Re: [fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!
Fossil SCM user's discussion decía, en el mensaje "[fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!" del 26/6/2016 16:42:26: > I use Gmane to access the mailing list, and with new change *every* > post is shown as coming from "Fossil SCM user's discussion". This is > a *massive* degradation in the usability of the list for me, and > presumably for those others of us that use Gmane. Please revert this > change! Concur. Even in a local client, the change defeats the proper functions of filtering and any killfile one has created, and precludes easy following of arguments in a thread. Now we don't have a fast way to identify the answers of the people in charge of Fossil development and is completely confusing. Was this change alerted beforehand and its rationale discussed? -- Marcelo Huerta ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!
Due to the move to anonymous messages I unsubscribed from the list. However I'm still getting messages. Did the changes break unsubscribing or am I not being patient enough? On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > I agree 100%. I end up ignoring messages from the Fossil mailing list > almost entirely now, as I am normally fairly selective regarding who's > messages I open if I'm in a hurry. > > Kind regards, > > Philip Bennefall > > > On 6/26/2016 10:11 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > > I concur. > > - Paul Hammant > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > >> I use Gmane to access the mailing list, and with new change *every* >> post is shown as coming from "Fossil SCM user's discussion". This is >> a *massive* degradation in the usability of the list for me, and >> presumably for those others of us that use Gmane. Please revert this >> change! >> >> I haven't read every post in the now extended discussion of the spam >> problem that led to the change, so quite possibly others have had >> similar reactions. I'm not sure if it would help in this particular >> situation, but I always use a bogus e-mail address in the From: >> header, but a real address in the Reply-To: header, which seems to be >> effective avoiding spam for me. >> >> -- >> Will >> >> ___ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> > > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing > listfossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.orghttp://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!
I agree 100%. I end up ignoring messages from the Fossil mailing list almost entirely now, as I am normally fairly selective regarding who's messages I open if I'm in a hurry. Kind regards, Philip Bennefall On 6/26/2016 10:11 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: I concur. - Paul Hammant On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>> wrote: I use Gmane to access the mailing list, and with new change *every* post is shown as coming from "Fossil SCM user's discussion". This is a *massive* degradation in the usability of the list for me, and presumably for those others of us that use Gmane. Please revert this change! I haven't read every post in the now extended discussion of the spam problem that led to the change, so quite possibly others have had similar reactions. I'm not sure if it would help in this particular situation, but I always use a bogus e-mail address in the From: header, but a real address in the Reply-To: header, which seems to be effective avoiding spam for me. -- Will ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!
I concur. - Paul Hammant On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > I use Gmane to access the mailing list, and with new change *every* > post is shown as coming from "Fossil SCM user's discussion". This is > a *massive* degradation in the usability of the list for me, and > presumably for those others of us that use Gmane. Please revert this > change! > > I haven't read every post in the now extended discussion of the spam > problem that led to the change, so quite possibly others have had > similar reactions. I'm not sure if it would help in this particular > situation, but I always use a bogus e-mail address in the From: > header, but a real address in the Reply-To: header, which seems to be > effective avoiding spam for me. > > -- > Will > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] please, please revert the change to the mailing list!
I use Gmane to access the mailing list, and with new change *every* post is shown as coming from "Fossil SCM user's discussion". This is a *massive* degradation in the usability of the list for me, and presumably for those others of us that use Gmane. Please revert this change! I haven't read every post in the now extended discussion of the spam problem that led to the change, so quite possibly others have had similar reactions. I'm not sure if it would help in this particular situation, but I always use a bogus e-mail address in the From: header, but a real address in the Reply-To: header, which seems to be effective avoiding spam for me. -- Will ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] there is no way to unset tarball prefix
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: fwiw, getting my own posts as a new mail, leading to (A) getting each submitted post sent right back to me as a new mail and (B) 2 copies of each post on my local thread (the one i wrote and the one i received), is starting to get annoying :/. i hope a better resolution than this anonymization can be found soon. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] there is no way to unset tarball prefix
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > (Sat, 25 Jun 18:40) Fossil SCM user's discussion: > > fwiw, i disagree. This patch removes an option from the user (specifying > an > > empty string) and does not add any new option (not specifying a prefix > > provides the same effect). > > But if I set a tarball prefix to some value, > and then rename the project; > How often does one rename a fossil project? (In my 8+ years with fossil, i've only once renamed a project.) I should simply delete a prefix via sql > to use a new project name as a tarball prefix.. ..or just duplicate a new name. > i don't understand what you mean by that. For your patch to apply, the user would literally have to had named his project the empty string (as opposed to NULL), and i cannot imagine anyone actually doing that, nor can i imagine any useful semantics for such cases. (But i'm often quite unimaginative.) i guess my question is: what _benefit_ does your patch provide for users other than yourself? -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] there is no way to unset tarball prefix
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > if tarball prefix is defined as an empty string (unset), > then Fossil will use it. > > I think, it would be better to use project-name: > ... > - if( zPJ==0 ) zPJ = db_get("project-name", "unnamed"); > + if( zPJ==0 || zPJ[0]==0 ) zPJ = db_get("project-name", "unnamed"); > fwiw, i disagree. This patch removes an option from the user (specifying an empty string) and does not add any new option (not specifying a prefix provides the same effect). -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Mainmenu wraps poorly on small screens
Hello everybody: (this is John Rouillard - rouilj) I have a smaller laptop I use daily with FF 47.0 and chromium 50.0.2661. If I look at: https://www.fossil-scm.org/download.html it is missing the "More..." menu item and I have a single row menu bar. If I look at the home page: https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki I get a two row menu. Downloads and More... wrap to the second line. But they overlap the Home and Timeline entries. To reproduce, just shrink the width of your browser window. I think there is a missing .mainmenu a { display: inline-block; } in the style file. With that addition I get a double row mainmenu that is a full double height, and the menu entries don't overlap anymore. Sincerely, A. Noymous 8-) -- -- rouilj John Rouillard === My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> writes: > Every other product I use has a forum and manages spam with > moderation and user reporting. Forum threads are way more efficient > to follow. All the mailing lists which I follow are via Gmane and Fossil was the only list where I got spam message privately, but I do not consider it’s very annoying since it can be dealth with with ’standard’ spam tools at client side. However, I certainly do not endorse using forums vs mailing list finding them clunky, requiring browser for using them etc. Otoh, mailing list(s) used via Gmane have all the advantages of nntp - easy (un)subscribing, automatic archives, no need for sorting rules to avoid INBOX cluttering etc…iow., I hope that mailing list will be kept using original form… Sincerely, Gour -- There is no possibility of one's becoming a yogī, O Arjuna, if one eats too much or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:28:03 +0200: > This would be effective only if the spam is sent from the same address > subscribed to the list, no? If it was so then it would be trivial to > solve the problem. There is another alternative that will be much more reliable, if it can be done, playing off the idea of sending out a quote of the day to the mailing list that someone suggested (I don't recall who because I am not able to easily associate names at the moment). lists.fossil-scm.org is running Postfix, which means it might support VERPs: http://cr.yp.to/proto/verp.txt If this is the case, then it should be fairly trivial to write a script that would iterate over each email address in the subscription database, construct a message of the day (perhaps even just a list of the commit timeline from the last time the mesage was sent), and then use VERP to send a unique message to each subscriber. Any automatic replies sent to the return address would be suspect and would automatically reveal to the moderator *who* is the bot because it would be encoded in the address. A variation on the VERP might instead encode the address into a token that can be tracked back to an actual address, just in case the bot is smart enough to look at the From address and detect itself to avoid being cauth (not likely). Thoughts? Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576e2276 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:08:49 -: > No, anonymity doesn't sucks...I want anonymity because as I said, > people don't want or even can't show up there details.And IMHO, > privacy is something that we would like to have for our safety and > everyone else safety... I believe most people subscribe to mailing lists with full knowledge that their email addresses will be harvested, that they may receive some potentially offensive messages, and are not opposed to having their identities known in public. If this were not the case, there are dozens of methods for hiding their true identity. They can use an alias and post from email addresses that reveal no information. They can use gmail, and come up with clever monikers, or other services that hide this information. It does not take a mailing list configured in this fashion to hide your information. > Why don't we go vote for the behavior we do want for this mailing list So far, it seems that most people already have voted in favor of the original behavior. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576e1ff8 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:18:41 -: >And IMHO, they can whitelist some of us ... can't they ? Exactly how would that solve the problem? Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576e1e72 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:46:29 -0400 / Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> said : > Another immensely popular tool for team, including open-source dev > and user teams is slack - https://slack.com/ > HipChat is a alternative - https://hipchat.com/ I am forced to use Slack at work and it's bad, it is very hard to organize discussion, and their XMPP/IRC gateways are not that good either. A mailing list is just better is just better to discuss. Or Usenet, but please don't force us to use another useless web interface. Mailing lists have been working for dozens of years, I don't see any reason to change now to something that is worse. -- BohwaZ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Gitter has an IRC bridge, but gitter's re-editing facility results in duplicated posts which can be confusing and tiresome. I agree that we don't want to tie DRH up with constant live chat; it seems to cost Nenad (Red) too much. A forum then... Newlisp has roughly the same number of members as Fossil and they use a Forum (phpBB, http://www.newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/index.php) On 25 June 2016 at 12:37, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > On 24 June 2016 at 18:46, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Another immensely popular tool for team, including open-source dev and > user > > teams is slack - https://slack.com/ > > HipChat is a alternative - https://hipchat.com/ > > > > Host it yourself Slack-alikes using open-source include > > http://www.mattermost.org/ and https://www.zulip.org/ > > > > These of these tools mentioned give plenty of integrations, including to > > iPhone/Android apps or gateways to email. > > > > If this list was much more active, outside of this single email > thread, I could understand the desire of something real time > communication. However, Dr. Hipp seems very busy so he likely wouldn't > be able to have continuous conversations. Most of those who know > Fossil/sqlite inner workings well are across the world in different > time zones, and they're not available all of the time. I'm perfectly > happy as a user of fossil to write an email, post it and hope someone > will take the time to respond to the post. > > Knowing this mailing list is less than 1000 people, I'm happy to be an > elite member with such intelligent, now anonymous, people. Whoever you > are--thank you and let's work on making Fossil great again. ;) > > In the end if I were to chose real time communication on an open > source project, I'd prefer IRC. > > By the way, there's stackoverflow.com with a fossil section: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/fossil > > Enjoy the weekend! > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 24 June 2016 at 18:46, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Another immensely popular tool for team, including open-source dev and user > teams is slack - https://slack.com/ > HipChat is a alternative - https://hipchat.com/ > > Host it yourself Slack-alikes using open-source include > http://www.mattermost.org/ and https://www.zulip.org/ > > These of these tools mentioned give plenty of integrations, including to > iPhone/Android apps or gateways to email. > If this list was much more active, outside of this single email thread, I could understand the desire of something real time communication. However, Dr. Hipp seems very busy so he likely wouldn't be able to have continuous conversations. Most of those who know Fossil/sqlite inner workings well are across the world in different time zones, and they're not available all of the time. I'm perfectly happy as a user of fossil to write an email, post it and hope someone will take the time to respond to the post. Knowing this mailing list is less than 1000 people, I'm happy to be an elite member with such intelligent, now anonymous, people. Whoever you are--thank you and let's work on making Fossil great again. ;) In the end if I were to chose real time communication on an open source project, I'd prefer IRC. By the way, there's stackoverflow.com with a fossil section: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/fossil Enjoy the weekend! ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Oh... If we're offering alternatives, I recently joined https://gitter.im/red/red and don't completely hate its interface. On 25 June 2016 at 09:46, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Another immensely popular tool for team, including open-source dev and > user teams is slack - https://slack.com/ > HipChat is a alternative - https://hipchat.com/ > > Host it yourself Slack-alikes using open-source include > http://www.mattermost.org/ and https://www.zulip.org/ > > These of these tools mentioned give plenty of integrations, including to > iPhone/Android apps or gateways to email. > > Gooling for "slack spam' I found > https://loganix.net/how-we-use-slack-to-beat-down-referral-spammers/. Not > so much about email, but the guy's business was having faked HTTP-referrers > (for some reason) and he'd written a slack-bot to purge such data from his > backends. > > - Paul Hammant > > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Another immensely popular tool for team, including open-source dev and user teams is slack - https://slack.com/ HipChat is a alternative - https://hipchat.com/ Host it yourself Slack-alikes using open-source include http://www.mattermost.org/ and https://www.zulip.org/ These of these tools mentioned give plenty of integrations, including to iPhone/Android apps or gateways to email. Gooling for "slack spam' I found https://loganix.net/how-we-use-slack-to-beat-down-referral-spammers/. Not so much about email, but the guy's business was having faked HTTP-referrers (for some reason) and he'd written a slack-bot to purge such data from his backends. - Paul Hammant ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
K, And IMHO, they can whitelist some of us ... can't they ? No, I don't think they can. The limitation is that the Fossil list is run on software (Mailman v2.1.14) that doesn't have any of these features that we've been imagining (myself included). At the very least the list would have to be updated to a newer version of Mailman to get the ability to replace only the email address in the From, leaving the name intact. At least, I think that's what the option I read about does. Beyond that, someone would have to come up with a patch to Mailman to implement one or more of the ideas. I've never looked at the source to Mailman, but I can't imagine the task would be trivial. Shal s...@cheshireeng.com ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
This change, if not reverted to something more pleasant, is going to kill this mailing list. I agree with Andy (at least, I think it was he) who said that not all opinions are equally weighted; I like to know who's speaking before I invest time in reading their post. Spam is a perennial problem facing the whole internet (and even RL with fliers in your mailbox and under your windscreen wipers, yadda). It's not Fossil's job to Kill All Spam. We all have and use spam filters. It's just a part of life. It's one of the unspoken rules of engagement when signing up to participate online: you will be spammed; you will be trolled; welcome aboard. Barry (an almost nobody on this list, weight=$0.02) On 25 June 2016 at 07:08, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > No, anonymity doesn't sucks... > I want anonymity because as I said, people don't want or even can't show > up there details. > And IMHO, privacy is something that we would like to have for our safety > and everyone else safety... > > Those who would like to be known, I suggest them to put the appropriate > inof they may want in the signature. > No one, not me at least, would be bothered about that... > > Only bad conduct should be banned, and I suppose that Fossil have got all > the information to stop people. > (IP adress, e-mail, etc.) > > PS: Hmmm... So no one is interested about my suggest ? > (Why don't we go vote for the behavior we do want for this mailing list) > Have a nice WE, everyone. > > > Best Regards > > K. > > > -- > *De :* Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> > *À :* fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 24 juin 2016 17h43 > *Objet :* Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam... > > On 6/23/2016 9:11 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:24:26 > +0200: > >> the tree-like nature of a thread is now gone (isn't it?) > > No, threading should still work. Just start a new thread with a > > different subject. Typically threading is handled by Reference or > > In-Reply-To header analysis. > > We now have an example of a fresh thread. Anonymity still sucks, but at > least threading does work. > > -- > Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com > Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ > <http://www.cheshireeng.com/> > +1 626 303 1602 > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > periodically ? > Sometimes I do not even read my e-mails... And sometimes you read only the first line, apparently. > At least, Fossil knows who are not bot... (Am I a bot ? Seriously?) > And IMHO, they can whitelist some of us ... can't they ? As I already wrote, one on topic post on the list could give one a perpetual pass. Or they will be whitelisted, if you prefer. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
periodically ?Sometimes I do not even read my e-mails... At least, Fossil knows who are not bot... (Am I a bot ? Seriously?)And IMHO, they can whitelist some of us ... can't they ? Best Regards K. De : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Envoyé le : Vendredi 24 juin 2016 18h09 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam... What about putting up a system which periodically sends out a request to list subscribers to confirm they are not a bot? Like, answering a simple question. Those who don't pass could be put on hold and stop receiving emails from the list. The request could be sent only to subscribers which have never posted to the list. Sending one on topic email to the list could serve as a perpetual pass. Just an idea. PB ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
No, anonymity doesn't sucks...I want anonymity because as I said, people don't want or even can't show up there details.And IMHO, privacy is something that we would like to have for our safety and everyone else safety... Those who would like to be known, I suggest them to put the appropriate inof they may want in the signature.No one, not me at least, would be bothered about that... Only bad conduct should be banned, and I suppose that Fossil have got all the information to stop people.(IP adress, e-mail, etc.) PS: Hmmm... So no one is interested about my suggest ?(Why don't we go vote for the behavior we do want for this mailing list)Have a nice WE, everyone. Best Regards K. De : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 24 juin 2016 17h43 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam... On 6/23/2016 9:11 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:24:26 +0200: >> the tree-like nature of a thread is now gone (isn't it?) > No, threading should still work. Just start a new thread with a > different subject. Typically threading is handled by Reference or > In-Reply-To header analysis. We now have an example of a fresh thread. Anonymity still sucks, but at least threading does work. -- Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ +1 626 303 1602 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
This is what I've said ... (just show names if people do want that) To block the bot isn't it easy to just say to Google, etc. and the mailman admin of the mailman website that is used by Fossil that there is a bot ?I'm quite sure that they may help. Best Regards K. De : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 24 juin 2016 7h54 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam... Yes just remove the email address but not the name, and problem solved in a better way until we find a solution to block this bot. Cheers, -- bohwaz ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
What about putting up a system which periodically sends out a request to list subscribers to confirm they are not a bot? Like, answering a simple question. Those who don't pass could be put on hold and stop receiving emails from the list. The request could be sent only to subscribers which have never posted to the list. Sending one on topic email to the list could serve as a perpetual pass. Just an idea. PB ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 6/23/2016 9:11 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:24:26 +0200: the tree-like nature of a thread is now gone (isn't it?) No, threading should still work. Just start a new thread with a different subject. Typically threading is handled by Reference or In-Reply-To header analysis. We now have an example of a fresh thread. Anonymity still sucks, but at least threading does work. -- Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ +1 626 303 1602 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 6/23/2016 11:22 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: I didn't write the MLM (It's "mailman" for what that's worth). I didn't even install it. ... Do you have patches for us? Alas, no. I'm not familiar with mailman or with Python. A glance at the mailman docs suggests that setting the from_is_list option to Munge From might be a way to replace the email address without losing the display part of the From. It is said to be less drastic than anonymous_list. Applies to Mailman 2.1.16 or newer. That doesn't help us track down the bot member, but at least it should have less impact on discussions. Shal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Yes just remove the email address but not the name, and problem solved in a better way until we find a solution to block this bot. Cheers, -- bohwaz ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] PHP Composer support for Fossil
To all the PHP developers who use Fossil, here is something that might be useful to you: support for Fossil repositories in Composer. I personally don't like Composer: it is intrusive, it might run shell scripts on package install, its packages are not signed and can not be trusted, it is quite slow and adds more complexity and magic on top of things. But when you have to use it well you want to be able to include your favorite Fossil repositories. And that's what I coded last week. You can find the patched version of Composer here: https://github.com/bohwaz/composer/tree/fossil And the pull request that will hopefully be merged in the main Composer is here: https://github.com/composer/composer/pull/5467 This is part of my ongoing effort to see more developer tools support Fossil, the last one was a SublimeText plugin to see realtime diff against current checkout in the editor[1], and I will now look at other stuff that need Fossil support. Please note that for your remote repository to be recognized by Composer it has to be on DNS that begins with "fossil." or the URL has to begin with "/fossil/" (or it has to be on ChiselApp). There is no such restriction on local repository checkouts, as long as they contain the .fslckout or _FOSSIL_ file. This is because Composer has only one "vcs" repository type, and not a "git" or "fossil" or "hg" repository type, so it has to magically detect what kind of repo it is, and for remote repositories there is not a lot of ways to do that. I hope this will be useful. Cheers, -- bohwaz [1] https://github.com/bradsokol/VcsGutter/pull/36 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > The trick is to figure out how to put a short nonce in each outbound subject > line. Maybe just member serial number, but something unique to the > recipient. I didn't write the MLM (It's "mailman" for what that's worth). I didn't even install it. I don't know much about it. It seems to be written in Python and consists of lots of little scripts all scattered hither and yon across the filesystem. Probably there is some way to modify the code to insert unique identifiers on each subject line, and then track those back to a receipient. But I don't know how to do that. Do you have patches for us? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Dr. H. > ... the bot's reply uses In-Reply-To and duplicates the subject line > from a prior legitimate email. There's your hook: the subject line. The trick is to figure out how to put a short nonce in each outbound subject line. Maybe just member serial number, but something unique to the recipient. 519 members is only three characters, two if you base-26 it. I suppose that might play havoc with email interfaces that thread by subject line. Shal ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:28:03 +0200: > > > This would be effective only if the spam is sent from the same address > > subscribed to the list, no? If it was so then it would be trivial to > > solve the problem. > > Yes, you're right, as I realized in an email that I apparently sent as > you were composing your reply. > > As I suggested, some profiling could actually be done to discover if > such an approach would be effective. > In a past situation on one of these mailing lists, someone wrote a script to bisect the list and narrow down where the auto reply crap was coming from. It was apparently quite effective > > Andy > -- > TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb845 > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- Scott Robison ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > How big *is* the current list of subscribers? 519 members -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Brad here. How big *is* the current list of subscribers? -bch On Jun 23, 2016 9:33 PM, "Fossil SCM user's discussion" < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:28:03 +0200: > > > This would be effective only if the spam is sent from the same address > > subscribed to the list, no? If it was so then it would be trivial to > > solve the problem. > > Yes, you're right, as I realized in an email that I apparently sent as > you were composing your reply. > > As I suggested, some profiling could actually be done to discover if > such an approach would be effective. > > Andy > -- > TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb845 > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Fri, 24 Jun 2016 06:28:03 +0200: > This would be effective only if the spam is sent from the same address > subscribed to the list, no? If it was so then it would be trivial to > solve the problem. Yes, you're right, as I realized in an email that I apparently sent as you were composing your reply. As I suggested, some profiling could actually be done to discover if such an approach would be effective. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb845 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on 23 Jun 2016 22:23:47 -0600: > Yes, I think this is the best option actually, and one that I've used > before. The trick would be to setup a server that does not filter > email, because if it filters out the spam before it can be reacted to, > then we lose. Well, there's actually one problem with this that would be hard to overcome. That's knowing the actual address which they used for subscription. Because From headers and Envelope From headers can be fabricated, there's no guarantee that the address they use will be the one they used to subscribe, but, at least it's an effort. Some investigation could be done to analyze the pattern (e.g. see if they use the subscription address when sending the spam or not) prior to enabling such a thing. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb7ed ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Any email sent to the spam trap triggers an automatic unsubscription. This would be effective only if the spam is sent from the same address subscribed to the list, no? If it was so then it would be trivial to solve the problem. (FWIW, I prefer the spam to this situation) Cheers ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:38:24 -0700: > Thinking slightly outside the box, I wonder if some sort of variant of > a honey-pot could be made to work. Set up an "official" bot that posts > daily. Have it post a joke of the day, trivia, help text for each > fossil command in sequence, or anything as long as it is different > each post. Post it from a single-use address, and use each address > exactly once, and only for this post. A name like Honey-[randomness] > might work. Yes, I think this is the best option actually, and one that I've used before. The trick would be to setup a server that does not filter email, because if it filters out the spam before it can be reacted to, then we lose. Any email sent to the spam trap triggers an automatic unsubscription. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb5f7 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:05:16 +0700: > Which prevents the simple approach we used on sqlite-users to flush > out the spammer. (this reply is mainly so I can see the exciting spam > messages everyone else is talking about...). Too bad, it won't work. That's kind of the point of the experiment. Your email address is hidden, so the only address that the spammer has is fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org and unless the bot decides to start sending emails there and reveal himself, you won't get the spam. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb506 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:02:33 +0200: > I'd rather fossil not go there. [Google] +1 Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb4aa ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:57:46 -0400: > Or you could stick with this "from:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org, > to: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org" situation, and lose loads of > goodwill. Hopefully everyone understands this is ``an experiment'' for the moment. :-) People are expressing their opinions. Sooner or later Richard will decide what the final outcome is, but hopefully it doesn't cause the loss of goodwill. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb48e ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:48:38 -0400: > Both lists require moderator action on first post for each (a > configuration choice). Google's spam logic is really good at picking > out spam before moderators are asked for action - maybe too good (you > can't turn spam-filtering off). How would this help? The problem isn't moderation. I'm sure if Richard wanted, he could enable moderation, but that won't actually solve the problem under discussion. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb41e ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:54:46 +0200: > Finally not understanding why the list of subscribers cannot be better > controlled, given the underlying issue is a spammer is subscribed to > the ML. Probably the most flexibility would come from a MLM that allows the subscribers to customize their preference (e.g. some may want to have the MLM hide their From, while others may not). I don't know if such a mechanis exists in any modern MLMs. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb3bc ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:24:26 +0200: > the tree-like nature of a thread is now gone (isn't it?) No, threading should still work. Just start a new thread with a different subject. Typically threading is handled by Reference or In-Reply-To header analysis. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576cb32e ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > The problem isn't that the messages are being posted to the ML, but that the > bot is passively harvesting email addresses from messages it receives from > the ML > Yes. But more than that, the bot's reply uses In-Reply-To and duplicates the subject line from a prior legitimate email. This allows it to sneak past spam filters that would otherwise reject it. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Both lists require moderator action on first post for each (a > configuration choice). Google's spam logic is really good at picking out > spam before moderators are asked for action - maybe too good (you can't > turn spam-filtering off). > The problem isn't that the messages are being posted to the ML, but that the bot is passively harvesting email addresses from messages it receives from the ML Unless you are proposing that new subscribers not be sent messages until they have successfully posted their first message. Leaving the name in the From and replacing the address with a honey-pot address may be the sanest work-around for the problem. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Is the software for the mailing list open source? If so, can i get a link to > its location. https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/ ㎝ -- |:**THE BEER-WARE LICENSE** *(Revision 42)*: | wrote this mail. As long as you retain | this notice you can do whatever you want with this stuff. | If we meet some day, and you think this stuff is worth it, | you can buy me a beer in return. |--Carlo Miron : ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Is the software for the mailing list open source? If so, can i get a link to its location. - Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com On 06/23/2016 13:51, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: Yes, very hard to follow anonymous discussion and returned copies. Every other product I use has a forum and manages spam with moderation and user reporting. Forum threads are way more efficient to follow. Moot point if no bandwidth to administrate? s k y 5 w a l k a t g m a i l d o t c o m <-- argg :) On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>> wrote: The current shape is almost unusable. I say "almost", because we haven't had a new thread on an actual on-topic subject since it was started, so all we have seen is an increasingly bushy discussion of the mailing list. But experience tell me that the community will wither and die if we don't find some middle ground. On-list spam is easy to deal with. Identify the spam, ban the sender. You can get more complicated than that, but it is easy precisely because everyone gets to see the bad behavior, especially the list owner. Off-list spam is much harder for the list management to control. While it is rare, I have received personal replies to my messages posted to the list. In most cases, that has been valuable. As luck has it, I have not received any "bad" messages that I can blame on this list. But I have pretty solid and stable spam filters between my inbox and the world. Thinking slightly outside the box, I wonder if some sort of variant of a honey-pot could be made to work. Set up an "official" bot that posts daily. Have it post a joke of the day, trivia, help text for each fossil command in sequence, or anything as long as it is different each post. Post it from a single-use address, and use each address exactly once, and only for this post. A name like Honey-[randomness] might work. Then, use mail sent to that name to identify and block the spammer, and raise hell with its ISP. In the obvious cases, that could be done completely automatically. Of course, the spammer might get smarter, requiring deeper investigation. But at least you'd have a chance of discovering the incident in a timely fashion. This list is a valuable resource for new users and boosting fossil's brand and credibility. It must not be allowed to die. Finally, if switching off of your current platform becomes an option, take a look at the relatively young Groups.io platform. It was formed to combat feature rot in Yahoo Groups, and is also trying to play in that niche of providing a service that is not quite a forum, but not just a mailing list. --Ross Berteig On 6/22/2016 10:50 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:01 -0600: This is how it happens: 1) spam bot subscribes to the mailing list 2) normal user subscribes to the mailing list and asks for help 3) spam bot receives a copy of the email delivered via the ML 4) spam bot sends an email directly to the sender (bypassing the ML) So, it is not possible for the ML to solve this problem via filtering. Some of the mechanisms it can use are: 1) make it harder to subscribe in hopes that the bot will be unsuccessful 2) manipulate the From address in some fashion: a) substitute the ML address but leave the comment in place b) mangle the address so human can easily figure out the *real* From c) completely anonymize From (current configuration) Yes to all of the above. But above all, kill the current blinding anonymity! -- Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ +1 626 303 1602 <tel:%2B1%20626%20303%201602> ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Yes, very hard to follow anonymous discussion and returned copies. Every other product I use has a forum and manages spam with moderation and user reporting. Forum threads are way more efficient to follow. Moot point if no bandwidth to administrate? s k y 5 w a l k a t g m a i l d o t c o m <-- argg :) On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > The current shape is almost unusable. I say "almost", because we haven't > had a new thread on an actual on-topic subject since it was started, so all > we have seen is an increasingly bushy discussion of the mailing list. But > experience tell me that the community will wither and die if we don't find > some middle ground. > > On-list spam is easy to deal with. Identify the spam, ban the sender. You > can get more complicated than that, but it is easy precisely because > everyone gets to see the bad behavior, especially the list owner. > > Off-list spam is much harder for the list management to control. > > While it is rare, I have received personal replies to my messages posted > to the list. In most cases, that has been valuable. As luck has it, I have > not received any "bad" messages that I can blame on this list. But I have > pretty solid and stable spam filters between my inbox and the world. > > Thinking slightly outside the box, I wonder if some sort of variant of a > honey-pot could be made to work. Set up an "official" bot that posts daily. > Have it post a joke of the day, trivia, help text for each fossil command > in sequence, or anything as long as it is different each post. Post it from > a single-use address, and use each address exactly once, and only for this > post. A name like Honey-[randomness] might work. > > Then, use mail sent to that name to identify and block the spammer, and > raise hell with its ISP. In the obvious cases, that could be done > completely automatically. Of course, the spammer might get smarter, > requiring deeper investigation. But at least you'd have a chance of > discovering the incident in a timely fashion. > > This list is a valuable resource for new users and boosting fossil's brand > and credibility. It must not be allowed to die. > > Finally, if switching off of your current platform becomes an option, take > a look at the relatively young Groups.io platform. It was formed to combat > feature rot in Yahoo Groups, and is also trying to play in that niche of > providing a service that is not quite a forum, but not just a mailing list. > > --Ross Berteig > > On 6/22/2016 10:50 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > >> Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:01 -0600: >> >> This is how it happens: >> >> 1) spam bot subscribes to the mailing list >> 2) normal user subscribes to the mailing list and asks for help >> 3) spam bot receives a copy of the email delivered via the ML >> 4) spam bot sends an email directly to the sender (bypassing the ML) >> >> So, it is not possible for the ML to solve this problem via filtering. >> Some of the mechanisms it can use are: >> >> 1) make it harder to subscribe in hopes that the bot will be unsuccessful >> 2) manipulate the From address in some fashion: >> a) substitute the ML address but leave the comment in place >> b) mangle the address so human can easily figure out the *real* From >> c) completely anonymize From (current configuration) >> > > Yes to all of the above. But above all, kill the current blinding > anonymity! > > -- > Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com > Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ > +1 626 303 1602 > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
The current shape is almost unusable. I say "almost", because we haven't had a new thread on an actual on-topic subject since it was started, so all we have seen is an increasingly bushy discussion of the mailing list. But experience tell me that the community will wither and die if we don't find some middle ground. On-list spam is easy to deal with. Identify the spam, ban the sender. You can get more complicated than that, but it is easy precisely because everyone gets to see the bad behavior, especially the list owner. Off-list spam is much harder for the list management to control. While it is rare, I have received personal replies to my messages posted to the list. In most cases, that has been valuable. As luck has it, I have not received any "bad" messages that I can blame on this list. But I have pretty solid and stable spam filters between my inbox and the world. Thinking slightly outside the box, I wonder if some sort of variant of a honey-pot could be made to work. Set up an "official" bot that posts daily. Have it post a joke of the day, trivia, help text for each fossil command in sequence, or anything as long as it is different each post. Post it from a single-use address, and use each address exactly once, and only for this post. A name like Honey-[randomness] might work. Then, use mail sent to that name to identify and block the spammer, and raise hell with its ISP. In the obvious cases, that could be done completely automatically. Of course, the spammer might get smarter, requiring deeper investigation. But at least you'd have a chance of discovering the incident in a timely fashion. This list is a valuable resource for new users and boosting fossil's brand and credibility. It must not be allowed to die. Finally, if switching off of your current platform becomes an option, take a look at the relatively young Groups.io platform. It was formed to combat feature rot in Yahoo Groups, and is also trying to play in that niche of providing a service that is not quite a forum, but not just a mailing list. --Ross Berteig On 6/22/2016 10:50 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:01 -0600: This is how it happens: 1) spam bot subscribes to the mailing list 2) normal user subscribes to the mailing list and asks for help 3) spam bot receives a copy of the email delivered via the ML 4) spam bot sends an email directly to the sender (bypassing the ML) So, it is not possible for the ML to solve this problem via filtering. Some of the mechanisms it can use are: 1) make it harder to subscribe in hopes that the bot will be unsuccessful 2) manipulate the From address in some fashion: a) substitute the ML address but leave the comment in place b) mangle the address so human can easily figure out the *real* From c) completely anonymize From (current configuration) Yes to all of the above. But above all, kill the current blinding anonymity! -- Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ +1 626 303 1602 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:54:47AM -0400, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into > an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is > always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. This makes the list IMO unusable. At the very least, please include the original name, otherwise this is even worse than the DKIM support forced by Google et al. Joerg PS: due to working spam filtering, I haven't even noticed the original issue... ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:48:38AM -0400, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > Michal - the answer is super-simple - move the email list to Google Groups. Please no. I find Google Groups to be super painful. It also doesn't fix the problem. Joerg ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
* Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> [20160622 16:40]: > As anyone who has recently posted to this mailing lists probably > already knows, some miscreant has again set up a reply-spam bot. > Whenever you post to this list, the bot sends porn-spam as a private > reply. Because the reply is private, there is nothing the mailing > list can do to filter it out. > > In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into > an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is > always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. > > This is an experiment. If it does not work out, we'll try to come up > with an alternative remediation to the reply-spam problem. Replying to 1. vote against (destroys community conversation) 2. get the spam (curious 3. suggest either subscription moderation and/or an identity-preserving header mangling sending the bot to a honeypot qvb -- pica ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Michal - the answer is super-simple - move the email list to Google Groups. > > > I don't think that helps any because the spam is not coming through the mailing list. The spam is a direct reply to the sender that bypasses the mailing list. Google Groups can filter all it wants, and it still won't stop the spam. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 06/23/2016 05:57 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: I agree. This sucks. Also writing because I want some juice spam to inspect. Finally not understanding why the list of subscribers cannot be better controlled, given the underlying issue is a spammer is subscribed to the ML. The spammers bot is subscribing new accounts as needed to continue to do spam activity. Which prevents the simple approach we used on sqlite-users to flush out the spammer. (this reply is mainly so I can see the exciting spam messages everyone else is talking about...). Dan. UNTIL the first postings of each correspondent is held pending moderator action (and for the sanity of the moderator - spam determination) the bot is always going to be able to outpace people attempts to thwart spam. Or you could stick with this "from:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:from%3afossil-us...@lists.fossil-scm.org>, to: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>" situation, and lose loads of goodwill. - Paul H ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 2016-06-23 06:48:38, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > Both lists require moderator action on first post for each (a configuration > choice). That's not exactly a feature that only google groups offers. > Google's spam logic is really good at picking out spam before > moderators are asked for action - maybe too good (you can't > turn spam-filtering off). I invite you to read http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated and reckon whether it's a good idea that someone who is coming to the fossil ML for help might be deemed inappropriate by google and filtered out for some arcane reason. It's not like you have any rights to the data, the service, or anything once you sign up with Google. Enjoy your non-freedom while it's cozy for you, and pat yourself on the back for forcing users of your OSS to the biggest honeypot we currently have in this world. I'd rather fossil not go there. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
> > > I agree. This sucks. Also writing because I want some juice spam to > inspect. > Finally not understanding why the list of subscribers cannot be better > controlled, given the underlying issue is a spammer is subscribed to the > ML. > The spammers bot is subscribing new accounts as needed to continue to do spam activity. UNTIL the first postings of each correspondent is held pending moderator action (and for the sanity of the moderator - spam determination) the bot is always going to be able to outpace people attempts to thwart spam. Or you could stick with this "from:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org, to: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org" situation, and lose loads of goodwill. - Paul H ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Michal - the answer is super-simple - move the email list to Google Groups. Here's a project I co-founded 12 years ago, Selenium. Devs use https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/selenium-developers. Users use *https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/selenium-users <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/selenium-users>* Most people just post to the mail-list though and it functions as you'd expect. You don't need to have a Google Account - just any email account from any provider. Both lists require moderator action on first post for each (a configuration choice). Google's spam logic is really good at picking out spam before moderators are asked for action - maybe too good (you can't turn spam-filtering off). - Paul H On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > (I replied to the last message sent at this point, not to the original > post in this thread) > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 2016-06-23 10:14:25, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:26:02 +0200, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:54:47 > > -0400: > > > and +1 to all of these points. the present approach replaces an (possbily > serious) annoyance (spam) with a real problem (destroying valuable and > important logical structure from the "set of posts" to the mail list). I agree. This sucks. Also writing because I want some juice spam to inspect. Finally not understanding why the list of subscribers cannot be better controlled, given the underlying issue is a spammer is subscribed to the ML. -guess who ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:26:02 +0200, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:54:47 -0400: This is an experiment. Hopefully one that is short lived. :-) It's pretty confusing to see a bunch of emails coming from ``Fossil SCM user's discussion'' in my MUA. I often like to brain filter messages (e.g. decide which emails to read first according to sender) but this will not work now that all messages are ``anonymous''. In addition, I like to know who is speaking *before* I start reading the message because I think this is important context. Sure, I suppose that might bias my interpretation of the words I see in the message, but I'm willing to live with that. :-) I've read through a number of replies on this thread and I'm still not certain who sent them and don't really want to invest the time trying to figure it out. This is exacerbated when the signature is at the very bottom, after a long response, and following a bunch of unnecessary quoted material (e.g. what happens in a top-post reply). Dealing with bots can be a tricky problem, but this is probably the only time I've seen anonymizing the emails employed as a method for dealing with it. Now that I've seen it, I don't think it's a very useful technique. What if subscription requests had an additional challenge aspect to them? Just my 2 cents. and +1 to all of these points. the present approach replaces an (possbily serious) annoyance (spam) with a real problem (destroying valuable and important logical structure from the "set of posts" to the mail list). joerg Andy -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 23 June 2016 at 09:32, Michai Ramakerswrote: > strange... tree-view of a thread is present when viewing individual > messages in the archive (e.g. my last mail, > http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg23445.html), > but not on the threads-overview page > (http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/). ...and it's always been like this, I notice now. Not fully awake yet, perhaps, sorry. Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
strange... tree-view of a thread is present when viewing individual messages in the archive (e.g. my last mail, http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg23445.html), but not on the threads-overview page (http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/). Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Hi, (I replied to the last message sent at this point, not to the original post in this thread) Unfortunately I am not mailing-list clued, and I don't have a solution for this current spam-problem. With risk of stating the obvious: the tree-like nature of a thread is now gone (isn't it?) This makes it almost impossible for me to sensibly read a historical thread - which I do often when searching for a solution to a problem or weirdness I'm encountering. And... somehow I have trouble dealing with "anonymous" postings (that is, without a name at the bottom of the mail). New users posting a quick question may typically not sign their email, because they expect their email-address to be enough identification. Perhaps this is something I have to get used to, I don't know. (In my head, the origin of a post on this ML is often a hint to its relevance, or even indication of whether it is an answer or question - drh and experienced devs usually don't post too many questions here...) I wouldn't be opposed to a forum-style list, provided I'd get a digest (even if only with titles of newly posted messages) by email. (I would probably never "poll" a forum for new posts; perhaps other people do.) Interesting to see how this develops. I'll ask some mail-savvy friends for possible solutions, but I guess there are mail-savvy people on this list already. Michai ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
I too find this very confusing. I don't know who each message is from. Many people (myself included) don't have their name by default in their signature (if they even have one) and asking everyone to either add one for every email they send to anyone or to manually remember to sign each post to this mailing list seems like too much. Maybe there are other email clients that can add a signiture based on the "To:" field, but gmail can't, so it is all email or manually for this list. And even if this is done, it is still confusing having to read down to the bottom in order to see who it is, and not being able to skim back to find the reply from X is annoying. Can a filter be added to ML to (silently) ban any email address of the form mentioned above by reply #3 (or #4, counting the original post)? (I think this is a fine example of the problem: I had to reopen each reply to find the one that had that, and then count to figure out how to reference it) Baruch -- ˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> writes: > Hopefully one that is short lived. :-) +1 > It's pretty confusing to see a bunch of emails coming from ``Fossil SCM > user's discussion'' in my MUA. +1 > In addition, I like to know who is speaking *before* I start reading the > message because I think this is important context. Sure, I suppose that > might bias my interpretation of the words I see in the message, but I'm > willing to live with that. :-) +1 I was also victim of that ’private email’ in the past, but the present sitaution is really confusing not knowing who is speaking etc. Sincerely, Gour -- From wherever the mind wanders due to its flickering and unsteady nature, one must certainly withdraw it and bring it back under the control of the self. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:01 -0600: > Just filter it, either at the mailing list or at each client. Problem > solved. I think this is the most sensible approach, however, in the case presented, it isn't possible to filter at the mailing list because the spam did not go to the mailing list. This is how it happens: 1) spam bot subscribes to the mailing list 2) normal user subscribes to the mailing list and asks for help 3) spam bot receives a copy of the email delivered via the ML 4) spam bot sends an email directly to the sender (bypassing the ML) So, it is not possible for the ML to solve this problem via filtering. Some of the mechanisms it can use are: 1) make it harder to subscribe in hopes that the bot will be unsuccessful 2) manipulate the From address in some fashion: a) substitute the ML address but leave the comment in place b) mangle the address so human can easily figure out the *real* From c) completely anonymize From (current configuration) Dealing with spam is always difficult because there really isn't an easy way. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576b78c3 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:58:01 -0600: > > No, it is a huge PR problem. > > Huge? Maybe not to some, but, it's certainly not something that we want coming as a result of emails to the ML. > I never correlated the posting to this list and the spam replies. I've > got so much spam coming in from so many sources that there's no > telling where it all originated. It's easy for me to tell because the email address that I use for posting to this mailing list is unique to this mailing list. So if I get spam sent to this address, I know it came as a result of association with this list. It may be that it came through mailing list harvesting, but when a piece of spam comes almost immediately after I post to the ML, it's pretty much certain there is a bot on the ML. > Even one who does manage to correlate the two should not assume that > the Fossil organization is the one sending such messages out. They shouldn't, but you assume that all people have the same understanding of ``how things work'' and I assure, this is not the case. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576b748b ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:54:47 -0400: > This is an experiment. Hopefully one that is short lived. :-) It's pretty confusing to see a bunch of emails coming from ``Fossil SCM user's discussion'' in my MUA. I often like to brain filter messages (e.g. decide which emails to read first according to sender) but this will not work now that all messages are ``anonymous''. In addition, I like to know who is speaking *before* I start reading the message because I think this is important context. Sure, I suppose that might bias my interpretation of the words I see in the message, but I'm willing to live with that. :-) I've read through a number of replies on this thread and I'm still not certain who sent them and don't really want to invest the time trying to figure it out. This is exacerbated when the signature is at the very bottom, after a long response, and following a bunch of unnecessary quoted material (e.g. what happens in a top-post reply). Dealing with bots can be a tricky problem, but this is probably the only time I've seen anonymizing the emails employed as a method for dealing with it. Now that I've seen it, I don't think it's a very useful technique. What if subscription requests had an additional challenge aspect to them? Just my 2 cents. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000576b730e ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Hello again, One of the biggest mistakes I've noticed with many software projects is that they do think that "trying to force people to give bugs they've found in a website like github, is a good idea". I say it's wrong. a) Most people prefer e-mail to inform.b) most people don't have time to check the github website unless they are clearly IT Project leader (or something close to that such as software developers)...c) Sometimes they could not afford to show their details because the project they work with do not allow it... d) most of the time, points of view of people who know nothing about the project are interesting because they could see something that usual users/developers may not notice.And those people do not use Github, or if we prefer, they don't even know that it really exists... My two cents. Best Regards K. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Hello, I am happy that finally Fossil decided to take more seriously this issue.As I said in the past, I do prefer that no names are displayed. Of course the issue stated here is not about name, but this is one side effect of what I've said...(When people details are sent to the public, many people gets angry for example...) However, if some people would like to be known, just put your signature like :me at yahoo dot fr (no it is not my e-mail :-D)Web site is my dot website dot com. In the past, we received what we've sent and recently it was not the case which was a bit annoying because we don't know if *our* mail was really sent or not ...If people would like to see others names, I suggest that it could be seen, INSIDE the body of the mail but not in the reply thing (don't remember the name of the reply thing : I'm sorry about that). 2/ Some people ask for a forum :Good idea IF people have time to subscribe (say login pass couple) go check for it.Another advantage is that people could have a topic to follow if necessary... Bad idea when we most of the time can't take time to go there ...Most people would like to follow the main discusses and sometimes some little question could be send ... 3/ Suggests :a) Could you ask people to vote :yes means we would like our names to be seen, and no if we don't want that behavior? b) Why don't you create a way to put some main questions in a forum ?Some criteria could be the number of responses ...(I *never* said that it is easy to do of course) Best Regards K. De : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
One way to find out which subscriber is (knowingly or unknowingly) behind this problem is to have the mail list send out messages augmented with the actual recipient's email (preferrably as "xxx at domain xxx dot xxx" to not be immediately obvious to possible scripts that may remove them) as part of the body of the email. Then, the porn should come back with that information as it appears to always quote the original message. It should quickly reveal what email address is behind this, and that address can be banned from the list. -Original Message----- From: Fossil SCM user's discussion Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:42 PM To: Fossil SCM user's discussion Subject: Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam... On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:20:56AM -0400, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know > from > who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. I agree. I just don't know of an alternative. Suggestions are welcomed! I don't know how flexible is the Mail list system, but if possible, may be it could take the name of the original "From:" field, but keep the mailing list email. Example: - Email received by the server: From: John Smith <johnsm...@someisp.com> To: Fossil User Mailing list <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> - Email sent back to the member of the list From: John Smith <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> To: Fossil User Mailing list <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> I have no clue if it's possible, but it would be a good compromise. Regards -- Martin G. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
What about stripping the email address in the but leave the display name. Not sure if that capability exists. - Scott Doctor sc...@scottdoctor.com On 06/22/2016 11:12, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: It's a disaster to not have the sender in the usual sender FROM: place. Migrate to google-groups which is super successful for open source projects -- Paul Hammant, noob to fossil, 16 yr veteran of making OSS for others. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. -- Martin G. Le 22 juin 2016 à 10:54, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> a écrit : As anyone who has recently posted to this mailing lists probably already knows, some miscreant has again set up a reply-spam bot. Whenever you post to this list, the bot sends porn-spam as a private reply. Because the reply is private, there is nothing the mailing list can do to filter it out. In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. This is an experiment. If it does not work out, we'll try to come up with an alternative remediation to the reply-spam problem. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
It's a disaster to not have the sender in the usual sender FROM: place. Migrate to google-groups which is super successful for open source projects -- Paul Hammant, noob to fossil, 16 yr veteran of making OSS for others. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:15 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from > who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. > > -- > Martin G. > >> Le 22 juin 2016 à 10:54, Fossil SCM user's discussion >> <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> a écrit : >> >> As anyone who has recently posted to this mailing lists probably >> already knows, some miscreant has again set up a reply-spam bot. >> Whenever you post to this list, the bot sends porn-spam as a private >> reply. Because the reply is private, there is nothing the mailing >> list can do to filter it out. >> >> In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into >> an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is >> always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. >> >> This is an experiment. If it does not work out, we'll try to come up >> with an alternative remediation to the reply-spam problem. >> >> -- >> D. Richard Hipp >> d...@sqlite.org > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > > Live with the spam. It’s small potatoes as problems go. > > No, it is a huge PR problem. “Huge?” Breaking news, the Internet is full of porn. Film at 11. (No, not *that* kind of film!) > Innocent users find Fossil and have a quick question, so they send a message > to the list and immediately get back porn. Not a good first impression. I never correlated the posting to this list and the spam replies. I’ve got so much spam coming in from so many sources that there’s no telling where it all originated. Even one who does manage to correlate the two should not assume that the Fossil organization is the one sending such messages out. They aren’t marked as such, and they’re pretty clearly off-topic. There is no reason to suppose they’re intentionally linked. I’m not saying it’s not a problem. As I said, I quickly took the extraordinary step here to prefilter such messages. I don’t need an NSFW problem with my boss looking over my shoulder. I am saying that breaking the mailing list just to deal with this one problem is overkill. Just filter it, either at the mailing list or at each client. Problem solved. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Stephan wrote: Ah, another apparent side effect of this change is that users now get a copy of their own posts sent to them. That wasn't the case before. As the unsigned person said, suppressing your own message on its return to you is a feature of some email systems - specifically including gmail. Gmail operates by comparing the received Message-ID field to those you sent. The recent change caused the Message-ID field to be replaced as well as the From field, so gmail no longer sees the returned message as "the same message" as any you sent. Shal (sorry about the previous misfire - accidentally hit send before I'd edited the message body) ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
-- Shal Farley<s...@cheshireeng.com> Cheshire Engineering Corporation +1 626 303 1602 http://www.CheshireEng.com On 6/22/2016 10:19 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org <mailto:fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>> wrote: Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB or similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and proposed solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. Forums are unfortunately no less subject to spam than email is (the main advantage is that it's possible to remove spam from forums, which leads us nicely to my next point...), and have much higher maintenance costs (time/effort) than mailing lists. -- - stephan beal Ah, another apparent side effect of this change is that users now get a copy of their own posts sent to them. That wasn't the case before. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 22 June 2016 at 10:07, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB or > similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and proposed > solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. I think it's less efficient as the user must first create an account, maybe wait for moderation, and post a message. Then there's always the struggle with it being mis-posted so a moderator would need to move the message to the correct spot. Forums are good for non-software type things, IMO. -- sean ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Ah, another apparent side effect of this change is that users now get a copy > of their own posts sent to them. That wasn't the case before. You did still get a copy of your own messages before, but in the old scheme, the returned message’s headers matched the ones your mailer sent, so most mailers are smart enough to suppress those duplicates. The change introduces enough differences to break that echo suppression. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
> Le 22 juin 2016 à 13:19, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> a écrit : > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion >> <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion >>> <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: >>> Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB >>> or similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and >>> proposed solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. >> >> Forums are unfortunately no less subject to spam than email is (the main >> advantage is that it's possible to remove spam from forums, which leads us >> nicely to my next point...), and have much higher maintenance costs >> (time/effort) than mailing lists. >> >> -- >> - stephan beal > > Ah, another apparent side effect of this change is that users now get a copy > of their own posts sent to them. That wasn't the case before. > Which is nice ... -- Martin G.___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > >> Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB >> or similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and >> proposed solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. >> > > Forums are unfortunately no less subject to spam than email is (the main > advantage is that it's possible to remove spam from forums, which leads us > nicely to my next point...), and have much higher maintenance costs > (time/effort) than mailing lists. > > -- > - stephan beal > Ah, another apparent side effect of this change is that users now get a copy of their own posts sent to them. That wasn't the case before. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB > or similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and > proposed solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. > Forums are unfortunately no less subject to spam than email is (the main advantage is that it's possible to remove spam from forums, which leads us nicely to my next point...), and have much higher maintenance costs (time/effort) than mailing lists. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Is it too much overhead to create/maintain a Fossil forum page with phpBB or similar? A mail list seems so linear to capture diverse ideas and proposed solutions. Let alone, scanning past issues is far from efficient. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion < fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > Put or keep the sender's display name (in their original From field) in > the display name part of the From: address. That way your messages would be > from: > > Richard Hipp <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> > > That way who sent the message will still be evident in most email > interfaces, and most automatic quote headers won't be as blind either (see > quotes below). > > A slightly more complicated variation is to also reform the user name > portion of the from address to include an encoding of the sender's email > address: > > Richard Hipp
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
Put or keep the sender's display name (in their original From field) in the display name part of the From: address. That way your messages would be from: Richard HippThat way who sent the message will still be evident in most email interfaces, and most automatic quote headers won't be as blind either (see quotes below). A slightly more complicated variation is to also reform the user name portion of the from address to include an encoding of the sender's email address: Richard Hipp
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:20:56AM -0400, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from > > who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. > > I agree. I just don't know of an alternative. Suggestions are welcomed! I don't know how flexible is the Mail list system, but if possible, may be it could take the name of the original "From:" field, but keep the mailing list email. Example: - Email received by the server: From: John Smith <johnsm...@someisp.com> To: Fossil User Mailing list <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> - Email sent back to the member of the list From: John Smith <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> To: Fossil User Mailing list <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> I have no clue if it's possible, but it would be a good compromise. Regards -- Martin G. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] More reply spam...
> Live with the spam. It’s small potatoes as problems go. > No, it is a huge PR problem. Innocent users find Fossil and have a quick question, so they send a message to the list and immediately get back porn. Not a good first impression. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: >> The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from >> who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. > > I agree. I haven’t used an email signature in many years now. I found reasons to drop one line at a time from the 4+ lines I used to send, until I removed the last one and didn’t miss it. (You don’t need my phone number, you don’t need my web site address, you don’t need my pithy quote, you don’t need my Geek Code, and you don’t need my ICBM Address.) Now you’re saying I need to start using one again just to identify myself on this list? > I just don't know of an alternative. Live with the spam. It’s small potatoes as problems go. I don’t know if we’re talking about the same spam, but the stuff I’m getting has a pretty simple pattern in its X-Authenticated-Sender header that makes it easy to send straight to the trash. I haven’t seen any of that in weeks, since the last minor adjustment to the rule. I’d post the rule here, but then this message would probably get caught up in someone’s aggressive spam filter. Just take a look at any two such messages, and you’ll probably see the same pattern. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from > who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. I agree. I just don't know of an alternative. Suggestions are welcomed! > > -- > Martin G. > >> Le 22 juin 2016 à 10:54, Fossil SCM user's discussion >> <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> a écrit : >> >> As anyone who has recently posted to this mailing lists probably >> already knows, some miscreant has again set up a reply-spam bot. >> Whenever you post to this list, the bot sends porn-spam as a private >> reply. Because the reply is private, there is nothing the mailing >> list can do to filter it out. >> >> In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into >> an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is >> always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. >> >> This is an experiment. If it does not work out, we'll try to come up >> with an alternative remediation to the reply-spam problem. >> >> -- >> D. Richard Hipp >> d...@sqlite.org > > > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...
The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from who the email come from unless we look at the signature at the bottom. -- Martin G. > Le 22 juin 2016 à 10:54, Fossil SCM user's discussion > <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> a écrit : > > As anyone who has recently posted to this mailing lists probably > already knows, some miscreant has again set up a reply-spam bot. > Whenever you post to this list, the bot sends porn-spam as a private > reply. Because the reply is private, there is nothing the mailing > list can do to filter it out. > > In an effort to thwart this attack, I have converted fossil-users into > an "anonymous" list. That means that the email address of senders is > always stripped. Replies can go to the mailing list only. > > This is an experiment. If it does not work out, we'll try to come up > with an alternative remediation to the reply-spam problem. > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users