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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On 23 June 2016 at 09:32, Michai Ramakers wrote: > 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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:26:02 +0200, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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/).

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

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

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

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 > wrote: > > > Thus said Fossil SCM user's discussion on Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:54:47 > > -0400: > > > and +1 to all of these

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

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

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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

* Fossil SCM user's discussion [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 >

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 ___

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

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 <--

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

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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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)*: |

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

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

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 >

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

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.

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

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 >

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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

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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > > How big *is* the current list of subscribers? 519 members -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list

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

Re: [fossil-users] More reply spam...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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 -