On Tuesday 26 February 2002 16:52, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> I find this feature is handy for small, private lists.
>
> Sure. I have a couple that could be handled that wa
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 15:47, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/25/02 6:38 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BAW> 5) list rosters
> >
> > I don't know of any lists where these are available to the members,
> > let alone the public.
>
> You know, now that I think about it
On Friday 22 February 2002 18:58, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> > Ok. Show me a solution
>
> The point is that adding layer after layer of temporary solutions doesn't
> add up to an actual solution any more than not adding those layers
On Friday 22 February 2002 18:36, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> > The best we can do here is implement something simple now that gets the
> > job done, and continuously test it to see if it's still good enough.
> > When it's not,
On Friday 22 February 2002 16:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > Excellent. Would you mind publishing an analysis so we can start making
> > some informed decisions as to what methods are effective?
>
> Oh, that's easy. I haven't found evidence of any harvesting. I've also been
> able to find eviden
On Friday 22 February 2002 14:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/21/02 5:25 PM, "John Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Nobody has bothered to do this YET. That we know of. But the spamhacks
> >> are evolving rapidly.
> >
> > Well, let&#x
On Friday 22 February 2002 11:20, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/21/02 2:00 PM, "John Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think we're really getting into wild speculation territory here. No one
> > will bother hacking the code to automatically get new fre
On Friday 22 February 2002 05:28, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
> > Making a private archive available to those who are list members
>
> I haven't commented on this before, but the reason I find this solution
> lacking is that most mailman lists (in my experience
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:41, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> There is some validity to the "the club" mentality, of "we don't have to
> fix it, we only have ot make it difficult enough to convince them to annoy
> someone else". But if we assume we're building the New Defacto Standard
> Listserve
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:08, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> > It's a test to find out if the agent that requested the page is human or
> > some bot of some sort.
>
> Assuming you can build such a test. Good luck.
Building a good
On Thursday 21 February 2002 17:15, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
> > Web Forms for contacting the admin cold. If the admin replies, you can
> > continue the conversation via email.
>
> Right, assuming the web form doesn't break.
Monitor the form. Your monitori
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
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&#
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
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:32:44 -0500 Chris Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been using Mailman on our web site for open source development of
> "serious business software." http://www.greatbridge.org/. We are
> interested in seeing Mailman have a PostgreSQL database back
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:12:49 +1100 Andrew McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JM> Might as well add code to convert the password from the
> >JM> depreciated form to the current default if one of the fallback
> >JM> methods succeeds, then set the fallbacks to cascade over
> >JM>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:59:15 -0500 Barry A. Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "JM" == John Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> JM> Might as well add code to convert the password from the
> JM> depreciated form to th
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:57:12 -0500 Barry A. Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, other than that, there's a few more bounce detectors. Also, I'm
> ditching the crufty md5/crypt munging of passwords and opting for an
> sha1 hash always. However, to support backwards compatibility
> (i.e. the
18 matches
Mail list logo
