Re: Mailing list policy
Hello: Well, it was yet another burst of suggestions. But, what was the problem? And, whose problem? Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >> When you are the maintainer of a list > That assumes that someone is the maintainer of the IETF mailing list. > At this moment, that is not the case. You are asking that an > additional task be put on one of the IETF Secretariat folks. That's > a reasonable request (and one that I would second), but it is not > based in current reality. Well, then it is about time that a system/ organization with an annual turnaround of millions of dollars has (a) mailing list maintainer(s). But, to whom do the IETFS folks reporting anyway? To the IESG? CNRI? IAB? ISOC? Or, directly to the goddess of confusion herself? Robert Elz wrote: > A supposed technological fix to a non-technological problem that just > made things worse, not better. Why? I agree with what ned.freed wrote: > In general, I agree with this assessment. But that doesn't mean that > some point fixes don't help in some cases. -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org Tarlumobi di hamu Raja ni Hula-Hula dohot Tulang nami,bah!
RE: Mailing list policy
Perhaps you might consider this issue from another angle. When you consider
the number of person-hours spent dealing with SPAM, you could see that,
cumulatively, there are many hours wasted on unsolicited and undesired
emails. And, while each instance may be a matter of seconds or minutes, over
a year's time, SPAM from all sources constitutes a significant waste of
people's time and, thus, the SPAMer is a thief. It is a social problem but
it can be resolved with a technical solution.
Don't make me come over there, Scott.. :-)
"Hey, what do we need this IP stuff for? We got 300 character/second
teletype. Who's ever going to need more than that?..." - Sparky, the
30 year two-wire man.
-Original Message-
From: Willis, Scott L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Mailing list policy
Which is the lesser of the two evils:
* Receiving an occasional SPAM Message
* Being Bombarded continually with complaints about SPAM Messages
The request has been issued to stop spamming on this
address. Why don't we return to normal IETF business at hand and just let
this issue pass. I'm sure there are others out there who is as fatigued as I
am about this moot point.
Have a nice day
-Original Message-
From: John Stracke
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Mailing list policy
Kevin Farley wrote:
> --- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Today, if you want to
> > spam all of
> > them, you have to subscribe to all of
them, which is impractical.
(I spoke sloppily, by the way. For "today",
read "with separate filters
on every list".)
> Impractical, but through software, not
impossible. Could readily be
> automated.
If that's so, then subscriber filters won't
work; as soon as it becomes
profitable to do so, the spamware vendors
will include automated
subscription features.
--
/===\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My
opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist
|==|
|eCal Corp. |Whose cruel idea was it
for the word "lisp" to|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|have an "S" in it?
|
\===/
Re: Mailing list policy
--- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Farley wrote: > > > --- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Today, if you want to > > > spam all of > > > them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. > > (I spoke sloppily, by the way. For "today", read "with separate > filters > on every list".) > > > Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be > > automated. > > If that's so, then subscriber filters won't work; as soon as it > becomes > profitable to do so, the spamware vendors will include automated > subscription features. > Exactly. Someone will realize how to make a profit of both sides of the issue. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
RE: Mailing list policy
Which is the lesser of the two evils: * Receiving an occasional SPAM Message * Being Bombarded continually with complaints about SPAM Messages The request has been issued to stop spamming on this address. Why don't we return to normal IETF business at hand and just let this issue pass. I'm sure there are others out there who is as fatigued as I am about this moot point. Have a nice day -Original Message- From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mailing list policy Kevin Farley wrote: > --- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Today, if you want to > > spam all of > > them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. (I spoke sloppily, by the way. For "today", read "with separate filters on every list".) > Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be > automated. If that's so, then subscriber filters won't work; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, the spamware vendors will include automated subscription features. -- /===\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |==| |eCal Corp. |Whose cruel idea was it for the word "lisp" to| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|have an "S" in it? | \===/
Re: Mailing list policy
Kevin Farley wrote: > --- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Today, if you want to > > spam all of > > them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. (I spoke sloppily, by the way. For "today", read "with separate filters on every list".) > Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be > automated. If that's so, then subscriber filters won't work; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, the spamware vendors will include automated subscription features. -- /===\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |==| |eCal Corp. |Whose cruel idea was it for the word "lisp" to| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|have an "S" in it?| \===/
Re: Mailing list policy
Speaking as an IETF WG co-chair, I know the PILC list has gotten spammed by people who also hit every other IETF WG list I was subscribed to. Whether automated or not, it's not as impractical to spam IETF lists as I wish it was. The special thrill I get is when some bonehead does this two weeks before an IETF meeting, of course. Why isn't RUN standing-room-only? Spencer - Original Message - From: "Kevin Farley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Mailing list policy > > --- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > This "list of lists", alas, would become a spammer/head-hunter > > target if > > > made too easily accessible, but we already have that problem. > > > > In addition, it would mean that anybody subscribed to one IETF list > > could spam all > > of them, which would weaken the protection. Today, if you want to > > spam all of > > them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. > > > > Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be > automated
Re: Mailing list policy
--- John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Richardson wrote: > > > This "list of lists", alas, would become a spammer/head-hunter > target if > > made too easily accessible, but we already have that problem. > > In addition, it would mean that anybody subscribed to one IETF list > could spam all > of them, which would weaken the protection. Today, if you want to > spam all of > them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. > Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be automated. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Mailing list policy
Michael Richardson wrote: > This "list of lists", alas, would become a spammer/head-hunter target if > made too easily accessible, but we already have that problem. In addition, it would mean that anybody subscribed to one IETF list could spam all of them, which would weaken the protection. Today, if you want to spam all of them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. -- /==\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=| |eCal Corp. |"Baldric, how did you manage to find a turnip| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|that cost 400,000 pounds?" "Well, I had to | ||haggle." --Blackadder III| \==/
Re: Mailing list policy
> "Lloyd" == Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lloyd> That assumption crops up a lot.
Lloyd> In the IETF, there's often reason to cross-post to WG lists that you
Lloyd> aren't subscribed to, when discussion veers that way. The IESG
Lloyd> does that a lot, and 'subscriber only' policies will hold up IESG
Lloyd> business as a result.
Yes, and if one does:
foreach ietfwgmailhost {
cd ~mailprogram/lists
cat | sort -u >>ietf-nomail
}
and take ietf-nomail as the "subscription list", then things work really
well. The list of people on all of the various WG lists may be 10,000
entries, but it is relatively well known. I run 50+ lists this way, and it
works very well.
See 3.13 of the majordomo FAQ.
This "list of lists", alas, would become a spammer/head-hunter target if
made too easily accessible, but we already have that problem. I would
certainly like to have this on ietf-censored :-)
Lloyd> Quite a few IETFers have more than one email address.
Yes.
Canadian Commuter Challenge Project -- GNU Potato Caboose
Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for help, email or page at 1-866-231-8608
Re: Mailing list policy
Hi - > Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:18:52 +0100 (BST) > From: Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Andy Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Mailing list policy > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... > On 20 May 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote: ... > > Which is why Majordomo lets you have a seperate list of addresses that > > can post but don't get the mail. Works beautifully. > > and it's something I've yet to see described in a list welcome > message. ... It's mentioned in the welcome messages for the disman and agentx working group mailing lists. It works well, as far as I can tell. I wish more mailing lists supported it. --- Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: +1 408 546-1006 BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 Fax: +1 408 965-0359 2141 North First Street http://www.bmc.com/ San José, California 95131 USA --- My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ---
Re: Mailing list policy
At 4:54 PM -0400 5/20/01, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >When you are the maintainer of a list That assumes that someone is the maintainer of the IETF mailing list. At this moment, that is not the case. You are asking that an additional task be put on one of the IETF Secretariat folks. That's a reasonable request (and one that I would second), but it is not based in current reality. > > Quite a few IETFers have more than one email address. > >Which is why Majordomo lets you have a seperate list of addresses that >can post but don't get the mail. Works beautifully. No, it works clumsily. It requires that someone who wants to post from a different address than the one they are subscribed to must somehow register the alternate address with the list maintainer. Or that the list maintainer must write custom software that enhances the list of allowed-to-post addresses with guesses like "if there is a subscription for [EMAIL PROTECTED], also allow [EMAIL PROTECTED]; if there is a subscription for [EMAIL PROTECTED], also allow [EMAIL PROTECTED]". But that will still miss people who are subscribed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but posting from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (And, yes, I've written such code for the lists IMC and VPNC runs; it is available on request.) --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Mailing list policy
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > a substantial subset of the readers of the ietf list subscribe to the > list via some other means - whether ietf-censored or some other sub-list > or a web archive. so a list of subscribers to the main ietf list doesn't > make a very good filter. Moreover, the response I received to my complaint about one of the recent incidents could be read as saying the perpetrator is (or was) a subscriber. (The response from what seemed to be someone at the offending ISP was even less clear than the spam.) > personally, I like the ietf-censored filtering model - > both because it doesn't place much burden on the secretariat and also > because it doesn't invite accusations of censorship toward IETF. That's a good point, which might otherwise stated as saying the problem is already almost solved for those who want the list filtered. All that might be missing are: - a note in the IETF subscription welcoming message for new subscribers such as the person who restarted this thread this time directing them to the ietf-censored list if they want to censoring. - perhaps (or not) some spam body filtering on the input to the ietf-censored such as the Distribute Checksum Clearinghouse (DCC). There would be no spam problem if people would not just hit delete or whine about spam where complaining is merely more noise (e.g. here) and instead religiously complain about every unsolicited bulk message to its responsible service provider, including going upstream as far as necessary, and if you find to an unresponsive tier 1, filtering all of its port 25 output. However, at this late date, it's clear that's not going to happen. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing list policy
Perry, a substantial subset of the readers of the ietf list subscribe to the list via some other means - whether ietf-censored or some other sub-list or a web archive. so a list of subscribers to the main ietf list doesn't make a very good filter. personally, I like the ietf-censored filtering model - both because it doesn't place much burden on the secretariat and also because it doesn't invite accusations of censorship toward IETF. Keith
Re: Mailing list policy
Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In the IETF, there's often reason to cross-post to WG lists that you > aren't subscribed to, when discussion veers that way. The IESG > does that a lot, and 'subscriber only' policies will hold up IESG > business as a result. When you are the maintainer of a list, you can approve postings that get held up because of non-subscriber origins. I do this routinely. Works just fine. If need be, we can just have as policy that the IESG and several other key addresses are always on the "auto-approve" list. Majordomo and other packages make it easy to do that. > If spam in general bothers you, install some mail filters to protect > your sensitive eyes. It is easiest to filter spam through mechanisms like non-subscriber blocks and such. Trying to filter it when it gets to your mailbox is much harder. > > > but will stop the bulk of the spammers. > > > > I've run a lot of lists that way, including some IETF mailing lists, > > and it has worked out fine. It stops most spam but does not > > inconvenience most subscribers. > > Quite a few IETFers have more than one email address. Which is why Majordomo lets you have a seperate list of addresses that can post but don't get the mail. Works beautifully. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Quality NetBSD CDs, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
Re: Mailing list policy
> This won't stop legitimate posts as there is no reason to > post to the ietf list unless you are subscribed to it where did you get that idea?
Re: Mailing list policy
Andy Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There appears to be a lot of spam on this list at the moment. Most of it > appears to be coming from addresses which probably are not subscribed to the > list. > > If the list posting policy is 'open' can it be changed to 'subscribed > addresses' only? This won't stop legitimate posts as there is no reason to > post to the ietf list unless you are subscribed to it, but will stop > the bulk of the spammers. I've run a lot of lists that way, including some IETF mailing lists, and it has worked out fine. It stops most spam but does not inconvenience most subscribers. Perry
Mailing list policy
There appears to be a lot of spam on this list at the moment. Most of it appears to be coming from addresses which probably are not subscribed to the list. If the list posting policy is 'open' can it be changed to 'subscribed addresses' only? This won't stop legitimate posts as there is no reason to post to the ietf list unless you are subscribed to it, but will stop the bulk of the spammers. I am suffering the same problem with the Linux Beer Hike mailing list and am about to make the same change, it was fine for the last couple of years up to about 2 months ago when the spambots got hold of the address. Andy
