On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:46:45 -0700
J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0700 J C Lawrence wrote:
>> I'm writing this now as the discussed configuration appears to work
>> and I'd rather document it now while its still fresh in my mind then
>> later when its not. If any big bug
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0700
J C Lawrence wrote:
> I'm writing this now as the discussed configuration appears to work
> and I'd rather document it now while its still fresh in my mind then
> later when its not. If any big bugs or required changes surface I'll
> post on those later to th
This is mostly written for the Mailman MLM community, but is CCed to
tmda-users as it applies there as well. In general subsequent
discussion should happen on mailman-developers, so I've set Reply-To
accordingly.
I'm writing this now as the discussed configuration appears to work and
I'd rather
> > Have you seen what the off the shelf OCR systems like OmniPage do these
> > days?
>
>Yes -- the performance is awful. And that's on ordinary printed text
>that's supposed to be readable, not on text that has been intentionally
>obfuscated.
My experience is otherwise; I use OmniPage 7.0--an
For what is worth, I think you are off in the wrong direction, you have to
assume the "opposing side" is just as good as you are, any attempt to mask
address will fail.
It like bicycle lock in Manhattan, lock companies came out with all sort in
"high tech" metal to defect thieves, it did not work
> "LN" == Les Niles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LN> Anyone for audio-encoded email addresses? When it comes to
LN> speech recognition, computers are definitely much worse than
LN> people.
Maybe I can finally suck Tim Peters into the Mailman project, albeit
in an obtuse way. He
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:27:27 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7/30/02 3:41 AM, "Ka-Ping Yee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think they'd hardly be able to get any. Have you really thought about
>> how hard this would be? Why would they bother to invest the enormous
>> devel
> "JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The Mailman docs should probably be geared towards "here's
>> something really cool that you can do with a TMDA add-on".
JRM> Right. Presenting a bunch of gory configuration details to a
JRM> TMDA unaware audience i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
> The Mailman docs should probably be geared towards "here's something
> really cool that you can do with a TMDA add-on".
Right. Presenting a bunch of gory configuration details to a TMDA
unaware audience isn't a very good idea I think.
> The TMDA do
> "JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please feel free to contribute a Howto, FAQ entry or any other
>> written docs on your set up. I'll add it to the distro where
>> appropriate.
JRM> Where do you think these docs should be maintained? In the
JRM
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (that, plus the fact that, as you predicted, Jason, SpamAssassin is
> running out of gas and letting more and more through).
My personal stats these days are:
~900 attempted spams/month, down from ~1300 due to activating RBL
(relays.ordb.org).
I'm going o
All,
I posted this earlier, but it was sort of buried in an email about not
necessarily related things. Here's what I'm trying to do:
I've already written code that filters the messages on their way to the
archiver, substituting based on regular expressions. It does this in the
Queue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
> Please feel free to contribute a Howto, FAQ entry or any other
> written docs on your set up. I'll add it to the distro where
> appropriate.
Where do you think these docs should be maintained? In the Mailman,
or TMDA tree?
--
(http://tmda.net/)
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please feel free to contribute a Howto, FAQ entry or any other
>> written docs on your set up. I'll add it to the distro where
>> appropriate. It's cool stuff that others are definitely going
>> to be interested in.
Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
> Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>...And note that this is an argument for list-specific
>>(i.e. non-global) whitelists
>
>
> Which is another argument for not building this into MM until it can
> be properly addressed.
>
> With TMDA, the list admin can cho
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:02:04 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> Fair dinkum. Good reasoning. I'll be rolling by TMDA front end to
JCL> all the lists at Kanga.Nu later today (need some more testing
JCL> first). I'll re
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> Fair dinkum. Good reasoning. I'll be rolling by TMDA front
JCL> end to all the lists at Kanga.Nu later today (need some more
JCL> testing first). I'll report on -developers once its gold,
JCL> probably along with a t
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:47:07 -0600
Jason R Mastaler wrote:
> J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Note: SF is likely going to have severe performance problems with the
>> current flatfile list implementation. Odds are that they're going to
>> want a persistent SQL-backed implementation
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:22:39 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/02 10:14 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Building the archives (even if not the list) with dated or sender
>> addresses TMDA-style starts seeming quite attractive.
> Actually, we're putting
J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note: SF is likely going to have severe performance problems with
> the current flatfile list implementation. Odds are that they're
> going to want a persistent SQL-backed implementation due to their
> size.
What flatfile list implementation are you re
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...And note that this is an argument for list-specific
> (i.e. non-global) whitelists
Which is another argument for not building this into MM until it can
be properly addressed.
With TMDA, the list admin can choose whether or not to use a per-list
whitelis
On 7/30/02 10:14 AM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Building the archives (even if not the list) with dated or sender
> addresses TMDA-style starts seeming quite attractive.
Actually, we're putting everything behind a CGI that'll enforce our
policies. That way, if the policies chang
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
> Hey maybe I'll get a chance to test out this emergency moderation
> feature all the kids are raving about these days! :)
Sorry, Barry. You know that once a Canadian joins the conversation,
all hope of propriety is lost. :)
-- ?!ng
_
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:26:13 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know, I know. I'd really like to see how the TMDA stuff pans out as
> more people use it. I think rather than run headlong into adding a
> feature at the last minute (so to speak), we can take a principled
> look
Hey maybe I'll get a chance to test out this emergency moderation
feature all the kids are raving about these days! :)
-Barry
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman-21/listinfo/mailman-developers
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/30/02 10:10 AM, "Dan Mick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>That sounds like a "yes the premise is invalid", not a "no".
>
>
> Thank you for explaining to me what I said, because otherwise, I wouldn't
> have known what it was I was saying.
Oh, for Christ's sake,
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> Nathan has already stated he's interested in some of the
JCL> legal CYA, and for that (I expect) he needs an explicit
JCL> decision at the time of first post, not first subscribe.
Ah. You know, Mailman is /almost/ there.
On 7/30/02 10:10 AM, "Dan Mick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds like a "yes the premise is invalid", not a "no".
Thank you for explaining to me what I said, because otherwise, I wouldn't
have known what it was I was saying.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://w
Dan Mick wrote:
>
> > The above would be great!! We currently have a problem with students
> > (university environment) sending "spam" to hundreds of lists so they can
> > find a room mate!!
>
> ...And note that this is an argument for list-specific (i.e. non-global)
> whitelists, as "just beca
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/30/02 9:40 AM, "Dan Mick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you mean that the premise,
>>"the email address is either inaccessible or inaccessible just to
>>ADA folks" is not valid?
>
>
> No, I don't. Programmatically obfuscating an email address still makes th
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>>That argument is a red herring.
>
>
> Not for sites requiring ADA compliance, it's not.
You didn't answer the argument, Chuq, which was that "it doesn't
matter how you make the email address inaccessible if it's
going to end up inaccessible". Do you mean that the pre
> The above would be great!! We currently have a problem with students
> (university environment) sending "spam" to hundreds of lists so they can
> find a room mate!!
...And note that this is an argument for list-specific (i.e. non-global)
whitelists, as "just because you can post to the alt.m
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:13:54 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> That would mean that all posts to the list are either from
>>> subscribers (who got the information about archiving at time of
>>> subscription), or those th
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That would mean that all posts to the list are either from
>> subscribers (who got the information about archiving at time of
>> subscription), or those that have confirmed their willingness
>> to be archived.
JCL> E
On 7/30/02 10:01 AM, "Ka-Ping Yee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That argument is a red herring.
>>
>> Not for sites requiring ADA compliance, it's not.
>
> I'm going to stop here, since it is clear that you're not reading what
> you're responding to. Please go back and look at what i wrote.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:57:47 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (this is one reason why, for instance, we are reinventing our archive
> system to remove the passwords we're currently using to keep the bots
> out. Because that's a system that doesn't really solve the problem,
> a
On 30 Jul 2002 15:43:52 +0100
Nigel Metheringham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An additional thing that would make me very much in favour of TDMA
> would be the possibility of adding a message to the confirmation
> stating that by posting to this list they are putting their messages
> into public
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:34:50 -0400 (EDT)
Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've thought for a while that phpMyAdmin was making a mistake with GET
> links for all those actions--they should be POST buttons, and spiders
> would not be able to do this.
It is making a mistake. W3C specs s
On 7/30/02 9:40 AM, "Dan Mick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean that the premise,
> "the email address is either inaccessible or inaccessible just to
> ADA folks" is not valid?
No, I don't. Programmatically obfuscating an email address still makes that
obfuscated email address available
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Yes, I have. Because I've seen how the spammers have moved up the technology
> curve when it suited their purposes.
Keep in mind that you are talking about technology that doesn't exist yet.
It's trivial to write harvesting software with more feature
> "DN" == Dale Newfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DN> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>> What got in was -- htDig, the search engine. Which happily
>> follows all links, including, if you let it spider phpMyAdmin,
>> the "delete this database" links. Including
All,
I've written and now tested a new Handler module, Filter.py, and I've added
the various hooks it needs to filter on messages before they are archived.
There are about 70billion different uses for this sort of thing, but the one
I'm after is replacing a string (say :1:) with an ima
An additional thing that would make me very much in favour of TDMA would
be the possibility of adding a message to the confirmation stating that
by posting to this list they are putting their messages into public
archives. If they confirm the message then they have given permission
for archiving
On 7/30/02 3:41 AM, "Ka-Ping Yee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> get 50% of your addresses or 5 passes to get 80%. They still win.
>
> I think they'd hardly be able to get any. Have you really thought about
> how hard this would be? Why would they bother to invest the enormous
> development eff
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> What got in was -- htDig, the search engine. Which happily follows all
> links, including, if you let it spider phpMyAdmin, the "delete this
> database" links. Including the database holding all of the MySQL
> configuration and account info. Which cau
> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> You get the picture. His search engine got into his database
CVR> and deleted all of his data, because while it wasn't working,
CVR> it COULD spider. And it got into an area it shouldn't have
CVR> gotten into, even
> "JCL" == J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JCL> Given your prior comments and a brief review on this end of
JCL> the relevant effort required:
JCL> Have we now spent more time and effort on discussing this
JCL> than would have been required to just do it?
Yes, bu
Patches item #444884, was opened at 2001-07-26 18:27
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=444884&group_id=103
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Richard Barrett (ppsys)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonym
Patches item #444879, was opened at 2001-07-26 18:01
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=444879&group_id=103
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Richard Barrett (ppsys)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonym
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Hard to read isn't enough. That was the essential failing of slashdot's
> attempt to do the "we'll choose a random algorithm for the address". It
> forgets that spammers don't need to read it all the time. It only needs to
> read it ONCE. So "hard to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Cute TMDA use
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:29:29 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw)
> To: Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: J C Lawrence <[EM
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:37:21 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If MM+TMDA does the job, then that's probably good enough.
While I like the idea of TMDA-like features built into MM, I like the
plugin model even more. Among the deciding factors for me is tht I'd
like to expose so
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Dan Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably missing something again. But I'm on very few lists that
> share a server, so I'd expect the normal behavior of "one confirm per
> list per alien address" behavior anyway (I think the only multilist
> server
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:02:25 -0600
Jason R Mastaler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
>> If what you say is the case -- builtin support isn't terribly useful
>> without the shared whitelist -- then maybe it does make sense to
>> defer until a later Mailman version.
> Some us
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:55:27 -0600
Jason R Mastaler wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
>> So if we /don't/ build the functionality into MM2.1 (as Chuq is so
>> sensibly arguing :) is there anything we need to do to implement the
>> whitelisting TMDA fronted MM that is being pr
55 matches
Mail list logo
