For those interested, the google group I am mirroring the haproxy mailing list to can be found at:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haproxy-filtered Since I set this up, there have been 3 messages to the list. 1 was someone signing the haproxy list up for a a french mailing list and made it through the filters. On was a legitimate post which was flagged as spam, and one was a legitimate post that showed up initially as expected. This is a very small sample size, but so far indicates the problematic nature of this sort of filtering that Willy was concerned about. If you have any interest in moderating this mirrored list, let me know as I don't plan on doing much moderating myself once I am confident that things are working correctly. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Michael Johnson - MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops... > > didn't cc the list on this. fixing... > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Michael Johnson - MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rather than continue discussing/arguing about this, I've attempted to >> take action to solve the problem. >> >> I've created a googlegroup called haproxy-filtered and attempted to >> subscribe it to the haproxy mailing list. All spam is set to be moderated, >> otherwise it is unmoderated. >> >> This message will work as a test to see if I successfully subscribed it >> to the mailing list. Assuming it works, if you want permission to moderate >> the spam, let me know (I probably will not be doing any moderating myself). >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Alexey Zilber <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> <snip> >>>> Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided >>>> for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange >>>> together. >>>> It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like >>>> it's >>>> fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, >>>> participate >>>> to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more >>>> subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from >>>> time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible >>>> experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the >>>> service >>>> side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden >>>> dealing >>>> with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being >>>> perfect, but >>>> it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very >>>> recently >>>> we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address >>>> has >>>> better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of >>>> spam. >>>> But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam >>>> problems as >>>> I already spent in this sterile thread. >>>> >>>> Willy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Willy, >>> >>> Please don't take our issues with the spam personally. Everyone >>> appreciates the list and the help it's provided, so keep in mind people are >>> just voicing their opinions (and most of us have strong opinions) regarding >>> spam. >>> Going over the previous threads, imho if you don't have Greylisting, >>> maybe that's the way to go? While my opinion still stands that the only >>> real way to combat this spam is to make it a 'subscribe to post' list; if >>> you're using Greylisting, why not build it so that unsubscribed users have >>> a weighted value, so users who post a lot are automatically whitelisted >>> (before passing their email through spamassasin or other such spam scanner). >>> >>> Thanks Willy! >>> -Alex >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Johnson - MJ >> > > > > -- > Michael Johnson - MJ > -- Michael Johnson - MJ
