Apologies.. I don't know who to remove from the address list.
You might revert to one open maillist. There are some anomalies. _1_ Once in a while, I receive a reminder that I am subscribed to : [oclug] = <[email protected]> Recently, seeing a remark that [oclug] is deprecated, I attempted to subscribe to : [OCLUG-Tech] = linux <[email protected]> I was informed that I am already subscribed, and received an emailed warning that possibly "a bad person" was meddling. (That is a nice thoughtful addition.) _2_ I receive (one copy of) almost all posts sent to both lists. A quick check, late at night, of the archives suggested I do indeed receive all messages, except sometimes the first of a new topic posted to [OCLUG-Tech]. There were so few that I may have lost some to carelessness or the whims of spam checking. I would want to check my records again before anybody spends more than a millesecond on this. _3_ There are two archives, despite all messages (absent glitches) being sent to everybody. If somebody on [oclug] replies to a message posted originally to [OCLUG-Tech], the reply goes (first) to the [oclug] list. Immediately there is an ambiguity : which archive stores the message? It appears (again, minimal checking) that any first message, and any thread which stays on one list, is stored in the corresponding archive. But if a thread crosses lists, subsequent messages are stored in the [OCLUG-Tech] archive regardless to which list that message is sent. I thought I saw a second level ambiguity, however, I could not refind it : if "[OCLUG-Tech]" was removed from the Subject: line, and the message was sent to [oclug] it was stored in the [oclug] archive. This suggests that maybe a common process examines all messages and looks only for "[OCLUG-Tech]". _4_ You probably didn't need all that, perhaps mistaken, detail. I think there should be only one open list, and one archive. Sometime, somebody, bored, and trustworthy, should merge old archives. Greg Lisa wrote: > Thank you Dave, for your help with this. There's been some discussion by the > Board, actually, that both hardware and much of the software on Tux need > upgrading. > > IMHO, this issue unfortunately shows that there is far too much complexity in > our current setup. The difficulty we've had in determining who administers > what, and emergency preparedness, for me has served as a disturbing wake-up > call. I would be all for offloading some functionality to reliable outside > sources as you suggest, and documenting as we go so we have a clear action > plan in case things really go awry. > > I say the less items we have to stay on top of, the better. If we can > offload the mailing list functionality altogether, or use a single piece of > software to accomplish this along with other services/needs, all the better. > > Still reading... > > Lisa > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Dave O'Neill" <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:55:48 > To: Lisa L<[email protected]> > Cc: Prof. John C Nash<[email protected]>; Brenda J. Butler<[email protected]>; > linux<[email protected]>; Mike<[email protected]>; Eric > Brackenbury<[email protected]>; R RENAUD<[email protected]>; John > Sebastien Taylor<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] Fwd: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 05:54:34PM -0400, Lisa L wrote: >> I'll paste below the contents of the files John sent. To me, it >> appears to be a Viagra ad coming from a host in Spain, with a link to >> a website in Russia. What we're trying to determine is whether (1) >> Tux has been compromised by crackers and is being exploited as a spam >> relay, (2) we are receiving this message in error because Tux' mail >> server has been configured to relay Board messages, and the error was >> intended for the spammer, or (3) something went awry with Google's >> Gmail servers. Note, 204.225.221.10 is Tux' IP. > > Based on the headers in that message, it looks like it's partly (2) -- > the spammer is sending to [email protected], and Tux is just > expanding the alias and relaying the mail onwards. However, you're not > receiving the rejection messages in error, exactly, because as far as > Google cares, you're contributing to the spam problem by not blocking > the original instead of passing it on. Servers that relay mail are > responsible for the mail they emit, even if they didn't originate it. > > I'd suggest that someone needs to upgrade the spam filtering on Tux... > if the header added is correct, you're running SpamAssassin 3.1.7, which > is pretty much an antique as far as spam filtering goes -- it's almost 4 > years old. Version 3.3.1 has been out since March 2010. I'm guessing > that Tux is running something outdated (etch, or perhaps sarge), as > stock Debian Lenny has 3.2.5, with 3.3.1 being available from backports. > > It might be possible for me to set up free hosted antispam for OCLUG > through my employer, if you're interested. It would remove the need to > have someone maintain cutting-edge-current inbound spam filtering on > Tux. I can find out on Tuesday if this is possible (unless David is > still reading li...@... and would like to respond). > > Cheers, > Dave > _______________________________________________ > Linux mailing list > [email protected] > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux > > _______________________________________________ Linux mailing list [email protected] http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
