On 3/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi Anand, > > Hope you don't mind me replying. You sent this to -project. > > > Why every uol.com.br address was unsubscribed and not only > > petsupermarket, AFAIK there's no general problem with that domain, > > right? [...] > > The Challenge-Response system appears to be a uol.com.br service > and there seems no way to detect externally which users are using > it. I don't know what proportion of @uol.com.br use it. Do you?
Yes, it's their service and the C-R thing sucks. I'm not using @uol.com.br but that's not the point, see below. > See also: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=355684 > Bug report that triggered the unsubscribe, but apparently > not the first time @uol.com.br users have been C-R spamming. > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html > Challenge Response Anti-Spam Systems Considered Harmful > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg00338.html > Earlier version posted to debian-user Good research really, but do you see that [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't subscribed in our MLs ? It's other address that is forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The mass-unsubscribe side effect here is that we're hurting users when [EMAIL PROTECTED] is still free to mail our lists. What's the rationale ? Force uol users after unsubcribe them to ask their ISP send a reply for Debian ? -- -- stratus
