RE: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Maybe they're better suited to one of the other lists such as spam-l? Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.ie/ http://blog.blacknight.ie/ Tel. 1850 927 280 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 UK: 0870 163 0607 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 59 9164239
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: Maybe they're better suited to one of the other lists such as spam-l? May I suggest news.admin.net-abuse.email -- Andreas
Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Steve Thomas wrote: Once again, Perkel clutters the SpamAssassin list with a non-SpamAssassin discussion. One which, IIRC, he's just rehashing from a year or so ago (are we going to see a rehash of the the future of email storage is sql thread, too?). There are FAR more appropriate forums for these non-SA related things. Is anyone else getting tired of this? Forty eight messages on the SA list today that have nothing to do with SA. What's the point of having a topical mailing list if nobody cares that the discussion is off-topic? St- Make that 2 of us. I for one would like to filter out all mails/threads originated by perkel (yeah which would include this mail as well).. i too am tired of him trying to discuss things that don't belong to SA. - dhawal
Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Steve Thomas wrote: Once again, Perkel clutters the SpamAssassin list with a non-SpamAssassin discussion. ...Is anyone else getting tired of this? ...have nothing to do with SA. What's the point of having a topical mailing list if nobody cares that the discussion is off-topic? Dhawal wrote: Make that 2 of us. I for one would like to filter out all mails/threads originated by perkel (yeah which would include this mail as well).. I couldn't disagree with these two people more. It is just these types of discussions which led to things like SURBL and fuzzyOCR... and yet we get so many OTHER repetitive discussions about thinks like **basic** SA setup, rules update procedures, etc... therefore, this stuff complained about is a fairly small percentage of the whole (maybe not for today, but overall it is). Marc Perkel is a bit eccentric and he and I are about as polar opposite in our political and world-views as two people can get... but I think he has some great ideas about spam filtering and I like the way that he thinks outside the box. Rob McEwen PowerView Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 12:29:26 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: It is just these types of discussions which led to things like SURBL and fuzzyOCR. In the interests of preserving some history, SURBLs were not created as a result of discussions here. We created SURBLs concurrently with Eric Kolve writing his SA plugin SpamCopURI to use them. Then we persuaded the SpamAssassin developers to look into supporting SURBLs directly, which they apparently did by modifying the uridnsbl command into urirhsbl. Some of the messages are at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200410.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
RE: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Jeff, I think you somewhat misinterpreted what I said. But I understand how I one might mistakenly get the impression that I was saying that discussions on the SA list led to SURBL so I understand your need to clear that potential misunderstanding up... but, to be clear, I stated: things **like** SURBL (emphasis added... and that word like dramatically changes the meaning of that sentence) But, in all fairness, in a search of the SA list archives, I spotted literally hundreds of SA list posts with SURBL in the subject line. I seem to recall much wisdom, some really good questions, and a few heads ups in some of those threads... stuff which I believe helped SURBL... and I think SURBL would have suffered had someone, early on, said, keep this off the SA list since it is off-topic... which further backs up my original point. Rob McEwen -Original Message- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:49 AM To: Rob McEwen Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan) On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 12:29:26 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: It is just these types of discussions which led to things like SURBL and fuzzyOCR. In the interests of preserving some history, SURBLs were not created as a result of discussions here. We created SURBLs concurrently with Eric Kolve writing his SA plugin SpamCopURI to use them. Then we persuaded the SpamAssassin developers to look into supporting SURBLs directly, which they apparently did by modifying the uridnsbl command into urirhsbl. Some of the messages are at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200410.mbox/%3C1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Jeff Chan wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 12:29:26 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: It is just these types of discussions which led to things like SURBL and fuzzyOCR. In the interests of preserving some history, SURBLs were not created as a result of discussions here. We created SURBLs concurrently with Eric Kolve writing his SA plugin SpamCopURI to use them. Then we persuaded the SpamAssassin developers to look into supporting SURBLs directly, which they apparently did by modifying the uridnsbl command into urirhsbl. Some of the messages are at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200410.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff C. Also from my limited memory, a fuzzyocr like implementation existed on antispan.imp.ch long before it was discussed on the sa-users list. Someone can correct me if this is incorrect information. - dhawal
RE: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Dhawal said: Also from my limited memory, a fuzzyocr like implementation existed on antispan.imp.ch long before it was discussed on the sa-users list. Someone can correct me if this is incorrect information. And, like SURBL, regardless of the official origin of the idea, I know for a fact that fuzzyocr benefited tremendously from discussions on the SA list and I'd bet money that the author would happily agree. I also recall the author of fuzzyocr at one point saying something like, hey guys, sorry I'm hogging your list... here is my new list especially devoted to fuzzyocr... (that wasn't an exact quote... but he said something to that effect)... and that was totally appropriate and polite for him to do that. Up to that point, I don't think anyone minded the frequent discussions of fuzzyocr... but it did make sense, like SURBL, for fuzzyocr to have out to its own list for detailed discussions. But I have recent memories of tremendously good feedback on the SA list regarding fuzzyocr which also benefited fuzzyocr... particularly before the official fuzzyocr list began. Like SURBL, fuzzyocr would have suffered had discussion about it on the SA list been clamped down with off-topic complaints. Rob McEwen
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Rob McEwen wrote: Dhawal said: Also from my limited memory, a fuzzyocr like implementation existed on antispan.imp.ch long before it was discussed on the sa-users list. Someone can correct me if this is incorrect information. And, like SURBL, regardless of the official origin of the idea, I know for a fact that fuzzyocr benefited tremendously from discussions on the SA list and I'd bet money that the author would happily agree. I also recall the author of fuzzyocr at one point saying something like, hey guys, sorry I'm hogging your list... here is my new list especially devoted to fuzzyocr... (that wasn't an exact quote... but he said something to that effect)... and that was totally appropriate and polite for him to do that. Up to that point, I don't think anyone minded the frequent discussions of fuzzyocr... but it did make sense, like SURBL, for fuzzyocr to have out to its own list for detailed discussions. But I have recent memories of tremendously good feedback on the SA list regarding fuzzyocr which also benefited fuzzyocr... particularly before the official fuzzyocr list began. Like SURBL, fuzzyocr would have suffered had discussion about it on the SA list been clamped down with off-topic complaints. Rob McEwen I am not against off-topic discussions (and also indulge in a few when appropriate), what i am tired of is 'Perkel', have a look at some of the threads started by him.. Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan Who wants my spam - seriously! About the SpamHaus lawsuit? I'm thinking about suing Microsoft What's with UCEPROTECT List? Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations Paper SPF breaks email forwarding The best way to use Spamassassin is to not use Spamassassin The Future of Email is SQL Tricky DNS Question - Advanced Who wants my spam - seriously! Suing Spammers Fighting spam by public education? End of topic for me. Good day to you all. - dhawal
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
Rob McEwen wrote: Steve Thomas wrote: Once again, Perkel clutters the SpamAssassin list with a non-SpamAssassin discussion. ...Is anyone else getting tired of this? ...have nothing to do with SA. What's the point of having a topical mailing list if nobody cares that the discussion is off-topic? Dhawal wrote: Make that 2 of us. I for one would like to filter out all mails/threads originated by perkel (yeah which would include this mail as well).. I couldn't disagree with these two people more. It is just these types of discussions which led to things like SURBL and fuzzyOCR... And a similar, slightly OT, discussion (though, it may have been on the mailscanner or mimedefang lists) lead to a mimedefang-filter that then later lead to the Botnet plugin for SA. and yet we get so many OTHER repetitive discussions about thinks like **basic** SA setup, rules update procedures, etc... therefore, this stuff complained about is a fairly small percentage of the whole (maybe not for today, but overall it is). And, the funny thing is, this thread wasn't THAT OT. Sure, the email storage in SQL discussion was rather OT... it had almost nothing to do with spam. But this discussion, about how to defeat spambots, is at least about fighting spam. That may not be literally about the nuts and bolts of being a spamassassin user, but it is generally relevant to the interests of this list. I don't have a problem with: a) things that are slightly OT (relate to the general purpose of the list), as long as they don't take over the list or drift way off topic b) things that are a bit more OT, but that don't clutter the list I think Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan was done fine with (a).
Re: Filtering THIS list (Re: Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan)
On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 5:52:33 AM, Dhawal Doshy wrote: I am not against off-topic discussions (and also indulge in a few when appropriate), what i am tired of is 'Perkel', have a look at some of the threads started by him.. Breaking up the Bot army - we need a plan Who wants my spam - seriously! About the SpamHaus lawsuit? I'm thinking about suing Microsoft What's with UCEPROTECT List? Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations Paper SPF breaks email forwarding The best way to use Spamassassin is to not use Spamassassin The Future of Email is SQL Tricky DNS Question - Advanced Who wants my spam - seriously! Suing Spammers Fighting spam by public education? All of which have almost nothing to do with SpamAssassin. They are very off-topic and therefore inappropriate. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
