Re: Holy Spam!
Jon Earle wrote: > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their > open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of > addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I > started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since > yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! I've been posting to this list with addresses that have been harvested since the dawn of spam (one dates from 1994, the other from 1996). I willfully insist on receiving mail to both addresses over two modem connections (one of them a mere 33.6K) and uucp is also rumoured to be involved. I've survived the spam and viruses so far. The open nature of the Debian mailing lists is a feature, not a bug, and is well worth preserving. -- Frank Copeland Home Page: http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/> Not the Scientology Home Page: http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I read this "list" via Newsguy.com. I subscribed, to get > posting rights, but the address forwards to /dev/null. You don't need to subscribe to be able to post. > I tried reading this mailing list with an email client. > Had to unsubscribe after a few hours. Apart from the spam size (which is a problem), reading a dozen lists in MH-E works well for me. Killing threads is a must. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On 3 Oct 2003 21:10:05 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I tried reading this mailing list with an email client. > Had to unsubscribe after a few hours. I've been "reading this mailing list with an email client" (and posting to it as well) for the past two years. Still doing it. Still alive. -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
I read this "list" via Newsguy.com. I subscribed, to get posting rights, but the address forwards to /dev/null. Newsguy filters out all the spam. I have a large spam blocking list, http://www.greens.org/about/r.txt (tcprules format) and yesterday I blocked a big chunk of Global Crossing, because their downstreams send me so much spam and they ignore all complaints. I urge others to do the same. (Frankly I don't believe GBLX even *has* an abuse dep't.) But it turned out there was something called murphy.debian.org in there, which needed whitelisting. I tried reading this mailing list with an email client. Had to unsubscribe after a few hours. Cameron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:33:33PM +0100, Carlos Sousa wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Jon Earle wrote: > > > > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing > > list. > > No, it was thanks to spam. You're confusing the issues here. The Debian > list is not the enemy, spammers are. > The exact same thing happened to me last week (used my real email by mistake; started tons of spam). I too changed my email. The strange thing is the "list-only" account I normally posted to the list with gets no spam at all. Either the harvesters somehow distinguish between subscribed and unsubscribed emails, or the .nospam in my name is throwing them. Does anyone else not get spam on their mailing list alias? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Jon Earle wrote: > > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing > list. No, it was thanks to spam. You're confusing the issues here. The Debian list is not the enemy, spammers are. -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Friday 03 October 2003 1:25 pm, Dan Anderson wrote: >4) Anything with .pif, .bat, .exe attached is probably spam. Quarantine >it (unless it's from your somebody on your whitelist). I'd add HTML email as well, Dan. FWIW, I'm suprised that HTML email requesting support is sent to this listserv from people who aren't apparently newbies. I just shake my head when I see this stuff in my spam folder. Regarding autoresponses, the vast majority of junk I get during a virus storm are autoresponses to faked header emails. It's a real irritant and shouts out clueless email server admin. Jeff Elkins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On (04/10/03 01:40), David Palmer. wrote: > On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle said: > > > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected > > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their > > open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of > > addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I > > started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since > > yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! > > > > This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm > > placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional > > newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple > > addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, > > I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out > > policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help > > (particularly the list gateway to news). > > > > I understand their is a passion and an almost a cult-like religion to keep > > things completely open, free, unencumbered, unfettered, etc, however, > > _controls_, not restrictions, are neccessary to ensure the integrity of > > the list environment. Users don't want spam, and they do want their > > service providers to take reasonable, not intrusive, but reasonable > > measures to reduce or eliminate their exposure to the spam industry. > > > > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing > > list. Is this a positive result of the desire for openness? > > > > Cheers! > > Jon > > > > [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if > > those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense > > whatsoever. > > > You're supposed to subscribe to the list, and that way you get a reply in your > mail client. > As far as the spam goes, you're not supposed to avoid it. I've been sitting > back and watching people on this list hack their way round the situation. > If you look back over the recent archival history, you will see scripts that > have been created that have seen some of these people spamless. It has gone a > long way towards helping configure mailing formats too. If you isolate yourself > too much from the environment, you become ill suited to survive in it. The > story of the human race. > Regards, > > David. > Rock on ;) I'm fighting spam and this stuff is "hard", but I've learnt more about email in the last week or two, than I ever knew in some 20 years of using computers ;) Regards Clive -- http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
J. Bruce Fields writes: > In fact it is not, because it greatly increases the negative impact of > spam and virus mail (most of which is sent with forged "from" addresses) > by multiplying the amount of useless email that is sent. Such useless bounces typically account for about 25% of my email. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:21:20PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote: > > So, again, please don't send automatic replies. > > Although you may not personally approve of the method it is an accepted > method of blocking spam. YMMV and such. There certainly is software out there (virus software at least) that does send automatic replies--my mail folders have ample evidence. I don't believe you're correct that this practice is "widely accepted", but in any case, that's not the right question. The question is whether this practice (widely accepted or not) is beneficial. In fact it is not, because it greatly increases the negative impact of spam and virus mail (most of which is sent with forged "from" addresses) by multiplying the amount of useless email that is sent. It's also worth thinking about what would happen if I did implement the sort of autoreply-to-unknown-from-addresses scheme you suggest, and if I ever subsequently received an email with your "from" address. (You can't be sure this will never happen--all it takes is for a correspondant with lax security to get infected with a virus that scans their inbox for email addresses.) In this case we'd end up with an infinite loop. If a lot of people start using such autoresponders, such loops will become inevitable. --Bruce Fields -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
> So, again, please don't send automatic replies. Although you may not personally approve of the method it is an accepted method of blocking spam. YMMV and such. > On such an email address I'd be even more wary about using an > autoresponder because I don't want people that are potentially offering > me "multi million dollar" contracts to have to jump through extra hoops > to contact me. Better to make them jump through hoops then not get any emails from them at all. Also, combined with Whitelists this generally isn't a problem. (Because you did add them to your whitelist, right? Because it's a multi million dollar contract and all.) I'll admit my examples are not reminiscent of real world scenarios. But I think there is nothing wrong with letting people know what valid anti-spam options exist. -Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:00:52PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote: > > It isn't just people on listserv's that will be annoyed: please never > > send automatic replies; the "from" address is a lie anyway. > > This is one of the reasons I put a caveat about listservs not following > rules. The problem I described isn't a problem with listservs. The problem is that there are infected machines out there which have nothing to do with me which are sending massive amounts of email with my address on them. (The "from" address is literally a lie; the worm just scraped it off a web page somewhere, I guess). The people sending automatic replies to those messages are shoveling nearly as much email into my mailbox as the original worm. So, again, please don't send automatic replies. > However, FWIW, on a business only address (which isn't > subscribing to a listserv) this can be a very good way to make sure a > vital e-mail isn't accidentally sent to /dev/null. On such an email address I'd be even more wary about using an autoresponder because I don't want people that are potentially offering me "multi million dollar" contracts to have to jump through extra hoops to contact me. --b. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:25:16 -0400, Dan Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > I've had very good success with the following: > > 1) Send all e-mails with your name not listed as a receipient to a > probable spam folder. After a few weeks of tweaking (mailing lists and > newsletters will get send there too) you will find just about everything > in there the probable spam folder is spam -- and can be deleted > accordingly. > 2) Anytime a major virus comes up filter out common text in the message > body if it comes through. > > The following are useful if you know a language like Perl and can pipe > your mail through it (not very hard): > 3) (A little more tricky) Create "Whitelists" -- people who you know you > can trust. Any mail from these people gets sent to your inbox -- don't > accidentally delete an important e-mail! > 4) Anything with .pif, .bat, .exe attached is probably spam. Quarantine > it (unless it's from your somebody on your whitelist). > 5) Make anybody e-mailing to your address who is not on your whitelist > (besides listservs!) respond to an automatic reply to be added to your > whitelist. Most spammers won't respond (although people on the listserv > may get angry and block your e-mail. See caveat re: listservs). > 6) Keep a listserv list and other lists in a database so it is portable > wherever you go. > > This has successfully helped me send over 2k emails to /dev/null today. > I highly recommend it. > > -Dan > I do all of the above with spamassassin and tmda. I don't use the challenge/response method; instead I changed the default action to "hold," so that I can look at unfamiliar email when *I* want to. You can also change the default action to deliver to some mailbox for later perusal. (tmda's c/r system is fairly smart about not emailing challenges to lists, though.) I find tmda's rule syntax a lot easier to handle than procmail's, but I use procmail, too, for some prefiltering. There are a ton of anti-spam and mail-filtering packages out there; putting them in place properly may take some time, but it sure has reduced my frustration level. -- monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
> It isn't just people on listserv's that will be annoyed: please never > send automatic replies; the "from" address is a lie anyway. This is one of the reasons I put a caveat about listservs not following rules. However, FWIW, on a business only address (which isn't subscribing to a listserv) this can be a very good way to make sure a vital e-mail isn't accidentally sent to /dev/null. For instance, in my personal e-mail box if any e-mails are dropped that were legit I might miss out on talking to Grandpa (he's got a dirty mouth), but I will never lose a multi million dollar contract. In business losing a multimillion dollar contract because you never got any of the e-mails (What you've never needed to talk about forks to somebody from Brooklyn to get a contract?). Thus an autoresponder which whitelists people can be a good idea. -Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:25:16PM -0400, Dan Anderson wrote: > 5) Make anybody e-mailing to your address who is not on your whitelist > (besides listservs!) respond to an automatic reply to be added to your > whitelist. Most spammers won't respond (although people on the listserv > may get angry and block your e-mail. See caveat re: listservs). It isn't just people on listserv's that will be annoyed: please never send automatic replies; the "from" address is a lie anyway. I'm assuming that this sort of automatic reply is the reason a large proportion of my junk mail appears to be bounce messages: the Swen virus, or something, is using my address on its mail as the "from" address and clueless virus software is sending me oh-so-helpful messages telling me I'm infected. --Bruce Fields -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:58:46 -0700, Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote: >> [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if >> those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense >> whatsoever. > > +1 > > I could not agree more. > By reading the archive. In any case, why are we talking about newbies? Surely newbies aren't the only people who use mailing lists. Just because you use the list one way, doesn't mean that's the only way that everyone uses the list. I'm not subscribed. I use the list just fine, and I like the way I use it. -- monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 18:13, Jon Earle wrote: > This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm > placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional > newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple > addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, > I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out > policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help > (particularly the list gateway to news). Harm is done by those running their systems (or even selling these systems) in a way that makes such mass-mailing possible. (Actually, I think you just met W32/Swen, one of the most active worms by now.) No matter how you want to restrict the list policy - as long as the list is publicly available for reading (and it has to be), there are ways to gather addresses from every posting. -- Martin Stigge * Remove the -spam part of my From: address * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On 03 Oct 2003, J. Bruce Fields wrote: [snip] > > Personally I gave up on the idea of hiding my email address a long time > ago. I want people with a legitimate reason to be able to reach me > without jumping through hoops. With dictionary attacks against mail > servers and third-party leaks of email addresses (think what a virus can > do with a correspondant's inbox), I'm not convinced that obfusticating > my email address is going to continue to be a good anti-spam solution > anyway. > > --Bruce Fields I agree. I've sometimes been pleased to be able to get further information via email when I've come across an interesting message on Google. I don't find that spam grows endlessly, though there is certainly a lot of it - it's been fairly constant for many months at about 80-100/day (I don't count it). But spamprobe catches virtually all of it with no false positives at all, so never have to see it. It just makes my mail downloads take a bit longer than they otherwise would, but as I'm on an unmetered account this doesn't matter greatly. Admittedly, if I had to pay depending on my time on line I might feel differently, I suppose. Anthony Campbell -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| http://www.acampbell.org.uk using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
I've had very good success with the following: 1) Send all e-mails with your name not listed as a receipient to a probable spam folder. After a few weeks of tweaking (mailing lists and newsletters will get send there too) you will find just about everything in there the probable spam folder is spam -- and can be deleted accordingly. 2) Anytime a major virus comes up filter out common text in the message body if it comes through. The following are useful if you know a language like Perl and can pipe your mail through it (not very hard): 3) (A little more tricky) Create "Whitelists" -- people who you know you can trust. Any mail from these people gets sent to your inbox -- don't accidentally delete an important e-mail! 4) Anything with .pif, .bat, .exe attached is probably spam. Quarantine it (unless it's from your somebody on your whitelist). 5) Make anybody e-mailing to your address who is not on your whitelist (besides listservs!) respond to an automatic reply to be added to your whitelist. Most spammers won't respond (although people on the listserv may get angry and block your e-mail. See caveat re: listservs). 6) Keep a listserv list and other lists in a database so it is portable wherever you go. This has successfully helped me send over 2k emails to /dev/null today. I highly recommend it. -Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle said: > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their > open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of > addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I > started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since > yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! > > This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm > placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional > newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple > addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, > I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out > policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help > (particularly the list gateway to news). > > I understand their is a passion and an almost a cult-like religion to keep > things completely open, free, unencumbered, unfettered, etc, however, > _controls_, not restrictions, are neccessary to ensure the integrity of > the list environment. Users don't want spam, and they do want their > service providers to take reasonable, not intrusive, but reasonable > measures to reduce or eliminate their exposure to the spam industry. > > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing > list. Is this a positive result of the desire for openness? > > Cheers! > Jon > > [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if > those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense > whatsoever. > > -- > Jon Earle > > SAVE FARSCAPE http://www.savefarscape.com/ > > Vegetarian - an old Indian word meaning 'lousy hunter'. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > You're supposed to subscribe to the list, and that way you get a reply in your mail client. As far as the spam goes, you're not supposed to avoid it. I've been sitting back and watching people on this list hack their way round the situation. If you look back over the recent archival history, you will see scripts that have been created that have seen some of these people spamless. It has gone a long way towards helping configure mailing formats too. If you isolate yourself too much from the environment, you become ill suited to survive in it. The story of the human race. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Holy Spam!
Yes, this is a pain. I am subscribed with two addresses. It's a long story, but at the other one, I get no spam. This email address I subscribed about 48 hours ago and instantly got attacked with virus emails. I am getting 50 to 60 of them a day. It's very annoying. But, there doesn't seem to be much you can other. Just don't ever subscribe to a list like this with an "important" email address. Use ones you can easily change or delete. Adrian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Jon Earle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> penned: > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their > open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of > addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I > started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since > yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! > > This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm > placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional > newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple > addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, > I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out > policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help > (particularly the list gateway to news). > > I understand their is a passion and an almost a cult-like religion to keep > things completely open, free, unencumbered, unfettered, etc, however, > _controls_, not restrictions, are neccessary to ensure the integrity of > the list environment. Users don't want spam, and they do want their > service providers to take reasonable, not intrusive, but reasonable > measures to reduce or eliminate their exposure to the spam industry. > > I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing > list. Is this a positive result of the desire for openness? > > Cheers! > Jon > > [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if > those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense > whatsoever. > I think you're misdiagnosing the problem. If you can't remember to set your email address to something other than your main account, you should think about using a mailer like mutt that will do it for you based on the recipient. I can't speak for newbies, but I can speak for me. I use the gmane newsgroup interface to read this list, so subscribing would just create spam for *me* rather than for you. With the current method, it's also possible to post to the group and read the response by scanning the archives online. In fact, newbies are encouraged to read the archives *before* mailing the list ... Unless a subscription service provides the "no mail" option, I strongly prefer an open mailing list. Even if it does provide the no mail option, I still prefer the open list. Subscriber-only mailing lists are designed to prevent spam from entering the list, not to protect you from your own mistakes. I understand that spam is a royal pain in the butt, and I sympathize, but there are many ways to mitigate the pain -- many of which have been discussed here in recent days. Perhaps setting up some spam filters would be a more viable solution -- after all, the solution you suggest is only effective if *every* mailing list you ever use converts to subscription-only. Spam filters will be effective no matter what lists you use. -- monique Please respond to the group OR to my email, but not both. (Group preferred.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote: > [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if > those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense > whatsoever. +1 I could not agree more. -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote: > This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm > placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional > newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple > addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, > I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out > policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help > (particularly the list gateway to news). I've solved a great deal of problems by doing things like googling on error messages. The (often very useful) results are usually found in lists like this one. It's not enough to be able to search the lists of one particular archive after joining that list; the usefulness of this technique comes from the fact that I can search so many lists at once. I suppose the emails could be blinded somehow before being passed on to archives or usenet groups, though it is occasionally useful for example to be able to follow up with someone whose bug report you find on a list. Personally I gave up on the idea of hiding my email address a long time ago. I want people with a legitimate reason to be able to reach me without jumping through hoops. With dictionary attacks against mail servers and third-party leaks of email addresses (think what a virus can do with a correspondant's inbox), I'm not convinced that obfusticating my email address is going to continue to be a good anti-spam solution anyway. --Bruce Fields -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Holy Spam!
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Jon Earle wrote: > I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected > to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their > open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of > addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I > started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since > yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! I made the same mistake! IT WAS A HORRIBLE MISTAKE! I've been fighting the battle ever since. I ruined a good email address. Now I'm faced with filtering tons of spam (with spamassassin, or procmail, or something else to learn), or abandoning my main mail address... There's gotta be a better way. =( -sfh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Holy Spam!
I sent _one_ post to the debian-users list yesterday. One. I neglected to use an alias I'd created for posting to that list, and, due to their open posting policy and their email-usenet gateway and the availability of addresses in the clear within the list archives, within _minutes_, I started receiving viruses, spam and other crap. My mail logs since yesterday show a _ton_ of crap coming at me now! Unbelievable! This open list policy that so many lists have, while it _may_, and I'm placing a lot of faith and emphasis on the 'may', offer the occasional newbie or (individual who couldn't be bothered to subscribe multiple addresses) the ability to post[1], that, coupled with gatewaying to news, I feel is just plain irresponsible. It's a _very_ poorly thought out policy that I feel does more to harm the list community that help (particularly the list gateway to news). I understand their is a passion and an almost a cult-like religion to keep things completely open, free, unencumbered, unfettered, etc, however, _controls_, not restrictions, are neccessary to ensure the integrity of the list environment. Users don't want spam, and they do want their service providers to take reasonable, not intrusive, but reasonable measures to reduce or eliminate their exposure to the spam industry. I've been forced to change my email address, thanks to the debian mailing list. Is this a positive result of the desire for openness? Cheers! Jon [1] Once the message is posted, how does said newbie receive replies if those helping just reply to the list. The whole policy makes _no_ sense whatsoever. -- Jon Earle SAVE FARSCAPE http://www.savefarscape.com/ Vegetarian - an old Indian word meaning 'lousy hunter'. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
