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

Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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 >

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

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:46:29 -0400 / Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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

On 24 June 2016 at 18:46, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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 >

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

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

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

ior 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

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

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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?) >

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

il 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 sim

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

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 repl

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

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 so

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

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

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

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

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

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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 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...

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...

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...

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 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...

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 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 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 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 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...

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 -

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

* 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 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 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...

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...

> > > 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...

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...

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 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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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-s

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:

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

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

On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

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

-- Shal Farley 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

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

On 22 June 2016 at 10:07, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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

> Le 22 juin 2016 à 13:19, Fossil SCM user's discussion > a écrit : > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Fossil SCM user's discussion

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

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

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 <

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 Hipp That way who sent the message will still be evident in most email interfaces, and most

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 > 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

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

On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Fossil SCM user's discussion wrote: > > On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion > wrote: >> The only problem (or annoyance) I see with that is that we don't know from >> who the email come from

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

On 6/22/16, Fossil SCM user's discussion 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

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 > a écrit : > > As anyone who has