to
hiding your address goes to waste." -- worked for me for years.  Mind
you, my munging is pretty unusual for the time being.  I think the
spammers' two brain cells probably realise that people who munge their
addresses are never going to buy from them anyway.  The only spammers
who would be interested in demunging addresses are the authors of
email address CDs, so they can advertise 16,000,001
ADDRESSES!11!eleven instead of 16,000,000...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Steve Lamb]

Dave Sherohman wrote:

Are there things that procmail
can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being
what people have used for years and they're not aware that an
alternative is installed by default in Debian?


A little bit of both I think.  No doubt someone, somewhere will point out 
something that procmail can do that exim's filtering cannot.  Also procmail's 
one of those old-dog things that stick around in general use because it's 
always been in use.  There might also be a hint of ignorance of the fact that 
Exim can filter since the blinders are on the "one tool for the job" and MTA 
does not equal MDA.


--
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Mike McCarty]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:05:24PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:


On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote:
But the fact that you see an error and work to correct it is good.  You 
have a good point here, and it is important that the point you are 
making is not overshadowed by anything else.  Just as with Anand's 
responses.  What he says would stand better on its own if it were not 
attached to comments like threats to unsubscribe you and, "If you don't 
like it, leave."



Here's what he said.  I see no threat.

* Nothing is going to change, so if you aren't happy with the setup of
* debian-user then it probably isn't the list for you and you should
* consider unsubscribing.


Well, I dunno about that. I've been speaking English since I was
three years old, and that looks like an implicit threat to me.
Also, you noticed, there was also an *explicit* threat made,
and also action taken (list delay).

To me, yes it was a threat. Further, given the explicit threat,
and the later action, I think my opinion is justified.

[snip]

--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Paul Johnson wrote:
Anybody with a wiki can tell you those are bigger spam magnets than open 
posting could ever dream to be.


 Even blogs with tracebacks are tough to keep spam free these days.  :(

--
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Mike McCarty]

Paul Johnson wrote:

On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote:


I'd like to propose a change to subscription protocol used here.
I suggest permitting a non-member alias to post messages, while
sending the e-mails from the list to the real e-mail address.

As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe
as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], while receiving
the posts as [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is my real
e-mail address. No e-mail would be sent to the alias, which would
be used only to permit posting, but would not be subscribed as
a recipient.



Email address munging is considered harmful.  It serves only to hinder 


I'm not asking that the list do anything to my e-mail identity. Please
re-read my request.

I am perfectly aware of the argument over e-mail address munging.
this particular discussion has nothing to do with it.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Mike McCarty]

Hal Vaughan wrote:

On Monday 13 March 2006 03:14,  wrote:
...


As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to
unsubscribe you. So I have not done this.



No offense, but you make it sound like you're doing him a favor by not 
doing it.


I'll go one step further: It is "against policy" to close the
list to posters who are not subscribed, but it is not "against
policy" to close the list to subscribed members who happen to
disagree with the list management.

This kind of behavior has caused the CentOS list to dissolve into
chaos.

The reason I first started this thread was, and remains, as I
stated, to cause introspection. So far, it seems not to have
succeeded very well.

I'm just concerned for the future of the mail list, having
seen another disintegrate due to similar behavior by list
management.

I, personally, have no stakes in this matter, since I'm not
even really a Debian user (though I help administer a Debian
machine).

[snip]

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Ritesh]

Yeah,,

The rest of the lists (redhat-* or name most others) are stupid and don't
want their users to get help from the list.

Ritesh
--
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-change-for-subscriptions...-t1263446.html#a3442563
Sent from the Debian User forum at Nabble.com.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Dave Ewart]

On Tuesday, 14.03.2006 at 13:05 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:

> [...]
>
> Personally, I agree with Steve that procmail configs look like line
> noise and I also wish to echo his question regarding it:  Given that
> exim is installed on Debian systems by default and that exim has a
> much more easily readable (to most people, procmail gurus may be an
> exception) syntax, why are people who want to perform basic mail
> sorting tasks so consistently advised to install procmail instead of
> just using exim's MDA functionality?  Are there things that procmail
> can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being
> what people have used for years and they're not aware that an
> alternative is installed by default in Debian?

Is it possible to do user-based filtering using exim for non-root users?
What is the exim-equivalent of editing ~/.procmailrc for example?

Dave.
-- 
Please don't CC me on list messages!
...
Dave Ewart - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/
Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hal Vaughan]

On Tuesday 14 March 2006 13:41, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
> > As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to
> > unsubscribe you. So I have not done this.
>
>  Well, at least you saw reason, sort of.
>
> > Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I've now
> > instituted a 1 day delay for emails on this thread.  I'm the first
> > to (suffer) so you'll receive this directly (now) and tomorrow via
> > debian-user.
>
>  Unfortunately you did this.  Which is the first time I have ever
> seen it done on d-u as well and is just as bad.  Congratulations, not
> only are you a spam facilitator and a rules breaker (though not on
> this message even though you said you would) you're not the first
> person that I am aware of to ever stifle conversation on this list
> they didn't agree with with thier role as a manager.  Quite the track
> record.

My thought was something similar.  Our actions say who we are.  We can, 
for example, talk until we're blue in the face about social injustice, 
but if all we do is sit at a computer and write programs for Capital 
One, never volunteer, and never donate to any causes that work for 
social justice, our actions speak louder than our words.  While our 
words say we're for justice, our actions say we don't care.

In this case Anand's actions, the first I've seen in years on DU of 
anyone using any kind of censorship, speak very poorly of him and, 
honestly, scare me.  His actions say we can jump on anyone who is rude 
to newbies, and they can jump back.  We can flame anyone who says the 
"Debian Way" has problems, and they can yell back.

But don't ever dare to criticize Anand.

He'll threaten to unsubscribe you and do something totally 
unprecedented: He'll find new ways to censor you and the thread.

Whatever his words, his actions say you can criticize anyone you want on 
this thread.

Except Anand.

Hal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[hendrik]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:06:28AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> 
> In fact, if the tone of further emails from you matches this one or
> you continue on this topic I'll forcibly assist you in the process.
> 
> Anand
> 

I think this is the first mistake you made in this discussion.  Long ago 
you were accused (I think wrongly) of threatening to unsubscibe Lamb.  
Now you have finally allowed him to goad you into actually issuing the 
threat.

-- hendrik


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[hendrik]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:05:24PM -0500, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote:
> But the fact that you see an error and work to correct it is good.  You 
> have a good point here, and it is important that the point you are 
> making is not overshadowed by anything else.  Just as with Anand's 
> responses.  What he says would stand better on its own if it were not 
> attached to comments like threats to unsubscribe you and, "If you don't 
> like it, leave."

Here's what he said.  I see no threat.

* Nothing is going to change, so if you aren't happy with the setup of
* debian-user then it probably isn't the list for you and you should
* consider unsubscribing.

> My understanding is that Debian, as a project, is 
> somewhat of a democracy.  Anyone who understands a democracy knows that 
> one of its strengths is that those who disagree with how it is run need 
> to have a voice because that dissent forces those in power to listen 
> and, in doing so, create a stronger solution other than just one that 
> pleases most of the people.  That a list manager can threaten to 
> unsubscribe a person and say, "If you don't like it, you can leave," 
> disturbs me.  It is antithetical to what I understand Debian is 
> supposed to be.  I hope he is merely having a really bad day.
> 

Again, I see no threat.

-- hendrik


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:41, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:24:10 -0600
>
> "Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?
> >
> > It prevents private replies.
>
> It was suggested to put the real address (masked) in the sig. This does
> make private replies more difficult, but not impossible.

But utterly defeats the point of munging in the first place.  Once your email 
address is used unmasked anyplace public once, you've totally negated any 
potential benefit munging may have had, while keeping all the problems 
munging produces.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:17, Andrei Popescu wrote:

> Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?

http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:08, Chris Metzler wrote:
> But one would never guess those two things from the usual tone of your
> posts here.

In Steve's defense, his tone in this thread is not his usual tone.  He's 
usually one of the friendliest, more helpful personalities this list has to 
offer.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 08:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy.  Anand Kumria, clueless list
> manager.

That's a good way to win hearts and minds: Abuse the person you're trying to 
convince.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 12:42, Kent West wrote:
> A challenge-response would also be acceptable, provided I can specify
> what email to send the challenge to; wouldn't want the challenge to go
> to the customer's email from which I'm sending the post, etc.

Challenge-response is considered harmful.  Guaranteed to go to the wrong 
person every time it receives spam.  Causes mail loops when someone with 
challenge-response emails it.  Fundamentally breaks reliable transmission in 
SMTP.  Requires registration to get your email through.  Causes mail servers 
to get listed on RBLs.  Nobody in their right mind would consider 
challenge-response and not expect to get listed as a spewing site and lose 
all legitimate email in the process.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 12:18, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Kent West said:
> > I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want
> > to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc.
>
> In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed
> elsewhere in this thread?

Anybody with a wiki can tell you those are bigger spam magnets than open 
posting could ever dream to be.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 11:29, Steve Lamb wrote:

> We have the list mantainers saying that the list subscribers have to
> put up with the junk that gets through because signing up is too hard.  Yet
> have any of them really thought about making subscribing any easier than
> the above? 

What is so hard about sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject 
subscribe anyway?

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 08:46, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Considering I don't find it a woefully heavy burden to scan headers and
> delete subjects that aren't relevant to me (oh, the horror, about 5m a
> *day* on this oh so busy list) It makes it harder on me and weakens my own
> defense against spam.

Using a well-trained spamassassin at SMTP greatly eliminates my spam down to 
about 5/day overall that get missed, and it's not usually spam via debian 
lists that get missed...

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Saturday 11 March 2006 10:35, Mike McCarty wrote:

> I proposed a change in order to prevent such posts. I propose that
> messages which come from non-subscribed aliases be rejected from the
> list. I didn't state this, but I had in mind that this would be one
> of the modifiable characteristics of a subscribed member, changes to
> it requiring the use of a password.

Please see http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/ for the commentary on why 
they're world-open.  This won't change.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul Johnson]

On Saturday 11 March 2006 01:00, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I'd like to propose a change to subscription protocol used here.
> I suggest permitting a non-member alias to post messages, while
> sending the e-mails from the list to the real e-mail address.
>
> As an example, I'd like to propose that I be able to subscribe
> as a *poster* as [EMAIL PROTECTED], while receiving
> the posts as [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is my real
> e-mail address. No e-mail would be sent to the alias, which would
> be used only to permit posting, but would not be subscribed as
> a recipient.

Email address munging is considered harmful.  It serves only to hinder 
legitimate replies to your email, and utterly ignores the very problem it 
supposedly "resolves."  Debian's lists are also open to all posters and 
acccessable via gmane, etc. and those readers do like to post, too.  Not to 
mention people replying to list archives.

http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hal Vaughan]

On Monday 13 March 2006 03:14, Anand Kumria wrote:
...
> As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to
> unsubscribe you. So I have not done this.

No offense, but you make it sound like you're doing him a favor by not 
doing it.

> I've been deliberately not responding in order to not fan this
> (pointless) thread any longer.

It may be pointless to you, but obviously not to him.  While I spoke in 
support of some points, I still felt there should have been a 
willingness to compromise.  This statement, by you, though, just 
emphasizes the, "I'm in charge and if you disagree, tough.  I'm too 
busy being right to care about other points of view.  I could care less 
what you think or how others feel."

> Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I've now
> instituted a 1 day delay for emails on this thread.  I'm the first to
> (suffer) so you'll receive this directly (now) and tomorrow via
> debian-user.

I've noticed that has never been done in other discussions over Debian 
policies or situations, yet you do it in one that has a direct bearing 
on you and is even critical of you.

While I'm glad you're not unsubscribing Steve, even this delay is 
unwise.  I was on a mailing list for another distro and saw the list 
manager start to do things like this.  In the end it drove off pretty 
much most of the experts there who were providing most of the help.  
While I'm not saying that will happen here, any kind of censorship, 
even delaying messages, on this thread that applies to you and is, in 
some cases, critical of actions you are associated with sends a strong 
message that while list members can criticize quite a bit on this list, 
such criticism of the list master is, from his point of view, 
pointless, and in need of a level of control that hasn't occurred in 
other discussions.

People will say what they need to.  It always happens.  It goes on for a 
while, then dies down.  By delaying posts, all you're doing is delaying 
this.  While it seems like it gives tempers time to calm down, all it 
does, in many cases, is let them continue to simmer.  Obviously a 
number of people feel strongly about this issue, one way or the other.  
They need to make their points and only when they feel they are done, 
will they stop posting to this thread.  Delaying posts will only delay 
the process and emphasize that you feel a need to control this thread 
when it has not been necessary in the past and in other discussions.

I challenge you to re-examine your view and rise above the focus on 
controlling the discussion in any way.  Show us that you are open to 
different points of view and not afraid of posts that may criticize 
you.

Or you can keep trying to control others, which is impractical, does not 
work, and always creates more animosity than good will.

Hal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)

[Dave Sherohman]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > email was.  And procmail?  Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
> 
> You don't like procmail.  Great.  That's no excuse for insulting it.
> For some of us, it's a remarkable tool; one we'd rather abandon email
> than do without.  There are alternatives to procmail if you're that
> averse to it.

Yes, there are alternatives, such as the filtering capabilities built
into Debian's default MTA, exim.  (Which Steve mentioned in one of
the parts you trimmed.)

Personally, I agree with Steve that procmail configs look like line
noise and I also wish to echo his question regarding it:  Given that
exim is installed on Debian systems by default and that exim has a
much more easily readable (to most people, procmail gurus may be an
exception) syntax, why are people who want to perform basic mail
sorting tasks so consistently advised to install procmail instead of
just using exim's MDA functionality?  Are there things that procmail
can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being
what people have used for years and they're not aware that an
alternative is installed by default in Debian?

-- 
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
  - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Anand Kumria wrote:

As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to
unsubscribe you. So I have not done this.


Well, at least you saw reason, sort of.


Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I've now
instituted a 1 day delay for emails on this thread.  I'm the first to
(suffer) so you'll receive this directly (now) and tomorrow via
debian-user.


Unfortunately you did this.  Which is the first time I have ever seen it 
done on d-u as well and is just as bad.  Congratulations, not only are you a 
spam facilitator and a rules breaker (though not on this message even though 
you said you would) you're not the first person that I am aware of to ever 
stifle conversation on this list they didn't agree with with thier role as a 
manager.  Quite the track record.


--
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

s. keeling wrote:

Your solution is to knuckle under to the spammers, closing off the
lines of communication between Debian Users?


Closing off the lines of communication?  Uh, no.  That would be shutting 
down the list completely.


--
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

s. keeling wrote:

"Do one thing, but do it well."  That means MTA + MUA + procmail +
bogofilter + ..., not Thunderbird which does all/some of that
marginally and is designed for Windows users who can't be bothered to
learn The Unix Way.


Actually, as I have explained many times in the past the tried and true 
chain of email tools falls flat on it's face when it tries to do anything 
complex.  Like, say, received multiple email accounts through IMAP/POP and 
keep the entire exchange separate for every account without having the 
overhead of multiple email clients.


--
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0700
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Geez, you sound like a Lisp hater.

them's fightin' words pilgrim!


<\humor>

A


pgpSBa71V91r0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul E Condon]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:42PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Now is this 
> (i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, 
> (ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help, 
> (iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...",
> (iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered 3 times last week", 
> (v) noise as in not this argument again?
> 
> Personally I find the noise to be a big problem.  But I don't believe that 
> requiring subscription before posting will solve it.  (I concede that it 
> will help,) but I expect it would discourage the roughly the same 
> proportion of (ii), (iii) and (iv).  Each discouraged (iii) and (iv) is a 
> potentially a lost user.  

Each (ii), who is flamed, is also a potentially a lost user, lost even
before he is found.

A more general comment on the character of the list: 
 A great deal of concern has been expressed about hurt feelings of
some users, but it is also important to realize that _the_ resource
that makes this list worthwhile is the experienced and helpful
developers who give this list their continued attention. A change that
drives some of them away is not progress for anyone. (This relates to
type (v) noise.)

And another: 
 Making rational arguments is not enough to win an argument.  One must
also be aware of rational arguments in favor of the contrary view, and
be willing to address them rationally. IMHO, almost all proposers of
change are blind-sided by Debian's long and rich history.

-- 
Paul E Condon   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Kent West]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Kent West said:
 


I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the
list managers.
   



   "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!"  I used it to convey the
fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to
abuse the list to vector spam into the subscribers mailbox but choose
not to.  If that doesn't fall under abuse of the subscribers then what
does it fall under in your opinion?

 

I would categorize it as a "System Administration trade-off in an 
imperfect world, made more imperfect by spammers".


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> Kent West said:
> > I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the
> > list managers.
> 
> "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!"  I used it to convey the
> fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to
> abuse the list to vector spam into the subscribers mailbox but choose
> not to.  If that doesn't fall under abuse of the subscribers then what
> does it fall under in your opinion?

Your solution is to knuckle under to the spammers, closing off the
lines of communication between Debian Users?

Spam is like Windows viruses.  You can filter, firewall, proxy, and
still they'll get in by walking in off the street.

Shutting down legitimate lines of communication because some jerks use
them too is just plain dumb.


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[s. keeling]

Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> Tim Connors said:
> > That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across.
> 
> No, that was a way to get my frustration across since the limst managers

Your obvious frustration is the only reason why I'm bothering to enter
this mess.  No offence meant, but you're being an ass (again, which is
not to suggest you're _always_ being an ass :-).  Abusing the
VOLUNTEER HELP is not the way to win converts to your cause.

> > Steve: a suggestion.  Not everyone works exactly the same way as you.
> > Perhaps have some flexibility.  And perhaps even change the way *you*
> 
> Ah, yes, I should always change and never them.  H-.

Aren't you the one who's screaming that it doesn't work for you?!?  It
works fine for me.

> email was.  And procmail?  Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading

You don't like procmail.  Great.  That's no excuse for insulting it.
For some of us, it's a remarkable tool; one we'd rather abandon email
than do without.  There are alternatives to procmail if you're that
averse to it.

> MTA, and point out that it has filtering built into it.  Or Thunderbird,

Thunderbird has Bayes filtering ... and it's apparently too difficult
to use.  You said it!  You're forced to retrain its filters every time
it makes a mistake.

YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!

"Do one thing, but do it well."  That means MTA + MUA + procmail +
bogofilter + ..., not Thunderbird which does all/some of that
marginally and is designed for Windows users who can't be bothered to
learn The Unix Way.

> filtering.  I have no idea why people push others to procmail when it is
> obvious they don't need it.

You've proved *you do* in this thread.  What you're doing isn't working,
by your own admission.  *I* need procmail.  It's solved a thousand
problems for me.  It's allowed me to do a thousand other things I want
to do.  You don't like the syntax.  Geez, you sound like a Lisp hater.

> Bayesian filters; retraining; covered this already well before

http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)   http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Paul E Condon]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:42PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Now is this 
> (i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, 
> (ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help, 
> (iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...",
> (iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered 3 times last week", 
> (v) noise as in not this argument again?
> 
> Personally I find the noise to be a big problem.  But I don't believe that 
> requiring subscription before posting will solve it.  (I concede that it 
> will help,) but I expect it would discourage the roughly the same 
> proportion of (ii), (iii) and (iv).  Each discouraged (iii) and (iv) is a 
> potentially a lost user.  

Each (ii), who is flamed, is also a potentially a lost user, lost even
before he is found.

A more general comment on the character of the list: 
 A great deal of concern has been expressed about hurt feelings of
some users, but it is also important to realize that _the_ resource
that makes this list worthwhile is the experienced and helpful
developers who give this list their continued attention. A change that
drives some of them away is not progress for anyone. (This relates to
type (v) noise.)

And another: 
 Making rational arguments is not enough to win an argument.  One must
also be aware of rational arguments in favor of the contrary view, and
be willing to address them rationally. IMHO, almost all proposers of
change are blind-sided by Debian's long and rich history.

-- 
Paul E Condon   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Carl Fink]

Steve, how about you propose debian-susubscrbers-only which you
would moderate?
-- 
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your
   government when it deserves it."
  - Mark Twain


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Håkon Alstadheim]

Dave Sherohman wrote:


On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:03:03PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
 

However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could 
pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or 
nothing to be gained by that in the real world.


But that is one way I suppose.  I suppose one could write a procmail 
rule to bypass the SA run there, but again, to what real world effect?
   



One of Steve's major issues appears to be a concern that spam coming
from d-u could train his bayesian filters to establish a positive
correlation between d-u and spam, causing d-u to generate false
positives.

This does happen, but after a while firefox' filters will learn that 
this was a mistake. I find it much easier to get firefox' filters into 
shape by letting it just mark the messages it deletes, but still show 
them in the mailbox. That way it is easy to press "del" on the mail to 
undelete it, and then click the junk icon to mark it as non-spam. The 
red Xes also serve as a reminder to do a "compact folders".



 Ignoring SA's headers on d-u mail would do nothing to
prevent this (mis)training of the filters, which would be the reason
to bypass SA entirely for mail from the list.

 

SA or no, the filter will learn that some and only some of the mail from 
a specific sender is junk. At first it will tend to mark all list-mail 
as good, then it might swing over into marking all list-mail as bad, but 
after a while it does stabilize on basically ignoring the sender info if 
it is from a list.


I also have to say that debian-users is pretty low on junk-content 
compared to some other lists I frequent.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:58:32AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Debian is, bar none, the major source of undesired e-mail for me.

I just took a look through the debian-user archive for March at 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ and saw maybe half a dozen spam 
emails at most.  (I did not spend too much time looking though.)
Considering debian-user averages over 100 emails per day, this seems a 
commendably high signal-to-noise ratio.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Anand Kumria]

On 3/13/06, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Sherohman said:
> > You can attempt to convince the listmasters or the project as a whole
> > in public without abusing them.  (And it would be nice if they also
> > replied to you in a calm, levelheaded manner as well...)
>
> Have I not been calm after the initial exchange with Anand?  Of course
> that isn't a true test since he has been decidedly absent.

I've already said what I needed to say.

I've already pointed out how you, or anyone else,  can go about
changing things (refer to them the technical-committee or the project
leader).  Andrew Vaughan has even given you a concrete method to
achieve this change.

You can do that privately, or publically, if you wish (since you feel
it is easy too ignore people in private I suspect you'll opt for
publically).

It would be difficult proposition for a pleasant person and I expect
you'll have a tough time of it.

So your continued emails on this subject aren't interesting to me.

As others have pointed out, it was poor form of me to threathen to
unsubscribe you. So I have not done this.

I've been deliberately not responding in order to not fan this
(pointless) thread any longer.

Unfortunately the thread is (still) continuing - so I've now
instituted a 1 day delay for emails on this thread.  I'm the first to
(suffer) so you'll receive this directly (now) and tomorrow via
debian-user.

Anand

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Mike McCarty]

Andrew Vaughan wrote:
[snip]

Debian is, bar none, the major source of undesired e-mail for me.
By far the source is messages like

Hi, sexy guy! I'm hot and horney!
or
UOL SPAM CHALLENGE
or
Buy Viagra at reduced prices!
etc.

Now is this 
(i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, 


I guess I'd classify it as (i), though I'm not sure all of it
quite fits that.

[snip]

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Andrew Vaughan]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:09, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > You've been around long enough to know how things work.  You know the
> > project has a policy of open, non-moderated mailing lists.
>
> Yup.  And I've made it well known I think it is a pretty dumb policy
> for the reasons stated.
>
> > You also know
> > that to change that policy you need to convince either the
> > lists-masters or the project as a whole.  Abusing the lists-masters on
> > -user won't help.
>
> Yes, it does.  As I told Anand a person who approaches them in
> private has their voice squelched in private.  A person who brings it out
> in public and gets support from other people in public can start a
> snow-ball effect of even greater public support.
>
> It's real easy to ignore a single voice in private.  It's a lot
> harder to ignore many voices in a public forum.
>
Certainly feel free to have the discussion in public, but keep it calm and 
rational. 

Personal abuse of the listmasters won't help.  Ever.  If you can't discuss 
things in a calm and reasoned tone, then you will only alienate people, 
including potential supporters.  

> > Seriously, how much spam are you getting from debian-user?
>
> On a good day, about as equal to what makes it through my filters to
> my inbox.  On a bad day d-u is the major contributor to the spam that
> makes it through my filters.
>
Now is this 
(i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email, 
(ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help, 
(iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...",
(iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered 3 times last week", 
(v) noise as in not this argument again?

Personally I find the noise to be a big problem.  But I don't believe that 
requiring subscription before posting will solve it.  (I concede that it 
will help,) but I expect it would discourage the roughly the same 
proportion of (ii), (iii) and (iv).  Each discouraged (iii) and (iv) is a 
potentially a lost user.  

I don't believe subscription will help with (v) (short of unsubscribing the 
offenders of course). 

> > Personally I like the fact that people can post from accounts which
> > aren't subscribed.  It's very convenient to be able to add a cc to
> > another list to get an opinion on a issue from a specialised list.  It
> > makes it much easier to cope with debians 141 active lists[0].
>
> Granted.  So the question then becomes can there be a mechanism
> provided that would allow such posts without open lists?  For example
> allow linked posting rights based on subscription to *a* mailing list
> hosted at lists.debian.org if not the specific list being posted to?
>
That doesn't help with say, a GNU Classpath developer dealing with a bug 
which looks like its debian specific, and wanting to discuss it on 
debian-java.

If you really want to see the current policy changed, then present a 
constructive, rational argument to the lists-masters and/or -project.  eg. 
Gather statistics about how much spam gets through per day/week/month.  
Start a new thread titled eg. [VOTE] Should debian-user require 
subscription before posting.  

If you can gather enough (ie overwhelming) support, take the discussion to 
say -project, and try to convince the project as a whole.  Personally I 
don't like your chances.  -devel seems committed to open mailing lists.

Andrew


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Dave Sherohman said:
> You can attempt to convince the listmasters or the project as a whole
> in public without abusing them.  (And it would be nice if they also
> replied to you in a calm, levelheaded manner as well...)

Have I not been calm after the initial exchange with Anand?  Of course
that isn't a true test since he has been decidedly absent.

> If the public agrees, sure.  But it looks to me like this thread is
> pretty much just you against everyone else.  Others may have
> approached you in private to say they agree with you, but you don't
> seem to be getting much in the way of public support.

Pst, check the OP.  It isn't me.  I am a public supporter, not the
instigator.

> Your filters must be extremely good for general mail; my primary
> inbox gets far more spam in a day than my Debian mailbox receives
> (from debian-user and a couple other Debian lists) in a month.

The fact that the Debian headers pretty much skew the SA Bayes score
from a postitive to one of ambivolance is what makes 'em squeak by. 
That's why I run Thunderbird's Bayes after SA's chewed on 'em.  For some
reason a 50% to SA is a hit on TBird's database.

As for my main inbox, yeah, my filters are quite effective.  SA set to
default is pretty shoddy.  SA tuned to what SA scores your mail after a
week or two of following the logs can be quite effective.  If I recall
correctly, SA is shipped by Debian to mark and pass up to a score of 15.
 I 550 anything over 7.5 or so and mark and pass anything 5.0 and above.
 So the mail that hits my inbox have to fall below 5.0 on SA.  That
happens far more frequently here than any other list I am on.


-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Dave Sherohman]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:09:08PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > You also know
> > that to change that policy you need to convince either the lists-masters or
> > the project as a whole.  Abusing the lists-masters on -user won't help.
> 
> Yes, it does.  As I told Anand a person who approaches them in private
> has their voice squelched in private.

You can attempt to convince the listmasters or the project as a whole
in public without abusing them.  (And it would be nice if they also
replied to you in a calm, levelheaded manner as well...)

> A person who brings it out in
> public and gets support from other people in public can start a
> snow-ball effect of even greater public support.

If the public agrees, sure.  But it looks to me like this thread is
pretty much just you against everyone else.  Others may have
approached you in private to say they agree with you, but you don't
seem to be getting much in the way of public support.

> > Seriously, how much spam are you getting from debian-user?
> 
> On a good day, about as equal to what makes it through my filters to my
> inbox.  On a bad day d-u is the major contributor to the spam that makes
> it through my filters.

Your filters must be extremely good for general mail; my primary
inbox gets far more spam in a day than my Debian mailbox receives
(from debian-user and a couple other Debian lists) in a month.

-- 
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
  - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Dave Sherohman]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:03:03PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could 
> pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or 
> nothing to be gained by that in the real world.
> 
> But that is one way I suppose.  I suppose one could write a procmail 
> rule to bypass the SA run there, but again, to what real world effect?

One of Steve's major issues appears to be a concern that spam coming
from d-u could train his bayesian filters to establish a positive
correlation between d-u and spam, causing d-u to generate false
positives.  Ignoring SA's headers on d-u mail would do nothing to
prevent this (mis)training of the filters, which would be the reason
to bypass SA entirely for mail from the list.

-- 
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
  - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

> You've been around long enough to know how things work.  You know the
> project has a policy of open, non-moderated mailing lists.

Yup.  And I've made it well known I think it is a pretty dumb policy for
the reasons stated.

> You also know
> that to change that policy you need to convince either the lists-masters or
> the project as a whole.  Abusing the lists-masters on -user won't help.

Yes, it does.  As I told Anand a person who approaches them in private
has their voice squelched in private.  A person who brings it out in
public and gets support from other people in public can start a
snow-ball effect of even greater public support.

It's real easy to ignore a single voice in private.  It's a lot harder
to ignore many voices in a public forum.

> Seriously, how much spam are you getting from debian-user?

On a good day, about as equal to what makes it through my filters to my
inbox.  On a bad day d-u is the major contributor to the spam that makes
it through my filters.

> Personally I like the fact that people can post from accounts which aren't
> subscribed.  It's very convenient to be able to add a cc to another list to
> get an opinion on a issue from a specialised list.  It makes it much easier
> to cope with debians 141 active lists[0].

Granted.  So the question then becomes can there be a mechanism provided
that would allow such posts without open lists?  For example allow
linked posting rights based on subscription to *a* mailing list hosted
at lists.debian.org if not the specific list being posted to?

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Andrew Vaughan]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:10, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Kent West said:
> > I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the
> > list managers.
>
> "He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!"  I used it to convey
> the fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use
> to abuse the list to vector spam into the subscribers mailbox but choose
> not to.  If that doesn't fall under abuse of the subscribers then what
> does it fall under in your opinion?
>
> --
> Steve Lamb

Hi Steve

You've been around long enough to know how things work.  You know the 
project has a policy of open, non-moderated mailing lists.  You also know 
that to change that policy you need to convince either the lists-masters or 
the project as a whole.  Abusing the lists-masters on -user won't help.

Seriously, how much spam are you getting from debian-user?  My impression is 
that the lists.debian.org filters are pretty good.  I admit I don't 
normally read -user, but the other 7 debian- lists I read currently average 
less than 1 spam each per day. 

Personally I like the fact that people can post from accounts which aren't 
subscribed.  It's very convenient to be able to add a cc to another list to 
get an opinion on a issue from a specialised list.  It makes it much easier 
to cope with debians 141 active lists[0]. 

Andrew

[0] w3m -dump http://lists.debian.org/stats/ |cut -c60- |grep 2006-03 |wc -l


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Kent West said:
> I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the
> list managers.

"He doesn't abuse me, I needed to be punished!"  I used it to convey the
fact that they are fully capable of closing a hole that spammers use to
abuse the list to vector spam into the subscribers mailbox but choose
not to.  If that doesn't fall under abuse of the subscribers then what
does it fall under in your opinion?

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Kent West]

Steve Lamb wrote:


There are *TWO* parties
to that equation and the list managers are abusing the one who has
proven their interest and dedication by first off subscribing
 

I've been subscribed for several years, and have not felt abused by the 
list managers.


--
Kent



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Curt Howland]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

>On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote:
> Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> then wrote:
> Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name. 

This perfectly exemplifies why flame-wars happen. Rather than 
contribute by just saying "example.{com,org,net} 
are reserved domain names that would be best for this." which 
certainly adds content to the discussion, someone insults and attacks 
the person.

Curt-

- -- 
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central 
planning advocates in American history

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRBS1xi9Y35yItIgBAQJaRAf6A0SXtZH1zYx+ybfHljYYfjuDjaysd2WQ
p7Ov6GklDrS307Ux/kCbDo9YnuHKCpQZ102WbEZP2iN73CWJqzO3U28RmO1A1r9j
MHlJcoEqjPda/z+KKlUNWdSTTr3qBqnfo8CDlpwV1GiQ6TRFoZ09ASbrhrhP3FNx
lfvR1Bn+z0rfqxvql3VuKEvQlgAr5a0lpG6TTyTEnFkjxHfQ8WFv8QJ9vyJ0Lqem
i0QTu+rYbL04VdtESae/jag53WRnCvcwdBAQBwHq62pbLuVBkO7DuvrPPtFaYshD
gPEAGvVb+5h0aoeTekAKD0hgLjv9hWR1bdCu8NqJQtt9+fr/hUjKJA==
=xkFB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 18:46, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Tim Connors said:
>> I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email
>> with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all.
>
>This is both not desirable and not possible.
>
>While it is possible to skip my Spamassassin filters it is not
>desirable.  I could exclude d.o machines from the SA check but the
> point of that check is that incoming mail, regardless of source, is
> run through spam/virus checks.  This is to ensure that nothing gets
> in or out.  I do mean all mail.  I don't make exceptions for my
> network or even the local machine.  The fact that spam does make it
> through d.o's filters and onto gives credit to this strategy and is a
> point on why I say it is a vector.
>
>The second one is not possible.  Thunderbird's Bayesian scan is on
> for everything in the account or off for everything in the account. 
> So to turn it off for d-u would require turning it off for several
> other mailing lists as well as my inbox.
>
>Quite frankly this suggestion only points that there is indeed a
> problem here to solve.  If the answer to anyone is for them to lower
> their common sense defenses then something is majorly wrong.  It's
> akin to my ISP telling me to be able to help me I had to plug my
> Windows box directly into the network and remove any and all
> firewalls between it and the network.   Is there any person here who
> would willingly do that outside the most dire of circumstances?

Its solvable Steve, but at the expense of a considerable amount of wheel 
spinning in kmail, by haveing it do the pipe thru SA.  I am now doing 
the SA check in procmail for all incoming as that offloads a 
considerable amount of time from kmail giving it much more responsive a 
face.

However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could 
pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or 
nothing to be gained by that in the real world.

But that is one way I suppose.  I suppose one could write a procmail 
rule to bypass the SA run there, but again, to what real world effect?
 
>--
>Steve Lamb

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Tim Connors said:
> I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email
> with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all.

This is both not desirable and not possible.

While it is possible to skip my Spamassassin filters it is not
desirable.  I could exclude d.o machines from the SA check but the point
of that check is that incoming mail, regardless of source, is run
through spam/virus checks.  This is to ensure that nothing gets in or
out.  I do mean all mail.  I don't make exceptions for my network or
even the local machine.  The fact that spam does make it through d.o's
filters and onto gives credit to this strategy and is a point on why I
say it is a vector.

The second one is not possible.  Thunderbird's Bayesian scan is on for
everything in the account or off for everything in the account.  So to
turn it off for d-u would require turning it off for several other
mailing lists as well as my inbox.

Quite frankly this suggestion only points that there is indeed a problem
here to solve.  If the answer to anyone is for them to lower their
common sense defenses then something is majorly wrong.  It's akin to my
ISP telling me to be able to help me I had to plug my Windows box
directly into the network and remove any and all firewalls between it
and the network.   Is there any person here who would willingly do that
outside the most dire of circumstances?

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Tim Connors]

"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:56:25 -0800 (PST):
> Tim Connors said:
> > And I get 4 easily
> > detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers.
> > Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key
> > as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not very
> > much noticable pain.
> 
> From my side it does cause problems.  Spam gets through, people reply to
> it or the AOL junk and now I'm left with "ok, which is legit and which
> isn't?"  I could delete it but now I've also got to retrain 2 bayes DBs.
>  Spamassassin's and Thunderbird's.  Even worse is the spam that gets by
> d.o's spam filters, my SA setup and TBird's bayes filters.  I've gotta
> notice it and retrain that.  It is that last catagory which would be
> eliminated by the simple control of a subscription.
> 
> I agree, if you're just concerned with the black and white "delete or
> not" hey, not that big of a problem.  But with active efforts to poison
> bayesian filters going on a lot of people aren't finding it just that
> simple.

I think it would would work much easier for you to direct all email
with debian list headers to not go through your filters at all.  That
way your filters don't get poisoned.  Then you can go back to
delete-or-not?  The quantities of spam you get through the debian
lists is likely to be much much smaller than your regular spam, and if
it ends up in your list folder without being filtered, then it doens't
cause much of a problem there.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Andrei Popescu]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:24:10 -0600
"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?
> 
> It prevents private replies.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

It was suggested to put the real address (masked) in the sig. This does make 
private replies more difficult, but not impossible.

Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert 
Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Matthew R. Dempsky said:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?

> It prevents private replies.

As he described it, no, it doesn't prevent them.  It makes them
inconvenient and the replier may choose to not go through the
inconvenience of replying.  But that is fundimentally different than
outright preventing a response.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?

It prevents private replies.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Matthew R. Dempsky said:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:05:52AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> So, please, tell me exactly how a mailing list for (dozens of?
>> hundreds of?) thousands of people who relays postings from any any all
>> comers is fundimentally different than an open relay?

> No one forced you to subscribe to debian-user.

Ah, so the opinion of someone who has shown interest enough to subscribe
is inherently inferior to those who are not shown a similar level of
interest.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Chris Metzler said:
> However, the majority of times you're in disagreement with someone,
> out comes the "you're a clueless idiot" card.  Someone can disagree
> with you without being clueless or stupid.

No Chris, it doesn't come out all that often.  It comes out when people
are being just that.  The list is a vector for spam and unrelated posts
from uninterested parties.  That is a concrete, tangible fact that is
indisputable.  When a person ignores those facts they are being, in a
word, idiotic.  That is what the list maintainers have done.  They
ignore the facts and counter with their gut feelings, opinions and
suppositions.  None of which can be backed up with public facts.  None
of which override what the list experiences.  All of which can be
further countered with a different set of gut feelings, opinions and
suppositions.  Want an example?

Supposition: Closed list prevents people from asking questions.
Counter: Open lists allow spam and unrelated material through which
drives away people who would answer the questions being asked.

It's no good to have people asking questions if the people who are
willing to answer have given up in fruatration.  There are *TWO* parties
to that equation and the list managers are abusing the one who has
proven their interest and dedication by first off subscribing and
secondly participating to chase the intangible and unquantifiable mass
of people who cannot show enough interest to do the same.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Andrei Popescu]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:39:55 -0600
"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote:
> > Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name.  example.{com,org,net} 
> are reserved domain names that would be best for this.
> 
> Also, if you plan on doing this, set your Mail-Followup-To header 
> appropriately.
> 
> (Not that I encourage this ridiculous practice.)
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but why is it ridiculous?

Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert 
Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Tim Connors said:
> That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across.

No, that was a way to get my frustration across since the limst managers
pretty much never show themselves on this list, especially when
discussions on list policy and procedure crop up.

> Steve: a suggestion.  Not everyone works exactly the same way as you.
> Perhaps have some flexibility.  And perhaps even change the way *you*
> work if other people aren't going to change to suit you.

Ah, yes, I should always change and never them.  H-.

> If you
> haven't yet worked out how to implement a filter so debian mail
> doesn't end up in your inbox, go and investigate procmail.

Chances are I worked it out long before most people here even knew what
email was.  And procmail?  Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
as a filter.  Maybe you should investigate exim.  You know, the default
MTA, and point out that it has filtering built into it.  Or Thunderbird,
you know, the email client in my headers, and point out it has
filtering.  I have no idea why people push others to procmail when it is
obvious they don't need it.

> Small
> quantities of spam to the list then becomes a bit of a non-issue.

Bayesian filters; retraining; covered this already well before you posted.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Chris Metzler]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:06:28 +1100
Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> In fact, if the tone of further emails from you matches this one or
> you continue on this topic I'll forcibly assist you in the process.

I don't find Steve's tone particularly constructive either; but this
seems way out of line to me.  Being a listmaster, you certainly have
the power to do whatever you want; but rude, inappropriate insults,
off-topic flamebait, political ranting including explicit stereotyping,
etc., all go on here all the time.  Deploying the "banning" option
because this time, the target is you, seems pretty irresponsible.

-c

-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:05:52AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> So, please, tell me exactly how a mailing list for (dozens of?  
> hundreds of?) thousands of people who relays postings from any any all 
> comers is fundimentally different than an open relay? 

No one forced you to subscribe to debian-user.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Tim Connors]

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:25 -0800:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
> > It is because the listmasters, of which I am one,
> 
>  Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy.  Anand Kumria, clueless 
> list 
> manager.

That's a good way to get your bogus opinions across.

The other good thing about usenet, is it has nice easy to implement
killfiles.  Welcome.

Steve: a suggestion.  Not everyone works exactly the same way as you.
Perhaps have some flexibility.  And perhaps even change the way *you*
work if other people aren't going to change to suit you.  If you
haven't yet worked out how to implement a filter so debian mail
doesn't end up in your inbox, go and investigate procmail.  Small
quantities of spam to the list then becomes a bit of a non-issue.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Chris Metzler]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:54:25 -0800
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
>> It is because the listmasters, of which I am one,
> 
>  Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy.  Anand Kumria,
> clueless list manager.


The vast majority of the technical information you provide here is
spot-on.

However, the majority of times you're in disagreement with someone,
out comes the "you're a clueless idiot" card.  Someone can disagree
with you without being clueless or stupid.  Someone can even be wrong,
and you be right, without their being an idiot for so doing.  But
one would never guess those two things from the usual tone of your
posts here.

-c

-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Matthew R. Dempsky said:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Get out of your ivory tower and come join us in the bazaar.

> Says the man wanting a closed mailing list.

There is a difference between a bazaar and a cesspool.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Get out of your ivory tower and come join us in the bazaar.

Says the man wanting a closed mailing list.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Tim Connors said:
> And I get 4 easily
> detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers.
> Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key
> as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not very
> much noticable pain.

From my side it does cause problems.  Spam gets through, people reply to
it or the AOL junk and now I'm left with "ok, which is legit and which
isn't?"  I could delete it but now I've also got to retrain 2 bayes DBs.
 Spamassassin's and Thunderbird's.  Even worse is the spam that gets by
d.o's spam filters, my SA setup and TBird's bayes filters.  I've gotta
notice it and retrain that.  It is that last catagory which would be
eliminated by the simple control of a subscription.

I agree, if you're just concerned with the black and white "delete or
not" hey, not that big of a problem.  But with active efforts to poison
bayesian filters going on a lot of people aren't finding it just that
simple.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hans du Plooy]

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 11:36 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> I frequently get email or in-person requests for help from people who
> are having trouble with the instructions to either send a message with
> "subscribe" as the subject [snip]

Not to argue either sides of the argument, but someone who has
difficulty sending an e-mail with one word in the subject needs far more
basic help than what operating system mailing lists in general are meant
for.

Hans


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hal Vaughan]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 16:24, Tim Connors wrote:
> Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 
14:31:39 -0500:
> > In this case, there could be other solutions.  For example, where
> > do people get the list address?  If they find it on Debian web
> > pages, it would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to
> > allow submitting an e-mail without being a subscriber and the CGI
> > script could include a spam filter.  It would also be possible to
> > add to the mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from
> > non-subscribers. I know challenge-response tactics aren't always
> > popular, but something like that could be set up so a newbie can
> > ask a question without joining and crap is still filtered.  It
> > seems to me a
> > challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help
> > but does not want to subscribe.  Or a general spam filter could be
> > used so email from non subscribers is at least checked for valid
> > respond to addresses and other anomalies.
>
> That all sounds rather unnecessary.

Just huckleberrying.  As I said, don't bother to pick it apart, my point 
was that there were other ways to do it, not that this one way was what 
should be done.

> Why not just run a spam filter on the input to the list like so many
> other lists do?  Anything detected as spam goes to a (voluntary)
> moderator team to be approved/declined.  Open list, no challenge
> response each time the email address of the sender changes, and
> there's not *that* much spam for a moderator team to deal with.

If it works, fine with me.

> And all this discussion is strange anyway.  I just looked through the
> only debian list I subscribe to -- debian-laptop.  It ends up in a
> single folder in my mail -- anything that has a debian list header
> attached to it ends up there, so any spam addressed to debian-laptop,
> as opposed to me personally, goes through there.  And I get 4 easily
> detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers.
> Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key
> as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not
> very much noticable pain.

You're also using filters, and it works for many of us, but for a 
newbie, it might be a good while before they get to setting up filters.

Hal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Tim Connors]

Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:31:39 -0500:
> In this case, there could be other solutions.  For example, where do 
> people get the list address?  If they find it on Debian web pages, it 
> would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to allow 
> submitting an e-mail without being a subscriber and the CGI script 
> could include a spam filter.  It would also be possible to add to the 
> mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from non-subscribers.  
> I know challenge-response tactics aren't always popular, but something 
> like that could be set up so a newbie can ask a question without 
> joining and crap is still filtered.  It seems to me a 
> challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help but 
> does not want to subscribe.  Or a general spam filter could be used so 
> email from non subscribers is at least checked for valid respond to 
> addresses and other anomalies.  

That all sounds rather unnecessary.

Why not just run a spam filter on the input to the list like so many
other lists do?  Anything detected as spam goes to a (voluntary)
moderator team to be approved/declined.  Open list, no challenge
response each time the email address of the sender changes, and
there's not *that* much spam for a moderator team to deal with.

And all this discussion is strange anyway.  I just looked through the
only debian list I subscribe to -- debian-laptop.  It ends up in a
single folder in my mail -- anything that has a debian list header
attached to it ends up there, so any spam addressed to debian-laptop,
as opposed to me personally, goes through there.  And I get 4 easily
detected spam/erroneous subscribe messages in one page of headers.
Since I go through the list with basically my hand on the delete key
as I watch the subject lines scroll by anyway, that causes me not very
much noticable pain.

Are people getting their debian email ending up direct in their inbox
instead of filtering to other folders?  That's kindof silly, if so.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Matthew R. Dempsky]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:31:51PM -0500, Bob Robertson wrote:
> Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Don't be an ass by using an actual domain name.  example.{com,org,net} 
are reserved domain names that would be best for this.

Also, if you plan on doing this, set your Mail-Followup-To header 
appropriately.

(Not that I encourage this ridiculous practice.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Tim Connors]

Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:46:38 -0800:
> Michael Marsh wrote:
>  > Because subscribing to the list *is* a barrier, and
> > *will* prevent a good number of people from asking their questions.
> 
>  No, it isn't.  It's called being responsible.
> 
> > Open posting is *good*.  Yes, I get spam because of it,
> 
>  These two statements are contrary.  Open posting is *BAD*.
> 
>  > but most of that is caught by Gmail's spam filter.
> 
>  Irrelevant.  It makes the list a ready-made spam vector.  Unlike you I 
> get a good portion of my spam through the list.  What makes it so incidious 
> is 
> that I have to search out that spam so as not to poison my filters. 
> Considering I don't find it a woefully heavy burden to scan headers and 
> delete 
> subjects that aren't relevant to me (oh, the horror, about 5m a *day* on this 
> oh so busy list) It makes it harder on me and weakens my own defense against 
> spam.

Whereas, if I search for my email address on google, I find the single
most common occurence is on debian mail list archives held by various
private parties (there'll never be anything I can do about private
archives).  Spammers spiders come along, pick up my email address, and
this explains why I get so much more spam that everyone else from my
centre (so same form of email address, and we've had the address for
the same length of time).  When I found this out several years ago, I
investigated other methods of posting to debian lists.

Fortunately, I found that it was gatewayed to linux.debian.*.  Now, it
turns out that discussion groups work best on something that was
designed for discussion groups, so USENET is a great place to read
debian lists instead of email.  But furthermore, with the application
of a simple script, I can post using any address I want as the From
address.  Since I still want to get private responses, but don't want
to get endless spam to my address for everymore, I use the version I
display above: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  For a limited
time, emails to the address end up in my INBOX.  Thereafter, they end
up in my spam folder, but nicely colour coded, so when weeding
through, its a bit easier to find stuff that looks like it may not be
spam.

Now, try doing that when you have to subscribe to post.  My single
biggest issue with the debian mailing lists are the archives storing
my email address, and me not being able to set my own email address on
a temporary basis.  Now, the solution is not to stop everyone from
private mirroring (because you can't enforce this), nor is it to do
the braindead replacement you see in so many places such as google
 groups: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets replaced with [EMAIL PROTECTED], or 
 or
whatever, since that attacks useful items like X modelines.  It's
letting people post using an address that they may not necessarily be
able to actually read, and thereby not be able to answer the challenge
response subscription.  If I had to subscribe with a temporary address
each time my temporary address changed, then I wouldn't bother.  I'd
use it as an excuse to finally change from debian to openBSD.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[B.Hoffmann]

As long as we do not get posters to this list like on the Slackware group where one p'd off guy with a personal grudge flooded it with several hundred messages of utter nonsense for several days every day we should be alright... I hope.

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Bob Robertson]

There is a simple answer for those who wish to use an "open" forum and 
yet retain their anonymity.

Subscribe to the list (or to the digest) with your real email address.

Then *post* to the list with a fake address, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I find the "identity" field in Kmail to be perfect for this sort of 
thing.

A quick google search to make sure that you're not inadvertently using 
someone else's real email address would be a good idea. You could 
also put your real email address in the false identity's sig file, 
obfuscated from automated retrieval.

Since you get the list traffic sent to your real mailbox, and the list 
is "open", it doesn't matter what the return address is. The 
limitation is, of course, that your ISP allows you to send mail from 
a non-real email address, but such is life.

Bob-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Kent West]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Kent West said:
 


I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want
to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc.
   



   In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed
elsewhere in this thread?

 

Yeah, I think so. I haven't thought through it all, so I might change my 
mind, particularly if the webform is painful in some way (go away for 5 
minutes to take care of an issue and come back to find the text you've 
already typed is no longer submittable, or a very small entry window 
that can't be resized, etc).


A challenge-response would also be acceptable, provided I can specify 
what email to send the challenge to; wouldn't want the challenge to go 
to the customer's email from which I'm sending the post, etc.


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:18, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Kent West said:
>> I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just
>> want to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc.
>
>In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as
> proposed elsewhere in this thread?

I could go along with that if it were to work somewhat like 
pastebin.com.  I've found that to be pretty handy at times.  Take that 
idea, and add a mailing list address to send the post to.  Might be the 
best of both worlds.

>--
>Steve Lamb

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Katipo]

Carl Fink wrote:


On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:54:25AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
 


Anand Kumria wrote:
   


It is because the listmasters, of which I am one,
 

   Good, finally a name to go with this idiocy.  Anand Kumria, clueless 
   list manager.
   



Steve Lamb, abusive and unhelpful jackass.

I manage mailing lists myself.  Anand is right.  You're a jerk.

You can stop being a jerk whenever you want.
 


It's supposed to be an open community.
Answering posts from unsubscribed people is compatible with that, and 
condusive to their joining the community further down the track.

Their reason for not being subscribed may well be a temporary situation.
Turn them away, and it becomes permanent.
Regards,


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Kent West said:
> I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want
> to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc.

In those cases would you be willing to post via a webform as proposed
elsewhere in this thread?

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hal Vaughan]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:44, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Hal Vaughan said:
> > What concerns me is that Steve has some good points, but Anand is
> > too busy being right to listen.  (I have to admit, Steve has been
> > rather strong in voicing his complaints.)
>
> I admit I react poorly to certain behaviors.  I am sorry for that
> and do try to reign myself in.  Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I
> don't.

But the fact that you see an error and work to correct it is good.  You 
have a good point here, and it is important that the point you are 
making is not overshadowed by anything else.  Just as with Anand's 
responses.  What he says would stand better on its own if it were not 
attached to comments like threats to unsubscribe you and, "If you don't 
like it, leave."  My understanding is that Debian, as a project, is 
somewhat of a democracy.  Anyone who understands a democracy knows that 
one of its strengths is that those who disagree with how it is run need 
to have a voice because that dissent forces those in power to listen 
and, in doing so, create a stronger solution other than just one that 
pleases most of the people.  That a list manager can threaten to 
unsubscribe a person and say, "If you don't like it, you can leave," 
disturbs me.  It is antithetical to what I understand Debian is 
supposed to be.  I hope he is merely having a really bad day.

...
> > It would also be possible to add to the
> > mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from
> > non-subscribers. I know challenge-response tactics aren't always
> > popular, but something like that could be set up so a newbie can
> > ask a question without joining and crap is still filtered.
>
> I don't think C-R is as shunned when it comes to web forms. 
> Besides one could do the common practice of "enter this code" with a
> graphic next to it which is designed to prevent machine-reading for
> automatic posting. Most web forums do this.  Furthermore one could
> also make such CGI posts include a boilerplate request at the end,
> "This request came from the d.o help CGI, please CC the author to
> ensure they will recieve a copy of your response."

That's a good point.  I don't know if C-R is needed for a web form, but 
could (and imho should) be implemented for any emails to the list that 
aren't from regular subscribers.

> > It seems to me a
> > challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help
> > but does not want to subscribe.
>
> Don't we have C-R on this list now in the form of the
> confirmation letter for subscription?  Been years since I've gone
> through the process so I might be misremembering.

For subscription, I think there is.  But it would seem a small price to 
pay to get help for those who don't want to subscribe.  Especially if 
the text was worded politely to make it clear it is protecting 
thousands of people from extra spam and yada yada yada

Hal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Kent West]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Kent West said:
 


issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag washer repair
issues, and have come upon the "To submit your question, you must
register first."
   



   But we're not talking registration.  We're talking subscription. 
Registration to me means filling out a form with your name, your

address, your birthday, your email address, you phone number(s),
unchecking the politely worded options to spam your email address and so
on.  Subscription is "here's my email address so I can receive the
replies to my inquery".


Yeah, but . . . .

I'm still not sure I'd want to "subscribe" either. Sometimes I just want 
to email a correction or comment, and don't need a reply, etc.


Granted, "subscription" is a lot less intrusive/painful than 
"registration", as you define the terms, but I still like the idea of 
open posting.


Just my opinion though (which has been shown on several occasions to be 
worthless).


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Hal Vaughan said:
> What concerns me is that Steve has some good points, but Anand is too
> busy being right to listen.  (I have to admit, Steve has been rather
> strong in voicing his complaints.)

I admit I react poorly to certain behaviors.  I am sorry for that and do
try to reign myself in.  Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't.

> In this case, there could be other solutions.  For example, where do
> people get the list address?  If they find it on Debian web pages, it
> would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to allow
> submitting an e-mail without being a subscriber and the CGI script
> could include a spam filter.

I thought about that as well; hadn't gotten around to posting but glad
to see others are looking at tackling the problems brought up in
response to restricting list posting.

> It would also be possible to add to the
> mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from non-subscribers.
> I know challenge-response tactics aren't always popular, but something
> like that could be set up so a newbie can ask a question without
> joining and crap is still filtered.

I don't think C-R is as shunned when it comes to web forms.  Besides one
could do the common practice of "enter this code" with a graphic next to
it which is designed to prevent machine-reading for automatic posting. 
Most web forums do this.  Furthermore one could also make such CGI posts
include a boilerplate request at the end, "This request came from the
d.o help CGI, please CC the author to ensure they will recieve a copy of
your response."

> It seems to me a
> challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help but
> does not want to subscribe.

Don't we have C-R on this list now in the form of the confirmation
letter for subscription?  Been years since I've gone through the process
so I might be misremembering.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Hal Vaughan]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 14:15, Kent West wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> >Anand Kumria said:
> Open posting is *good*.  Yes, I get spam because of it,
>
> Just from the viewpoint of an average Joe, who has no experience
> running email lists, I DESPISE, HATE, DETEST having to subscribe to a
> list just to ask a quick question. Many times I've looked for answers
> to various issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag
> washer repair issues, and have come upon the "To submit your
> question, you must register first."
>
> Arghghghgh!!! NO! NO NO NO!! I DO NOT WANT TO REGISTER!! JUST LET ME
> ASK MY QUESTION AND GET ON WITH LIFE!!
>
> (Apologies for the screaming.)
>
> Steve, you may have very good points, and your logic may be flawless.
> But I hate having to register to post on an email list. As far as I'm
> concerned, Debian-User does it right. "Open posting is [indeed]
> *good*."

What concerns me is that Steve has some good points, but Anand is too 
busy being right to listen.  (I have to admit, Steve has been rather 
strong in voicing his complaints.)  There is room here for compromise 
that could help both the newbies AND those of us on the list, yet 
everyone is too busy saying, "I'm right, you're wrong," to listen and 
Anand's threats to unsubscribe Steve do not reflect well on Anand.

So which is more important?  For Anand or Steve to be right, or to 
realize that there are points of the current system that help newbies, 
but there are also points that hurt those on the list.

Maybe for some, the GMail filter works well and clears out spam.  I use 
SpamAssassin, and I have to go through my spam folder and check each 
message because I do get false hits on e-mails that are sometimes quite 
important.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.  I don't know how much of my 
spam comes from Debian (I do know the e-mails from PetSupermarket do!), 
but it seems to be that the current attitude is, "This is how we do it, 
it's how we've decided to do it, and if you don't like it, you can 
leave."  Is it just me, or is that childish and exclusionary of any 
possibilities for improvement?  It reminds me of the Father who won't 
buy his kids a new computer because a calculator was good enough for 
him.  It is also, from what I've seen, a major failing of parts of 
Debian: those in charge are too busy declaring themselves right to 
realize there is legitimate criticism that they don't want to hear.

In this case, there could be other solutions.  For example, where do 
people get the list address?  If they find it on Debian web pages, it 
would be possible to set up a form with a CGI script to allow 
submitting an e-mail without being a subscriber and the CGI script 
could include a spam filter.  It would also be possible to add to the 
mail list manager a routine that detects e-mail from non-subscribers.  
I know challenge-response tactics aren't always popular, but something 
like that could be set up so a newbie can ask a question without 
joining and crap is still filtered.  It seems to me a 
challenge-response request is a fair price to pay if one wants help but 
does not want to subscribe.  Or a general spam filter could be used so 
email from non subscribers is at least checked for valid respond to 
addresses and other anomalies.  

Now, before anyone starts saying, "That won't work because ", 
remember, I'm only pointing out ideas.  I'm not claiming I have the 
solution.  I am claiming that what I see, all too often here, is people 
in charge that are sure they are right or who don't want to take the 
time to dig into an issue (as in a bug with aptitude and grub that I 
brought up a while back where the responder was more interested in 
closing the bug than in resolving the issue).  They'd rather close the 
discussion than accept that there may be a valid point that needs 
examination.

After having watched several exchanges, I feel that is happening here.

Hal


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Kent West said:
> issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag washer repair
> issues, and have come upon the "To submit your question, you must
> register first."

But we're not talking registration.  We're talking subscription. 
Registration to me means filling out a form with your name, your
address, your birthday, your email address, you phone number(s),
unchecking the politely worded options to spam your email address and so
on.  Subscription is "here's my email address so I can receive the
replies to my inquery".

Remember, in spite of Anand's poor example of rules breaking the default
preferred behavior as expressed on lists.debian.org's FAQ of Debian-User
is to not CC the poster.  So if they don't subscribe and are unaware of
that rule they might wait a very long time for a response.

Yes, of course, they can check the archives or the newsgroups which are
gatewayed but by and large the "send in email, get response in email"
method will not work without subscription.

If they were demanding registration as above like many commercial
entities do I would be right there with you.  Trust me, I detest it as
well.  But that's not the case when it comes to mailing lists.

What they should be doing is instead of leatting the lists privates flap
in the breeze look at enacting this simple, common-sense and often
called for control and then look to resolve the problems that people
come up with.

For example I said that subscription is a simple click on a web form. 
Since I hadn't done it in years I really didn't know and decided to
review the process.  I was wrong.  From www.debian.org there is a link
to "mailing lists" under support.  So far, so good.  But that link takes
the user to a page which describes the mailing lists.  It has embedded
links which don't really stand out.  But it does say "to subscribe" with
subscribe being a link.  So I click on that and am directed to
lists.debian.org's main page.  Not the subscription page.  The main
page.  On the main page is a subscription link.  Click it and you get a
page describing the process and somewhere in that mess is another
embedded link to the web form to subscribe to mailing lists.  Click that
and you have a HUUUGE list of all the Debian mailing lists with
checkboxes and a subscribe button presumably somewhere on the page (I
honestly didn't ask).

So for a web subscription from the main page takes 4 clicks just to get
to the web form then a daunting task of finding the help list (ain't on
top) check it and the button.  After that presumably there is more
steps.

We have the list mantainers saying that the list subscribers have to put
up with the junk that gets through because signing up is too hard.  Yet
have any of them really thought about making subscribing any easier than
the above?  Somehow I doubt it given the holier-than-thou attitude the
list maintainers project any time they feel we're worthy to read them
pontificate on their trials and tribulations.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Anand Kumria said:
> You can see who all the listmasters are at
> .

What, not on lists.debian.org?  One would think that such information
would be coupled with the list site as well as the general site.

> You are also free to appeal to Debian technical-committee or the
> Debian Project Leader if you aren't happy with a decision made by the
> listmasters.

Why?  As you have stated previously "nothing will change".  Furthermore
by going directly to those individuals it does not bring the issue out
publicly.  It is far easier to deny a single voice in private than
dozens of voices in public.  It is far harder for people who have a
similar opinion to find one another when they can only act in private so
it is in turn harder for those voices to come together in the first
place.

Get out of your ivory tower and come join us in the bazaar.

> [snip - ancedotes from someone who thinks the number of lists and
> number of subscribers he is responsible for is substainially larger
> than any debian-* list.]

I never said that the lists I ran were larger.  I just pointed out that
you're not the sole practicioner of list management; that you are not
unique and special in your perspective as such.

> That's okay Steve. Feel free not to buy it. However, I don't
> appreciate your tone.

Nor I yours.

> This is list is supposed to be helpful and constructive. I've outlined
> the reasons that the listmasters have taken the stance that is
> currently in place.

Many of which I do not consider valid.

> In fact, if the tone of further emails from you matches this one or
> you continue on this topic I'll forcibly assist you in the process.

Congratulations.  You're the first list manager on this list I have in a
decade or so of subscribing to it threatened anyone with such an action.
 I've seen many cries from people to unsubscribe people who bring their
political cross to bear here on the list for weeks on end fall on the
deaf ears of the list mantainers.  I've seen personal attacks run their
natural course over days without a blink from the list managers.  But
someone calls one of them to task about their irresponsible actions and
all of a sudden that individual is threatened with removal.

The irony is exactly what good will it do?  It isn't like being removed
from the list will prevent me from posting to the list.  That is of
course you really meant to say that you were going to remove me from the
list and further enact filters to prevent me from posting in the future.

Quite frankly, Anand, if your reaction to some criticism is to abuse the
power you hold you only have shown that you are unquialified to manage
any list at all.  People who are in it for the power trip are in it for
the wrong reason.

-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Kent West]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Anand Kumria said:
 


Open posting is *good*.  Yes, I get spam because of it,
   

Just from the viewpoint of an average Joe, who has no experience running 
email lists, I DESPISE, HATE, DETEST having to subscribe to a list just 
to ask a quick question. Many times I've looked for answers to various 
issues, ranging from Debian issues to Windows to Maytag washer repair 
issues, and have come upon the "To submit your question, you must 
register first."


Arghghghgh!!! NO! NO NO NO!! I DO NOT WANT TO REGISTER!! JUST LET ME ASK 
MY QUESTION AND GET ON WITH LIFE!!


(Apologies for the screaming.)

Steve, you may have very good points, and your logic may be flawless. 
But I hate having to register to post on an email list. As far as I'm 
concerned, Debian-User does it right. "Open posting is [indeed] *good*."


--
Kent


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...

[Steve Lamb]

Michael Marsh said:
> I have an email address.  I make it available online so that people
> who need to contact me can.  This is good.  However, it means that I
> also get spam.

> If you find that contradictory, then why do you (a) have an email
> address, and (b) send email to a list that archives your messages
> along with that address?

I don't because the conrary.  Why?  Because *you* are responsible to
ensure the mechanism you use for mailing aren't subject to abuse.  Do we
ostricize the spammers who utilize the open relays or the operators of
the open relays?  Do we ostricize the clueless people who run open
systems rife with zombies and viruses or the people who zombied those
boxes or wrote the viruses?

In the above examples we ostricize both; often to the point of excessive
collateral damage.  So, please, tell me exactly how a mailing list for
(dozens of?  hundreds of?) thousands of people who relays postings from
any any all comers is fundimentally different than an open relay?  No, I
am not ignorant of d.o's spam filtering.  But let's be honest, if an
open relay did spam filtering we would still consider it an open relay. 
Just as we considered whole blocks of dynamic IPs open spam/virus
vectors even though the individual operators may employ their own
spam/virus scanners and firewalls.

So do I see a contridiction?  No.  Because I own up to my own
responsibility to ensure my mail clients, my mail machine, my firewall,
the machines behind the firewall are not used to abuse others on the
net.  It is that responsibility that a mailing list manager has to a far
greater degree for he or she is personally responsible for a vector into
mutiple other mailboxes.

> Openness invites idiots and jerks.  Public discourse
> is full of examples of this.  We don't choke off public discourse to
> deny the obnoxious their ability to speak.

Don't be so sure about that, Michael.  For the first time in a decade or
so on this list, through political arguments, personal attacks and
multitude of other clearly non-Debian related material I have never once
seen anyone threatened with unsubscription.  Yet in this very thread, 2
messages below yours, I had been threatened with just that because I
have the audacity to be publicly critical of the irresponsible actions
of the list managers.

So do watch and see if public discourse is choked off.


-- 
Steve Lamb


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]