Hi to all.
Trying to admin the digest options of any list by web interface, I get this error:
Traceback:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/mailman/scripts/driver", line 86, in run_main
main()
File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/admin.py", line 187, in main
show_results(mlis
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:57:50PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Users of a mail list have a right to be protected from spam caused by your
> mail list.
Ok. I don't want to start a philosophical war here, and I'm perfectly
familiar with the concept enshrined in the phrase "that's fine, sonny,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:52:40AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/19/02 7:09 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up the case
> >> for Lynx. Blind people I had not though about, although I had thought
> >> about te
On 2/20/02 9:31 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I still think it's important to keep firmly uppermost in our minds
> here that the spam is not *caused* by the mailing list.
>
> Nor is it caused by Google
>
> It's *caused* by the spammers.
And burglary is not caused by my
On 2/20/02 9:45 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I'll happily tell the "I don't like cookies" people to get over it,
>
> Well, actually, there are still a couple browsers that don't *do*
> cookies. 2.8.3, I think, doesn't do persistence, yet.
My answer: get a real brow
At 10:15 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>That, basically, allows us to stuff mailtos somewhere pointing to an address
>you can mail to to report site failures. I'll even go farther and say that
>address can simply be on a web page, not linked to a Mailto, and if you
>really, reallly want
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:17:58AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:45 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> While I'll happily tell the "I don't like cookies" people to get over it,
> >
> > Well, actually, there are still a couple browsers that don't *do*
> > cookies
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:15:33AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:31 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I still think it's important to keep firmly uppermost in our minds
> > here that the spam is not *caused* by the mailing list.
> >
> > Nor is it caused by G
> Have you seen what slashdot is doing? I think it has promise,
> because while it's still reversible programmatically, it
> makes it much more difficult to do. Will they still get
> harvested? Most likely. But not nearly as quickly as most
> other sites, and it's going to make the spambots cr
On 2/20/02 1:18 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And burglary is not caused by my owning nice things, either. It's caused by
>> burglars. But that's no excuse to not put locks on the doors.
>
> A mailing list -- a publically accessible mailing list -- isn't your
> house. It'
On 2/20/02 1:37 PM, "Damien Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can see thay are using url/cgi encoding in the email
> address. This is trivial to circumvent, as is using html entities, or
> any other reversible scheme.
With a constantly varying algorithm. So they obfuscate, but the
At 13:42 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>And any decent library also has a rare books room, which IS tightly locked
>up. And while the content of a mail list qualifies as a public library to
>some degree, the subscriber addresses live in that rare book room.
At least in Chuq's context,
On 2/20/02 2:13 PM, "John W Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least in Chuq's context, in which Apple claims in their privacy policy
> to protect the addresses of us innocent subscribers to their lists.
>
> That context may not match the context of other list operators, who may
> feel that
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I'm not telling admins what their policies need to be, but I do think
> Mailman needs to understand it's role as a "best practices" tool -- and
> I do feel strongly that whatever an admin does, they do so in a mode
> that involves informed consent wit
On 2/20/02 2:43 PM, "Dale Newfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Or a header that can be set to cause a message not to get archived?)
That already exists -- X-No-Archive, which I believe pipermail understands.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Stress
Anyone have any idea how I set X-No-archive on all emails being sent to
a mailman list?
Im using Outlook 2002. As far as I know there is no ability to access
internet headers in Outlook 2002 without the use of unusual COM objects
to get at extended MAPI properties.
> -Original Message-
>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:42:34PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 1:18 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And burglary is not caused by my owning nice things, either. It's caused by
> >> burglars. But that's no excuse to not put locks on the doors.
> >
> > A mailin
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:31:54PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> 1) I think a tool like Mailman has to implement to the highest-reasonable
> security, so if people want to be looser, fine. It's easier to loosen the
> reins than expect JrandomeUser to implement extra features on an ad hoc
> basi
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:58:33PM -0500, Damien Morton wrote:
> Anyone have any idea how I set X-No-archive on all emails being sent to
> a mailman list?
>
> Im using Outlook 2002. As far as I know there is no ability to access
> internet headers in Outlook 2002 without the use of unusual COM ob
On 2/20/02 5:36 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, you're saying because you protect yourself from the spammers, that
>> EVERYONE should, too?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, I am saying that. There are cost-free, not
> especially difficult to set up, facilities for all envir
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:49:53PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 5:36 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, you're saying because you protect yourself from the spammers, that
> >> EVERYONE should, too?
> >
> > As a matter of fact, yes, I am saying that. There ar
On 2/20/02 7:26 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Show me the systems, jay, that work for real people, not us geeks that run
>> our own boxes on our own desks.
>
> Volvos are very safe, Toyotas are in the middle, sand rails are *just
> not safe at all*.
You're avoiding the iss
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
> for people.
But it does have drawbacks.
It only works with graphical browsers.
It can't be enlarged for peop
> "Chuq" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chuq> On 2/20/02 1:37 PM, "Damien Morton"
Chuq> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As far as I can see thay are using url/cgi encoding in the
>> email address. This is trivial to circumvent, as is using html
>> entities,
>> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
>> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
>> for people.
>
> But it does have drawbacks.
>
> It only works with graphical browsers.
This is a very good point. I mentioned ADA compliance yester
On 2/20/02 8:23 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nor do the spammers need to deobfuscate all the obfuscations. They
> only need enough that they're getting a reasonable harvest rate.
A very good point. We want to make it tough on spambots, but adding
complexity to the syst
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 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.
> If the question and answer can be arbitary on a site by site, or better,
> hit by hit basis, then it becom
>> 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.
That some other programmer can't cheat on. Even gooder luck.
> If it's arbitrary, it's generated by some algorithm. If it's generated by
> s
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 one is tricky. It depends
At 20:36 -0500 2/20/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[Quoting Chuq]
>> See above. You don't get the analogy right.
[Jay]
>
>No, I merely don't value the email address's privacy as highly as you
>do. I get about 50 spam a day in 200 new messages including about 14
>mailing lists -- I'm entitled to ho
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
At 0:08 -0500 2/21/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
>> If the question and answer can be arbitary on a site by site, or better,
>> hit by hit basis, then it becomes infeasible to build a spambot to enter
>> such sites.
>
>If it's arbitrary, it's generated by some algorithm. If it's generated by
>some a
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > If you've got a database mapping arbitrary number/name/string to an email
> > address, then why not just have a web form that sends mail to that address
> > knowing only the arbitrary value (and never divulge the email address)?
>
> Basically, what
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> Actually, the reason not to use it is that it can be used to spam anyone
> who's id mapping you can grab from the archive!
That's a separate issue and can have a separate solution. Make the form
smart--for example, make it only accept 10 messages from a
At 23:15 -0500 2/20/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
>> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
>> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
>> for people.
>
...
>
>It can't be enlarged for people that ha
> Have you seen what slashdot is doing?
unobscured mailto: links?
What am I missing?
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
First, I got:
Compiling /var/local/mailman/Mailman/versions.py ...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "bin/update", line 47, in ?
from Mailman import MailList
File "/var/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 49, in ?
from Mailman.Archiver import Archiver
File "/var/local/mai
38 matches
Mail list logo
