Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
FWIW, I think Andre Majorel's solution would be an elegant solution (adding "X-Non-Subscriber" header). It can be automated, requires no moderator at all, allows non-subscribers to post, and allows those with a lower threshold for junk to choose to ditch some of the posts to the list based on the existence of this header. (Ok, I couldn't ditch, because my client doesn't support filtering on arbitrary headers...but that's MY problem.) Cheers, Thomas Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > > Thomas Lussnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is not an real problem. You can do with manpower > > a) make an "lacy" block list, like to insert phrase that where seen in spam > > - like 0190 XX or string that only used by virus "begin 666 > > www.friends.yohoo.com" > > - moderated list > > - harder Subscition (not easy to automaziation) > > Actually, I thought of other methods. For example, filter out mails > that don't mention `Wget' in the subject or body and submit them for > moderation. That way the "moderator" would quickly discard spam, and > the few legitimate mails that registered as false positives would be > rerouted back to the list. > > BTW, that kind of thing is what I meant by alternate suggestions. > What you propose could also work, but would fail on spams that don't > contain the magic words. -- E-Soft Inc. http://www.e-softinc.com Publishers of SecuritySpace http://www.securityspace.com Tel: 1-905-331-2260 Fax: 1-905-331-2504 Tollfree in North America: 1-800-799-4831
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Thomas Lussnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not an real problem. You can do with manpower > a) make an "lacy" block list, like to insert phrase that where seen in spam > - like 0190 XX or string that only used by virus "begin 666 > www.friends.yohoo.com" > - moderated list > - harder Subscition (not easy to automaziation) Actually, I thought of other methods. For example, filter out mails that don't mention `Wget' in the subject or body and submit them for moderation. That way the "moderator" would quickly discard spam, and the few legitimate mails that registered as false positives would be rerouted back to the list. BTW, that kind of thing is what I meant by alternate suggestions. What you propose could also work, but would fail on spams that don't contain the magic words.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
> > >>It also would prevent legitimate non-subscribers' messages being >>seen by some people. >> > >Yes -- but it's their choice, then. Every spam-blocking system will >block a number of legitimate emails. It's just the question of where >you draw the line between how much spam you tolerate and how many >legitimate mails blocked you tolerate. And if you're the one who is >drawing that line for yourself, you're far less likely to be >dissatisfied with the results. > This is not an real problem. You can do with manpower a) make an "lacy" block list, like to insert phrase that where seen in spam - like 0190 XX or string that only used by virus "begin 666 www.friends.yohoo.com" - moderated list - harder Subscition (not easy to automaziation) But what is the effect ? There are maby 3% to 10% less traffic on the list but about 1-3 Hours more work per day for the person you manage this. I think this is not woth. On extrem high traffic lists with many spam there is an problem but not at this "low" level. Cu Thomas Lußnig
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
"James C. McMaster (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hrvoje Niksic said: >> Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers >> > to all its subscribers. >> >> So does any mailing list with open subscription. > > Any spammer *could* subscribe to an open-subscription list Oops, I meant with open posting. Sorry for the lapsus. >> > Mmm... What would you think of having the list software >> > automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to >> > every mail sent by a non-subscriber ? >> >> I see where you're getting at, and I would have absolutely no >> objections to that. >> > This would give us something on which we could filter. Yes. Again, I have no problem with providing choice for you. I just want the list to be functional (in that sense of the word) by default. > It also would prevent legitimate non-subscribers' messages being > seen by some people. Yes -- but it's their choice, then. Every spam-blocking system will block a number of legitimate emails. It's just the question of where you draw the line between how much spam you tolerate and how many legitimate mails blocked you tolerate. And if you're the one who is drawing that line for yourself, you're far less likely to be dissatisfied with the results.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hrvoje Niksic said: > Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers > > to all its subscribers. > > So does any mailing list with open subscription. Any spammer *could* subscribe to an open-subscription list, but as a practical matter they do not. Spam-generating software generally just takes two files: a list of addresses and the message to be sent. It then just blindly blasts out the message. Error responses are ignored, even if the headers are not forged to prevent responses from getting back at all. Spammers are not interested in bounce messages of any type, including "You are not subscribed" messages. It simply is not worth their time to figure out why some of their 500,000+ emails did not go through. > > Mmm... What would you think of having the list software > > automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to every > > mail sent by a non-subscriber ? > > I see where you're getting at, and I would have absolutely no > objections to that. > This would give us something on which we could filter. It also would prevent legitimate non-subscribers' messages being seen by some people. Possibly a good compromise. -- Jim McMaster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Marc Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are likely people interested in wget who aren't that > interested in grepping the 80 or so freshmeat announcements per day, > so I think that it would be generally useful myself. I thought Freshmeat offered per-package announcements? Maybe I've misremembered, I'll have to check.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
> > Marc Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > >> If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include > >> disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > >> > > > > It's not spam fighting, but I would personally like to see a > > wget-announce moderator-only list where new releases and security > > announcements could be posted. That would prevent spam for me. > > That might make sense independent of the spam -- some people would > choose that list simply to avoid the volume of this list. > > So far I haven't bothered to create an announcement list because there > were no requests for one, and because I can't think of announcements > one could make other than for releases, and you can use freshmeat et > al. for that. > There are likely people interested in wget who aren't that interested in grepping the 80 or so freshmeat announcements per day, so I think that it would be generally useful myself. -- Marc Stephenson IBM Server Group - Austin, TX Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTES: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 512-327-5670 T/L 678-3189
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Marc Stephenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include >> disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. >> > > It's not spam fighting, but I would personally like to see a > wget-announce moderator-only list where new releases and security > announcements could be posted. That would prevent spam for me. That might make sense independent of the spam -- some people would choose that list simply to avoid the volume of this list. So far I haven't bothered to create an announcement list because there were no requests for one, and because I can't think of announcements one could make other than for releases, and you can use freshmeat et al. for that.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I respectfully disagree. If we can spend the time to read and > answer the poster's question, the poster can spend five minutes > to subscribe/unsubscribe. > > For reference, see the netiquette item on posting to newsgroups > and asking for replies by email. I am aware of newsgroup etiquette, but I consider a newsgroup to be different from a mailing list devoted to helping users. Besides, subscribing to and unsubscribing from an unknown mailing list are much more annoying processes than they are for newsgroups. I suppose we can only "agree to disagree" on this one. >> I am aware that in this matter, as well as in the infamous >> `Reply-To' debate, this list lies in the minority. But that is not >> a sufficient reason to back down and let the spammers win. > > Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for spammers > to all its subscribers. So does any mailing list with open subscription. I find your choice of wording strange, sort of like saying that `sendmail' provides free transmission of spam. That may be so, but that was not its intention, and the fact that it's misused is no reason to cripple its intended use. >> If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include >> disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > > Mmm... What would you think of having the list software > automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to every > mail sent by a non-subscriber ? I see where you're getting at, and I would have absolutely no objections to that.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
On 2002-01-29 22:02 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> But that was just an example. The actual reasoning for allowing
> non-subscriber posting boils down to three reasons:
>
> 1. I believe it is the right thing to do. I personally hate allegedly
>"supportive" mailing lists that require me to subscribe before
>asking a question. I don't want to subscribe, dammit, I just want
>to ask something.
I respectfully disagree. If we can spend the time to read and
answer the poster's question, the poster can spend five minutes
to subscribe/unsubscribe.
For reference, see the netiquette item on posting to newsgroups
and asking for replies by email.
> 2. It allows the discussion to extend to non-subscribers. You can
>simply Cc a person to a discussion pertinent to him, and he will be
>able to respond to the list.
>
> 3. It allows the mails from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be rerouted to this
>list.
Yup.
> I am aware that in this matter, as well as in the infamous `Reply-To'
> debate, this list lies in the minority. But that is not a sufficient
> reason to back down and let the spammers win.
Right now, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is providing free relaying for
spammers to all its subscribers. If this is "not
letting the spammers win", I wonder what is.
> If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include
> disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen.
Mmm... What would you think of having the list software
automatically add a special header (say X-Non-Subscriber) to
every mail sent by a non-subscriber ?
--
André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
std::disclaimer ("Not speaking for my employer");
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hrvoje Niksic said: > "James C. McMaster (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reinke said: > >> Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) a bit high > >> here? I sympathize with the effort required to lightly moderate, > >> but might I recommend that _something_ be done to rid us all of > >> this spam? It's getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to > >> drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget is a > >> fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay involved with > >> actively, if possible. > >> > > The easiest solution would be for the list owners to require people > > to subscribe before posting. So far, they seem unwilling to do > > that. All the product-support lists to which I subscribe (except > > this one) have that policy, and I never get spam from any of them. > > I do not know what you call a "product support mailing list", but this > is a free software project development list, and certainly not the > only one with the open posting policy. For example, XEmacs mailing > lists are open to non-subscriber posting. > Product is a generic term. I subscribe to mailing lists on apache, tomcat, exmh, nmh and procmail. All these packages are open-source "products." All of these lists require subscription before posting. I receive spam from none of them. > But that was just an example. The actual reasoning for allowing > non-subscriber posting boils down to three reasons: > > 1. I believe it is the right thing to do. I personally hate allegedly >"supportive" mailing lists that require me to subscribe before >asking a question. I don't want to subscribe, dammit, I just want >to ask something. > Your call. Subscription and unsubscription are easy enough to do in my opinion. I personally think people who ask a question and then add, "Please reply privately since I am not on the list" are leeches if they want to use the list without giving anything back. If anyone just hits "reply", the person will never see the answer. > 2. It allows the discussion to extend to non-subscribers. You can >simply Cc a person to a discussion pertinent to him, and he will be >able to respond to the list. > Again, if they are interested enough to contribute to the discussion they should be willing to subscribe. > 3. It allows the mails from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be rerouted to this >list. > Fine. Why bother with the bug list then? Also, the same problem applies as with this list. If a person just replies, the reporter will never see the response. > I am aware that in this matter, as well as in the infamous `Reply-To' > debate, this list lies in the minority. But that is not a sufficient > reason to back down and let the spammers win. > I disagree with you on the "Reply-to" matter as well, but that is not the argument. The point is not that your list in in the minority, it is *why* you are in the minority. The quantity of spam on this list has been annoying for awhile now. It is getting really tiresome now. Once the spammers get your address they sell it to other spammers, so the quantity will only increase from now on. Don't the spammers also "win" if they annoy enough of the knowledgeable people on this list that they leave? Even if they don't the people relying on that expertise surely lose. > If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include > disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > The only alternative I can imagine is moderation. I doubt you or anyone else has the time or inclination. Personally I have rearranged my .procmailrc so this list gets processed after my spam filters. That leads to the risk I will miss some valid postings, but so be it. If that does not catch the spam, I will unsubscribe from the list. altogether. -- Jim McMaster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Setting up a spam filter requires some effort on the part of the > list master. The list masters are running a number of spam filters which are catching a significant number of spam messages. But apparently the number of spams that do pass the filters is sufficient to create a problem for some users. > If the list master is too busy, a quick fix is preventing > non-subscribers from posting. See my other email for explanation of why this has not been done. As always, I am willing to listen to suggestions other than this quick fix, and so are the list maintainers at sunsite.dk.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
> > If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include > disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen. > It's not spam fighting, but I would personally like to see a wget-announce moderator-only list where new releases and security announcements could be posted. That would prevent spam for me. -- Marc Stephenson IBM Server Group - Austin, TX Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTES: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 512-327-5670 T/L 678-3189
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
"James C. McMaster (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reinke said: >> Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) a bit high >> here? I sympathize with the effort required to lightly moderate, >> but might I recommend that _something_ be done to rid us all of >> this spam? It's getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to >> drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget is a >> fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay involved with >> actively, if possible. >> > The easiest solution would be for the list owners to require people > to subscribe before posting. So far, they seem unwilling to do > that. All the product-support lists to which I subscribe (except > this one) have that policy, and I never get spam from any of them. I do not know what you call a "product support mailing list", but this is a free software project development list, and certainly not the only one with the open posting policy. For example, XEmacs mailing lists are open to non-subscriber posting. But that was just an example. The actual reasoning for allowing non-subscriber posting boils down to three reasons: 1. I believe it is the right thing to do. I personally hate allegedly "supportive" mailing lists that require me to subscribe before asking a question. I don't want to subscribe, dammit, I just want to ask something. 2. It allows the discussion to extend to non-subscribers. You can simply Cc a person to a discussion pertinent to him, and he will be able to respond to the list. 3. It allows the mails from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be rerouted to this list. I am aware that in this matter, as well as in the infamous `Reply-To' debate, this list lies in the minority. But that is not a sufficient reason to back down and let the spammers win. If you have a spam-fighting suggestion that does *not* include disallowing non-subscriber postings, I am more than willing to listen.
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
On 2002-01-28 14:33 -0500, Thomas Reinke wrote: > Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) > a bit high here? A bit *low* you mean ? You bet. > I sympathize with the effort required > to lightly moderate, but might I recommend that > _something_ be done to rid us all of this spam? It's > getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to > drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget > is a fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay > involved with actively, if possible. Setting up a spam filter requires some effort on the part of the list master. If the list master is too busy, a quick fix is preventing non-subscribers from posting. That can usually be done by flipping a bit in the config of the list software. But what about [EMAIL PROTECTED], then ? -- André Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
Re: Noise ratio getting a bit high?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reinke said: > Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) > a bit high here? I sympathize with the effort required > to lightly moderate, but might I recommend that > _something_ be done to rid us all of this spam? It's > getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to > drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget > is a fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay > involved with actively, if possible. > > Thomas > The easiest solution would be for the list owners to require people to subscribe before posting. So far, they seem unwilling to do that. All the product-support lists to which I subscribe (except this one) have that policy, and I never get spam from any of them. I would request the list owners to consider taking that step before this list gets totally unusable. Once spammers get an address, they pass it around, so the problem will only get worse until something is done. -- Jim McMaster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Noise ratio getting a bit high?
Is anyone else not finding the noise ratio (i.e. spam) a bit high here? I sympathize with the effort required to lightly moderate, but might I recommend that _something_ be done to rid us all of this spam? It's getting to be irritating enough that I'm tempted to drop off the list, which I'd just as soon not do - wget is a fantastic little tool that I'd just as soon stay involved with actively, if possible. Thomas
