On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 12:18 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
[snip]
> It's a shame that Mailman won't let you reject at SMTP time.
Why not? I thought Mailman acted as an MUA.
Bill
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Pleas
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 11:13 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> > That is the concern, and a fakereject+store-for-moderation would be the
> > ideal solution.
>
> Depending, of course, on how many hundreds of spammers decide to advertise
> their products to your list. Eventually, you can't moderate you
Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> It's not like the traffic on the list is so great that it'll overload
> people to subscribe for a little while.
And one can always decide NOT to receive mail from the list via a
checkbox on the admin interface.
> Secondly, has anyone experience of using bayesian filters t
--On 17 October 2006 11:20:09 +0100 John Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/10/2006 11:10, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> How about 9,000 autoreply messages arriving over the weekend, sticking
>> in my incoming queue for a user who's mailbox is already full of them.
>> Having removed them yes
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:36:52AM +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
[...]
> I am not at present planning to move to the far more drastic method
> of just bouncing mail from non-subscribers - which would break our
> long standing policy of being open to non-member queries.
a couple of comme
Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 17.10.2006, 02:45 +0100 schrieb John Robinson:
> [...]
>
>>That's unfortunate, but ought to be mostly avoidable if you've done a
>>spot of filtering on the original incoming message, and the
>>auto-response is useful, imo. If necessary the auto-re
On 17/10/2006 11:10, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> How about 9,000 autoreply messages arriving over the weekend, sticking in
> my incoming queue for a user who's mailbox is already full of them. Having
> removed them yesterday, there's a couple of hundred more today.
I'd agree that the above is useless.
--On 16 October 2006 19:54:00 -0500 Dave Pooser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Perhaps I misunderstood the earlier
>> poster's intention; I thought he just meant the auto-response to
>> non-members
>
> Right. Imagine, if you will, that there is an evil spammer who wants to
> advertise the latest
--On 17 October 2006 02:45:10 +0100 John Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/10/2006 01:45, Marc Sherman wrote:
>> John Robinson wrote:
>>> I may still be being very dense, of course :-)
>>
>> Yes, you still are. :) Sending _any_ auto-response is a bad thing,
>> because the sender addre
Am Dienstag, den 17.10.2006, 02:45 +0100 schrieb John Robinson:
[...]
> That's unfortunate, but ought to be mostly avoidable if you've done a
> spot of filtering on the original incoming message, and the
> auto-response is useful, imo. If necessary the auto-response could
> briefly note the poss
On 17/10/2006 01:45, Marc Sherman wrote:
> John Robinson wrote:
>> I may still be being very dense, of course :-)
>
> Yes, you still are. :) Sending _any_ auto-response is a bad thing,
> because the sender address of the spam (which is the vast majority of
> posts by unsubscribed addresses) is a
> Perhaps I misunderstood the earlier
> poster's intention; I thought he just meant the auto-response to
> non-members
Right. Imagine, if you will, that there is an evil spammer who wants to
advertise the latest miracle drug to 100,000 of his closest friends.
However, he is an altruistic sort who
John Robinson wrote:
>
> Err, "unsubscribed sender address"? Perhaps I misunderstood the earlier
> poster's intention; I thought he just meant the auto-response to
> non-members should include more/better instructions on how to subscribe
> and a request not to resend, not a way of posting witho
On 17/10/2006 01:10, Marc Sherman wrote:
> John Robinson wrote:
>> The last time I posted from the wrong account, I think I did get a
>> response back immediately telling me it would have to wait for
>> moderation. I may be being very dense but I don't see a problem with it.
>
> Yes, you're bein
John Robinson wrote:
>
> The last time I posted from the wrong account, I think I did get a
> response back immediately telling me it would have to wait for
> moderation. I may be being very dense but I don't see a problem with it.
Yes, you're being very dense. :)
Consider what happens when so
On 16/10/2006 11:49, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> On 16/10/2006 11:41, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>> and also consider
>>> sending an auto-ack with the details in to non-subscriber posters so
>>> that they don't resend their message X times.
>> not a good suggestion... consider where that message will go
--On 16 October 2006 09:36:52 +0100 Nigel Metheringham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am not at present planning to move to the far more drastic method
> of just bouncing mail from non-subscribers - which would break our
> long standing policy of being open to non-member queries.
>
Good. You
On 16/10/2006 11:41, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> and also consider
>> sending an auto-ack with the details in to non-subscriber posters so
>> that they don't resend their message X times.
>
> not a good suggestion... consider where that message will go when spam
> arrives :-(
Ah yes. Brain on be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graeme Fowler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>It may be worth changing
>the ML pages to state what the moderation policy is,
a good suggestion
>and also consider
>sending an auto-ack with the details in to non-subscrib
On 16/10/2006 09:36, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> I am intending to change this so that I no longer get immediate
> moderation notification, or immediate notification of membership
> status changes (mostly due to bounces). Instead I will purely work
> on the daily status reports (I may change
Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 16/10/06, Nigel Metheringham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I am proposing to change the list moderation handling -
>
>
>
>
>>I am intending to change this so that I no longer get immediate
>>moderation notification, or immediate notification of membership
>>status
On 16/10/06, Nigel Metheringham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am proposing to change the list moderation handling -
> I am intending to change this so that I no longer get immediate
> moderation notification, or immediate notification of membership
> status changes (mostly due to bounces). Ins
Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> I am proposing to change the list moderation handling - of course the
> people this *won't* affect are those here, since a list subscriber
> will not normally get their messages moderated.
>
> Currently each message that gets put in the moderation queue by
> mail
I am proposing to change the list moderation handling - of course the
people this *won't* affect are those here, since a list subscriber
will not normally get their messages moderated.
Currently each message that gets put in the moderation queue by
mailman generates a moderation message to t
24 matches
Mail list logo
