Moderation action on the mailing list
Almost two months ago I posted a message about rules of the mailing list and stated my intention to enforce them strictly. That was followed by another post when I discovered that the mailing list software does not provide what would be my preferred tool, which would be to place someone under manual moderation. The least action I can do is to have the list reject mail from someone. Before taking what I consider such drastic action I brought the matter to a vote in the SpamAssassin Project Management Committee (the PMC), and then asked members of the ASF Board for advice. That, combined with the fact that like everyone else my involvement with Apache SpamAssassin is volunteer work that I fit in with my day job and family life, has resulted in quite some time passing before I felt ready to post this announcement and take action. The past week has seen a real degenerating mess appear on the mailing list. A number of people have violated the rules I set down in June. More importantly, as was pointed out to me by members of the ASF Board, there have been violations of the Apache Code of Conduct (CoC) https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct which are rules that apply to every community that is part of an Apache Software Foundation project. The rules of this mailing list are simple: Keep the mails on topic for the list, and keep it civil, where the latter is spelled out in the CoC. I still want to take the minimum action that has a chance at restoring order to the list. To that end I am banning just one person whom I see as consistently violating the CoC even with no trigger event that itself was a violation of the CoC. The fact that I am not banning everyone who has posted inappropriate emails does not mean that I condone those emails. It is purely a reflection of my belief that the rest of you are willing to keep your posts civil, will do so if not provoked, and will not be provoked by emails that are within the bounds of the topics of this mailing list such as people asking questions that reveal that they know much less about configuring mail servers than you do. Now let’s get back to keeping this mailing list on topic. That means please no messages to the list commenting on this issue, whether you agree or disagree with me. Feel free to email me directly if you have something to say that is not part of a user level discussion or query or answer regarding Apache SpamAssassin. Thank you, Sidney Markowitz Chair, Apache SpamAssassin PMC
Re: Moderation on this mailing list
Michael Grimm wrote: >> users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org Sorry, bad mistake, should have gone this address instead. Regards, Michael
Re: Moderation on this mailing list
Sidney Markowitz wrote: > I'm one of the moderators of this mailing list. […] > So here are the rules I'm going to try. […] > Any comments about this, send to users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org not to > the list itself, as any such comments would be off topic for this list. I really appreciate this! Well phrased. Thank you and with kind regards, Michael
Moderation on this mailing list
I'm one of the moderators of this mailing list. I'm also one of those thin-skinned "hypersensible" people who don't want to see rudeness and insults on the list. However I don't want to have to judge whether one person is being too rude to bear and another not quite, or to weigh one person's helpful posts against their flamewar posts. So here are the rules I'm going to try. This is the SpamAssassin users mailing list. Discussions related to SpamAssassin are fine. Rudely insulting someone, even if they are as frustrating stupid as you claim is off topic. Telling someone how rude they are is off topic. Explaining how someone's apparent rudeness was just an innocent mistake caused by a culture difference in how they write their name is off topic. Complaining that someone should do something about the off topic messages or we should all stay on topic is off topic. Please only post messages here that are on topic. Please only include only on topic content in your on topic messages, no extra remarks, insults or otherwise. The only tool I really have available is to place people under moderation so that mail they send to the list is held up until it is either approved or dropped. If I use that tool on someone there will be a time delay in their on-topic mail showing up on the list because I don't hover over the moderation queue 24/7. Please keep this list on topic and make this work. Any comments about this, send to users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org not to the list itself, as any such comments would be off topic for this list. Thanks, Sidney users-ow...@spamassassin.apache.org
Re: Moderation?
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 16:36 -0700, Bill Landry wrote: Yes, the "buzz"ard has also displayed the same abusive nature under his other email address many times in the past. He uses the same email client (X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3), the same reference in his Message-Id (camel), and the same source IP address (192.168.1.56), so not hard to figure out. Sorry, couldn't resist... Bill, since you mentioned it... Camel is just the Evolution Mail backend. The part after the "@" in the Message-Id is much more interesting and the machine's hostname. Ah, ok, didn't know that about Evolution, but I now see that your Message-Id contains "camel", as well. However, his 2 email accounts use something different after the "@" in the Message-Id. One uses "ca...@rubikscube" and the other "ca...@testicle". Wonder what the latter signifies about him...? Bill
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 16:36 -0700, Bill Landry wrote:
> Yes, the "buzz"ard has also displayed the same abusive nature under his
> other email address many times in the past. He uses the same email client
> (X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3), the same reference in his Message-Id
> (camel), and the same source IP address (192.168.1.56), so not hard to
> figure out.
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist...
Bill, since you mentioned it...
Camel is just the Evolution Mail backend. The part after the "@" in the
Message-Id is much more interesting and the machine's hostname.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
>> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:34 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote: >>> I had considered this, but another poster made the worthy point that >>> the (ab)user in question was likely the sort to get another fake >>> address >>> just so they could keep posting their crud. Sometimes 'ignore them' is >>> the >>> simplest and best policcy. :) >> >> I am aware of this. There is no final way to get someone off a public >> mailing list. There's always the possibility to get a new address, or >> even a new netblock. Sounds familiar? >> >> I do agree that ignoring the offender is the best solution. I have seen >> this working on other lists before. So... >> >> *Please*, everyone -- don't feed the trolls. >> >> >> Oh, and BTW, we *are* aware he is still following. One of his >> identities, that is. No rocket science. > > Yes, the "buzz"ard has also displayed the same abusive nature under his > other email address many times in the past. He uses the same email client > (X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3), the same reference in his Message-Id > (camel), and the same source IP address (192.168.1.56), so not hard to > figure out. Oh, and I forgot to mention that both Google and the Spamassassin list server receive deliveries from the same IP address (82.70.24.238). Bill
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:34 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote: >> I had considered this, but another poster made the worthy point that >> the (ab)user in question was likely the sort to get another fake address >> just so they could keep posting their crud. Sometimes 'ignore them' is >> the >> simplest and best policcy. :) > > I am aware of this. There is no final way to get someone off a public > mailing list. There's always the possibility to get a new address, or > even a new netblock. Sounds familiar? > > I do agree that ignoring the offender is the best solution. I have seen > this working on other lists before. So... > > *Please*, everyone -- don't feed the trolls. > > > Oh, and BTW, we *are* aware he is still following. One of his > identities, that is. No rocket science. Yes, the "buzz"ard has also displayed the same abusive nature under his other email address many times in the past. He uses the same email client (X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3), the same reference in his Message-Id (camel), and the same source IP address (192.168.1.56), so not hard to figure out. Sorry, couldn't resist... Bill
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
On ons 16 sep 2009 01:08:30 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote *Please*, everyone -- don't feed the trolls. well i still can drink my beers alone :) but it would be more fun to see the trolls dont have one -- xpoint
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:34 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> I had considered this, but another poster made the worthy point that
> the (ab)user in question was likely the sort to get another fake address
> just so they could keep posting their crud. Sometimes 'ignore them' is the
> simplest and best policcy. :)
I am aware of this. There is no final way to get someone off a public
mailing list. There's always the possibility to get a new address, or
even a new netblock. Sounds familiar?
I do agree that ignoring the offender is the best solution. I have seen
this working on other lists before. So...
*Please*, everyone -- don't feed the trolls.
Oh, and BTW, we *are* aware he is still following. One of his
identities, that is. No rocket science.
> But thanks, as always, for your fine efforts. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: [sa] Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: See the List-Help header. A mail to users-help returns, among a lot of other info, the users-owner address as a last resort. This will reach the moderators. (Same with all ezmlm lists, btw.) I had considered this, but another poster made the worthy point that the (ab)user in question was likely the sort to get another fake address just so they could keep posting their crud. Sometimes 'ignore them' is the simplest and best policcy. :) But thanks, as always, for your fine efforts. :) - Charles
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:10 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
> At 01:59 PM 9/15/2009, you wrote:
>
> > Please feel free to directly ping the list owners or use some other
> > channel to quickly trigger the PMC's attention if need be. Rather than
> > just posting yet another message to an already crowded thread. The
> > latter is exactly where your call for authority is much more likely to
> > go unnoticed for a while.
> >
> > If you're calling for the police, don't stand in the crowd and ask where
> > they are. Call 'em!
>
> I agree, but I didn't know the e-mail address for the mods here
> otherwise, believe me, I would have too long ago.
>
> Might I suggest a header added with a list owner address? If I missed
> the header, please let me know! Or maybe something in a group sig?
See the List-Help header. A mail to users-help returns, among a lot of
other info, the users-owner address as a last resort. This will reach
the moderators. (Same with all ezmlm lists, btw.)
A mail to dev@ might be appropriate, too. Unless you're subscribed, it
will end up in the moderation queue anyway, waiting for the moderators
to notice it.
Still, we're only two of 'em, and real humans. Please be patient. :)
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Moderation? (was: Drivel)
At 01:59 PM 9/15/2009, you wrote: Please feel free to directly ping the list owners or use some other channel to quickly trigger the PMC's attention if need be. Rather than just posting yet another message to an already crowded thread. The latter is exactly where your call for authority is much more likely to go unnoticed for a while. If you're calling for the police, don't stand in the crowd and ask where they are. Call 'em! I agree, but I didn't know the e-mail address for the mods here otherwise, believe me, I would have too long ago. Might I suggest a header added with a list owner address? If I missed the header, please let me know! Or maybe something in a group sig?
Moderation? (was: Drivel)
Guys,
first of all, I personally *highly* welcome the community to step up
like you did in this case. There's no need to wait for the PMC to tell
some seriously mis-behaving subscriber to watch his language. Thanks for
that!
Oh, and just in case -- this is not about words, but meaning and
intention. ;)
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 10:11 +1200, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
> > From: Charles Gregory [mailto:cgreg...@hwcn.org]
> > Good users all. Never heard of a troll?
> > Nonsensical. Irritating. Taunting.
> >
> > Best defense against this kind of childish antic is to IGNORE it.
> Yes, and as previously asked, where are the list moderators? On a very
> long smoke break?
We are listening -- though not constantly monitoring, and doing this in
our spare time. Things might slip under the radar. Sorry. :/
Please feel free to directly ping the list owners or use some other
channel to quickly trigger the PMC's attention if need be. Rather than
just posting yet another message to an already crowded thread. The
latter is exactly where your call for authority is much more likely to
go unnoticed for a while.
If you're calling for the police, don't stand in the crowd and ask where
they are. Call 'em!
> Sure we can Ignore it. That doesn't mean that a list moderator shouldn't
> get involved and solve the problem. Should be pretty easy to do, right?
I've taken care of this...
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
Am 2008-06-27 08:17:11, schrieb Richard Frovarp: > The list is setup without a reply to field. Look at the headers. Anyone > hitting reply will get the individual who sent who sent the message, not > the list. I'm guessing people are taking the shortcut of hitting reply > all (so that they get the list), which is where the CC is coming in. Time to use REAL MUAs like mutt. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer 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 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
Benny Pedersen wrote: On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote: Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic. hmm AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist without sending cc you talk like its my problem right ? is AppleMail the only option you have ? if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on apple support squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/ The list is setup without a reply to field. Look at the headers. Anyone hitting reply will get the individual who sent who sent the message, not the list. I'm guessing people are taking the shortcut of hitting reply all (so that they get the list), which is where the CC is coming in.
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
Agreed! Guys, please take it offline. The SpamAssassin users list is not an appropriate place for this. --j. Rubin Bennett writes: > Fer the love of Pete guys, take this offline. This has *nothing* to do > with SpamAssassin other than making me wish my system would toss this > whole damn thread. > > People and their delicate egos... > *grumble* > > Rubin > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 04:13 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote: > > > > > Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic. > > > > hmm > > > > AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist > > without sending cc > > > > you talk like its my problem right ? > > > > is AppleMail the only option you have ? > > > > if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on > > apple support > > > > squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/ > > > > > -- > Rubin Bennett > RB Technologies > http://thatitguy.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (802)223-4448 > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety" > --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
On Fri, June 27, 2008 04:28, Rubin Bennett wrote: > ?People and their delicate egos... > *grumble* smile :) X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0-4.1mdv2008.1 another mua is found brokken -- Benny Pedersen Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
Fer the love of Pete guys, take this offline. This has *nothing* to do with SpamAssassin other than making me wish my system would toss this whole damn thread. People and their delicate egos... *grumble* Rubin On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 04:13 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote: > > > Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic. > > hmm > > AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist > without sending cc > > you talk like its my problem right ? > > is AppleMail the only option you have ? > > if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on > apple support > > squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/ > > -- Rubin Bennett RB Technologies http://thatitguy.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] (802)223-4448 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety" --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Re: MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
On Fri, June 27, 2008 03:09, Jo Rhett wrote: > Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic. hmm AppleMail is the only mua i have seen that cant make a reply to maillist without sending cc you talk like its my problem right ? is AppleMail the only option you have ? if i had to use such bad software i would create a bug report for this on apple support squirremail is seems like the only mua that can do it right :/ -- Benny Pedersen Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
MODERATION REQUEST: how to stop SPF checks from going past trusted host?
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: and you are a constant ignorant sending me cc get a life Personal attacks are not relevant to the topic. Sending someone a CC to a message they sent, and to which their mail headers sets reply-to, is only a problem in Bennys mind. But he sends backscatter because he doesn't like the behavior, even though he could easily configure his mailer so that when people hit reply it does what he wants it to. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
