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

On 2/18/02 7:21 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> All it takes is code. Volunteering? (grin) > > Because there's not a sufficiently strong method of authenticating that > the person trying to change the address is actually the *user*? So we get back to the core of the problem:

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

On 2/18/02 7:15 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yup, and so does every web page on the net, and it will keep happening > until other things outside our control change markedly -- either on the > network provider TOS enforcement side... Oh boy. Now I get to sound like your moth

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spamonpostedaddresses...

On 2/18/02 11:17 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chuq> Are there any other benefits to being googled than being a > Chuq> walking billboard to the list? > Those people are > not going to go fishing in our archives, even if we had a reliable > search function. So there

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam onpostedaddresses...

> "Chuq" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chuq> Are there any other benefits to being googled than being a Chuq> walking billboard to the list? Yes. I do see a fair number of "non-subscriber" posts that go "we need to do job X, and according to a post I dug up googlin

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

On 2/18/02 8:58 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get paid to remember what you've pointed out, and I'm pretty good at > it, but I still sometimes forget... Me, too, on both counts. I tend to be good at questions, but the answers aren't nearly as easy... -- Chuq Von Rospach

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

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 02:58:01PM -0500, Terri Oda wrote: > I don't know... I think rendering email addresses into pictures (say .png > instead of .gif, but to A. User it makes no difference as long as it's read > by the browser) is hardly something the average user can't > understand. When y

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

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:47:16AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/18/02 10:37 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You'll have to forgive me, but this sort of 'too-clever by all' solution > > gives me hives. > > And you have to be wary of solutions that make it tough for

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

On Tuesday 19 February 2002 04:21, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:37:31PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > > I never understood why mailman wasn't changed to allow users to change > > > there own addresses years ago. Being able to add valid receiving > > > addresses would he

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spamonpostedaddresses...

On 2/18/02 1:07 PM, "Damien Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But we do want google et al to index the archives don't we? I don't, no. > I've found > myself joining all sorts of lists that I found googling for this or that > subject. So you see the archives as marketing to increase usage o

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam onpostedaddresses...

On 2/18/02 12:59 PM, "Daniel J. Cody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking of tradeoffs, it's my opinion that hiding archives behind a > password protection scheme for fear that the administrator, who probably > deals with oodles of email anyways and is probably the *most* experienced > person i

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

On 2002.02.18, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel J. Cody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking of tradeoffs, it's my opinion that hiding archives behind a > password protection scheme for fear that the administrator, who probably > deals with oodles of email anyways and is probably the *m

RE: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam onpostedaddresses...

> Chuq Von Rospach: > > On 2/18/02 11:58 AM, "Damien Morton" > > > The first is to enable users to engage list admins and have their > > problems sorted out. > > Some form of obfuscating the email address is needed. But > here's the problem. If you use a web-based form to send email > to th

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

Speaking of tradeoffs, it's my opinion that hiding archives behind a password protection scheme for fear that the administrator, who probably deals with oodles of email anyways and is probably the *most* experienced person in regards to email filtering etc, is a poor one. whew. The archives f

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Interesting study -- spam onpostedaddresses...

On 2/18/02 11:58 AM, "Damien Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would suggest that a naïve/novice net user will be more familiar with > web-based forms and web-based email than the email we know. I did ten years of tech support.. Wanna bet? You could, actually, be right. But making assumpti

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

I would suggest that a naïve/novice net user will be more familiar with web-based forms and web-based email than the email we know. As I see it there are two issues here: The first is to enable users to engage list admins and have their problems sorted out, while discouraging or eliminating spam

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

At 10:47 AM 18/02/02 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On 2/18/02 10:37 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You'll have to forgive me, but this sort of 'too-clever by all' solution > > gives me hives. >And you have to be wary of solutions that make it tough for the naïve/novice >net

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

On 2/18/02 10:37 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'll have to forgive me, but this sort of 'too-clever by all' solution > gives me hives. And you have to be wary of solutions that make it tough for the naïve/novice net user to figure out what needs to be done. Those of us wh

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

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:34:11PM -0500, Damien Morton wrote: > What do you think, then, of rendering the text of the email into a GIF > or somesuch. > > Combined with javascript, the clickable email functionality would be > able to be retained, but for users without javascript functionality, >

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

What do you think, then, of rendering the text of the email into a GIF or somesuch. Combined with javascript, the clickable email functionality would be able to be retained, but for users without javascript functionality, they would have to read and type the email address manually. -Original

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

At 7:12 -0500 2/18/2002, Damien Morton wrote: >There are several approaches to this, including >the use of javascript email decryptors and/or publishing email addresses >as rendered images. I don't think we can assume that the user who feels a need to send mail to the admin has a JavaScript-capab

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

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:37:31PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > I never understood why mailman wasn't changed to allow users to change there > > own addresses years ago. Being able to add valid receiving addresses would > > help, too. That is also something mailman can help with. > > All it

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

On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:02:11PM -0800, 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 rem

Re: [Mailman-Developers] Duplicates, mostly

> "James" == James McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: James> Hey folks, Having just spent a good few weeks with a James> crowbar retrofitting Mailman to our hideous old Majordomo James> setup, it all appears to be working rather nicely. There is James> only one exception...

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

There are some very simple solutions to the problem of email harvesting. The first is to whitelist all mail. Anything not on the whitelist (be it list membership, or whatever) is responded to with an invitation to fill in a web based form to join the whitelist, the mail is held in abeyance until

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

Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > 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.

[Mailman-Developers] Duplicates, mostly

Hey folks, Having just spent a good few weeks with a crowbar retrofitting Mailman to our hideous old Majordomo setup, it all appears to be working rather nicely. There is only one exception... dreaded duplicates. I noticed a patch posted a few months back (by Ben Gerzfield) for the CVS version,