Closing the oclug mailing list (and a couple of others) is on my todo list.
bjb On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:39:38PM +0000, Lisa wrote: > Thanks, Greg. This correlates with what Mike Kenzie was describing to me > last night. He said he often does not receive the first of a new topic on > OCLUG-Tech or Board mailing lists, but always seems to get the replies. > AFAIK I've never experienced it myself, but since you're not the only one I'd > say this warrants further investigation. I just don't know how to do it. > > Of course, as someone posted earlier, the question becomes whether it's > feasible/worth it to quickly patch our current system for the moment, or if > it's better to just expedite the major hardware and software upgrades we know > need to happen anyway. Either way, I only have a portion of the knowledge > needed but am willing to assist with the necessary tasks. For those who > don't know me, my background is in electronics and computer repair, > networking, and some web admin/development (LAMP, installing/maintaining > scripts); actively using GNU/Linux since about 2000. > > Lisa > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:37:43 > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: Dave O'Neill<[email protected]>; linux<[email protected]>; John > Sebastien Taylor<[email protected]>; John > Nash<[email protected]>; Brenda J. Butler<[email protected]>; Eric & Christine > Brackenbury<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] Fwd: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > > 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 ---end quoted text--- _______________________________________________ Linux mailing list [email protected] http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
