On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:02:11PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, "Larry McVoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not > > at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home. > > If that's even remotely close, then it seems like efforts could be better > > spent on screening technology. > > You can't assume your admins are going to want/have screening technology, > unless you build it into mailman. And I don't think Mailman can simply say > "hey, that's some other program's problem".
I'm not in charge of as much mail as you, Chuq, but I've been around the block a couple times too... and I'm not sure I agree with that. > We need to find ways to not > become an easy source for the harvester machines. I DO know from my sites > that addresses published ONLY as mailman admins get harvested and hit by > spam. Yup, and so does every web page on the net, and it will keep happening until other things outside our control change markedly -- either on the network provider TOS enforcement side... or on the find offenders and burn down their buildings side. And I'm only partly kidding there. > To me, it's more an issue of "we can't be part of the problem", not "we're > the solution". I have a couple of admins who want their addresses removed > from all public pages -- which I've refused to do, because I think the need > for access by a user in trouble trumps the admin's privacy. Damn right it does. You're gonna be in the movies, you gotta expect to sign the occasional autograph at dinner. > I think at least > one of those admins has solved it by setting up an admin-specific account, That's the proper solution. > and redirecting it to /dev/null, which, if I ever definitely catch him doing > so, will get him in trouble... But that's not, and I concur with your appraisal. > But at the same time -- I don't blame him. And Mailman has a responsibility > to do something about that, the way we (as admins) have a responsibility ot > our users not to make them easy fodder for the harvesters by publishing > archives in an easy to harvest format... Look up "enabler". This is an old argument. I don't know that I concur that reducing the pain threshold of people who might otherwise have an incentive to do *useful* work on spam reduction is a good idea. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 "If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk") _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
