Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
2009/5/7 Charlotte Webb charlottethew...@gmail.com: I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above 2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's higher. I don't remember saying the second part, but yeah, most human-written emails score below 2.0. However, enough score above 2.0 (up to 5 or even 7 is not uncommon) that email with a spam score over 2 should be held in the mod queue for inspection, not outright rejected or discarded. (We largely solved this on wikien-l by requiring membership to post at all. This is less than ideal for absolute openness, but we floated the idea on the list to no objection and it's made maintenance *way* easier.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:39 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: (We largely solved this on wikien-l by requiring membership to post at all. This is less than ideal for absolute openness, but we floated the idea on the list to no objection and it's made maintenance *way* easier.) Well, same here. Except that there are some legacy filters left, mostly from (former and current) Wikimedia Foundation staff and Foundation/Chapters board members, who wanted to be able to post to the list both from their subscribed account (usually Gmail or Yahoo or whatever...) and their @wikimedia address... I suppose this should be sorted out. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
Michael Bimmler wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore. Best, Michael uh ? e, sorry for being unwillingly a spammer :-))) ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote:
No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I
found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these
non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that
line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore.
I realize we shouldn't be white-listing by domain name, but if a
garden variety spam-bot was able to convincingly spoof the return
address, imagine the confusion a real person could have caused.
X-Spam-Score: 7.9 (+++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system
lily.knams.wikimedia.org, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. If you have any
questions, see the administrator of that system for details.
Content analysis details: (7.9 points, 4.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
3.0 RCVD_IN_XBLRBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
[201.244.70.114 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is a abuseable web server
[201.244.70.114 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
1.5 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL
blocklist
[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
1.1 SORTED_RECIPS Recipient list is sorted by address
0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
[score: 0.4995]
1.5 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
[URIs: oiwcvjoe.cn]
0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with
no rDNS
I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above
2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's
higher.
—C.W.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore. Best, Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? Someone let it through? -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? Someone let it through? No. -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? Someone let it through? No. -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now). I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I assumed it was forwarded from a non-member. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now). No worries, I didn't consider it harsh. I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I assumed it was forwarded from a non-member. Um...you did? That's weird. I just received it as a completely normal list mail myself, I certainly didn't forward it to the list or anything like that. I'll defer to people with more technical knowledge now, why on earth you would have received that email from me instead of from the list. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Apologies if I sounded harsh in my original e-mail (I just re-read it now). No worries, I didn't consider it harsh. I received the e-mail from you Michael, not from the OP, so I assumed it was forwarded from a non-member. Um...you did? That's weird. I just received it as a completely normal list mail myself, I certainly didn't forward it to the list or anything like that. I'll defer to people with more technical knowledge now, why on earth you would have received that email from me instead of from the list. Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue. Check your spam folder. That's where it automatically went for me. -Aude -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: I mean from you to the list, but I only received the copy with your reply, not the original. Hmm, no clue. Check your spam folder. That's where it automatically went for me. -Aude Thanks for clearing this up, I didn't think of that I'm slightly appalled that Gmail spam-filtered it for you but did not filter it out for me...but then, I wouldn't have seen it and be able to take measures otherwise. Anyways, before now all Gmail users (an estimated 85% of the actively posting list subscribers) outline whether it went into THEIR spam folder or not, we should maybe allow this thread a gracious death...now that everything appears resolved! Cheers, Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
