Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On 2/17/02 9:25 PM, "John Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's better than > /dev/null :-). Let's face it - if you're going to publish > an admin address to help the lowest common denominator of netizen, then you > can't munge it, so it will get spam. I'm not sure I agree. But that's the po

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on posted addresses...

On Monday 18 February 2002 17:56, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 8:39 PM, "John Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If they can set up admin specific accounts that redirect to /dev/null, > > then they can set up procmail to drop HTML mail, and say they're doing so > > anywhere they're adv

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On 2/17/02 8:39 PM, "John Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If they can set up admin specific accounts that redirect to /dev/null, then > they can set up procmail to drop HTML mail, and say they're doing so anywhere > they're advertising the admin email address. That would filter 90% of the >

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on posted addresses...

On Monday 18 February 2002 17:02, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not > > at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. > > If that's even remotely cl

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On 2/17/02 8:16 PM, "Keith Howanitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would just like to put in one thought... I like the whole small is > beautiful philosophy. Maybe as you add more features, we can add some of > these things as distict modules? I still feel the pipe is one of the best > things

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not > > at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. > > If that's even remotely close, then

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not > at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. > If that's even remotely close, then it seems like efforts could be better > spent on screen

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on posted addresses...

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:40:54PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 7:39 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Without in any way discouraging those efforts, isn't it somewhat futile? > > It seems that the area for improvement is on the receiving end filtering > > technolo

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on postedaddresses...

On 2/17/02 7:39 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Without in any way discouraging those efforts, isn't it somewhat futile? > It seems that the area for improvement is on the receiving end filtering > technology. Or am I missing something? That you can't get 100% success is no excus

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on posted addresses...

> I mention it for two reasons. One, since mail lists manage e-mail addresses > (and archives of e-mail addresses), it is yet antother indication of just > why we have to be careful about presenting and disclosing that stuff. Without in any way discouraging those efforts, isn't it somewhat futi

[Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam on posted addresses...

Interesting article on slashdot: Basically, DSLreports did a test, and found that e-mail addresses posted on a web site could start seeing spam in as little as 8 hours. I mention it for two reasons. One, since mail lists manage e-mail addre