Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?

[Brad Knowles]

On May 18, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Anne Wainwright wrote:

> For the record the following URL is of interest
> 
> http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/
> 
> This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors
> 
> "A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk"
> 
> and being who they are their definition must carry some weight. In terms
> of their definition my mailing was not spam. Still, and I think Stephen
> made the point, there is also the consideration of good business
> practice to be considered.

Actually, if you go back to Mark's message where he said:

As an additional FYI in this thread, Mailman sends invitations
with a "Precedence: bulk" header. This can only be changed by
modifying code.

Then you will note that the message you sent does actually qualify on both 
counts -- it was most definitely unsolicited (by your own account), and unless 
you modified the source code then Mailman definitely marked those invitations 
as "bulk".

Even if Mailman hadn't marked the messages as bulk per se, if you sent out 
invitations to more than one person, then that could also be classified as 
essentially being "bulk".


There are features in Mailman that can be misused and abused in a wide variety 
of ways, and it is the responsibility of the Site Administrator(s) and the List 
Administrator(s) to make sure that they operate the software in an appropriate 
manner.

For example, if you were using Mailman internally to your company and could 
guarantee that no one could ever get on any list unless they were an employee, 
then by the terms of the employment contract you might be able to do things 
that might otherwise be considered of a "spammy nature", like requiring that 
all employees be subscribed to certain lists that they can't unsubscribe from, 
sending out invitations to join mailing lists that they did not request, etc….

We have to allow for these kinds of things because not everyone uses Mailman in 
the same way for the same user community.  And some types of actions are 
appropriate for certain user communities but not for others.  We can't just 
disable or remove features simply because they are not appropriate for a 
particular user community.

In essence, you're asking us to protect you against yourself, and there is a 
limit to how much of that we can do.  At least, there is a limit to how much we 
can do if we want to keep the software usable for other people.

--
Brad Knowles 
LinkedIn Profile: 

--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?

[Mark Sapiro]

Anne Wainwright wrote:
>
>As an aside, I have to ask whether the 'invite' feature in Mailman has a
>function. If one has to have been in existing contact such that you can
>ask them if they would not object to an invite then one is in fact at
>the point where you can ask them point blank if you can subscribe them. 


My cycling club has a general discussion list for which subscription
requires approval because it's limited to club members. If a new or
renewing member checks the "I want to join the club's email list" box
on the application form, we send an invitation. This avoids the
problem of subscribing the wrong person or an invalid address to the
list because of typos or unreadable handwriting (yes, we still accept
snail-mailed forms with checks, although it's not our preferred
method).

Even when a club member emails the list owners asking to join the list,
we sometimes send an invitation rather than just subscribing if we
think there's a possibility the email was spoofed.

I'm sure there are other use cases where invitations rather than direct
subscriptions are appropriate/prudent.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan

--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?

[Anne Wainwright]

Hi,

For the record the following URL is of interest

http://www.spamhaus.org/consumer/definition/

This clearly makes the point that spam is defined by two factors

"A message is Spam only if it is both Unsolicited and Bulk"

and being who they are their definition must carry some weight. In terms
of their definition my mailing was not spam. Still, and I think Stephen
made the point, there is also the consideration of good business
practice to be considered.

over & out for tonight.

Anne

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:39:44AM +0200, Anne Wainwright wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently sent an invite to an unknown third party. The invite came
> from my mailman list, we gave full particulars of who and where we are.
> We specifically advise that they are not at this stage subscribed to
> anything and will have to follow the detailed instructions (ie confirm)
> if they want to join the list. The third party is in the same trade as
> us, and deals with the same specialities, a third party customer had
> given me their address in good faith.
> 
> This week my ISP contacts me with an upstream request from the national
> backbone provider to in effect desist from sending spam.
> 
> Looking at the email returned, it was to an @yahoo address,  spamcop
> seems to have detected spam on the basis of it being a mailman message,
> I am not certain that it was not initiated by the recipient but the
> official complaint originated from yahoo it seems (who should surely
> know better).
> 
> Subject: [196.26.208.190] Yahoo Abuse Report - FW:confirm
> 3a35c56b531368da533112d96a9cb24c17cf6961
> 
> As I said in my reply, this is hardly spam, I did not send it out to
> half a million addresses purchased on a cd. This makes a mockery of
> genuine spam prevention efforts when one email from a genuine address
> can be allowed to cause this. It 
> 
> I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but what can I do
> about this. Is this a common occurence? Are invites from mailman now
> considered fair game for spam detection software and humans alike?
> 
> bestest
> Anne
> --
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/anotheranne%40fables.co.za
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] what constitutes spam?

[Anne Wainwright]

Hi,

Have been offline for a goodly while hence tardy response to the thread
that I started. comments lower down, but thanks to Brad, Richard, Mark,
& Stephen for their input.

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:33:24AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Anne Wainwright
>  wrote:
> 
> > I recently sent an invite to an unknown third party.
> 
> Normally I agree with Brad Knowles on this kind of thing, but this
> time I can't go 100%.
> 
> People regularly do make contacts with third parties that they have
> not previously met, with the intent of arranging mutually beneficial
> activities.  Heck, if you think about it, that's what you're doing
> every time you make a first post to a mailing list.  There is nothing
> wrong with that in general, and there is nothing (morally) wrong with
> that when done by email, to recipients carefully selected for high
> probability of getting some interest.  (From this point of view,
> "double opt in" is just a useful, fail-safe litmus test for recipient
> interest, not the moral imperative some seem to think it is.)
> Obviously you think your mailing has passed that test.
> 
> That said, it's bad business IMO (except in cases like a double opt-in
> mailing list where every person has explicitly indicated interest in
> receiving list posts).  What *you* think isn't what really matters.
> When done by mutual acquaintance, by phone, or even by form letter,
> there are significant costs to making such contacts, especially when
> you do the phoning yourself.  You must really value the recipient to
> go to such expense, even if small.
> 
> There are no such costs to email, which means that using email as a
> medium puts you in company with some real scum, who send out
> unsolicited email indiscriminately, sometimes laden with malware or
> phishing URLs.  It's unfair, I suppose, but I'm not surprised if you
> get classed with the scum on the basis of the only information the
> recipient has about you as a businessperson: an email that they didn't
> ask for.
> 
> There's another problem.  The ISPs are a pretty quick-on-the-trigger
> bunch, too, as a couple of posters have noted.  But if you're not
> running a double opt-in list, you're not going to be able to get them
> to change your minds about your list.  Everything I know about them,
> they'd rather lose half their clients' mail than get a complaint about
> spam.  And their customers are not well-informed enough to doubt the
> ISPs when they blame somebody else for any problems with mail.  Except
> spam -- it's obvious to the customer that the spam is bogus, why is it
> so hard for the ISP?  You see their incentive, I suppose, and it works
> against legitimate businesses unless they follow the ISPs' rules.
> 
> I conclude that for an honest business, anything is a better way than
> email to make first contact with a third party who doesn't know you.
> 
I have sinned and stand repentant. I hate spam as much as anyone and we
get plenty to deal with. Somehow the Viagra and get rich emails didn't
seem to stand on the same level as a once-off invite. But as pointed out
clearly an unasked for email from an unknown party is just that.

In the light of the spam that we receive, which varies from worldwide
mass mailings (viagra supplies from pharmacies in the USA, say) to lesser
attempts (local suppliers of this & that product or service) there
is no fuzzy line where the definition of spam rests, and much against my
normal judgement where I see things in shades of grey, I am forced to make
this a black and white decision on the basis of the definitions of spam
made in the replies.

So will make sure that this doesn't occur again and will make clear the
distinction to other staff handling these issues.

As an aside, I have to ask whether the 'invite' feature in Mailman has a
function. If one has to have been in existing contact such that you can
ask them if they would not object to an invite then one is in fact at
the point where you can ask them point blank if you can subscribe them. 

Typically someone may query whether we have a specific book title, or
whether one listed on an online catalogue is still available. The usual
drill if this is unavailable is to say so and then recommend that they
join our mailing list for which we will send details (an 'invite') on
the basis that it may show up on a future catalogue. I do not see this
as sending spam. Maybe you differ?

I guess this may be considered a bit off-topic, comments welcome
direct if you feel this is so.

bestest
Anne

> Regards,
> Steve
> --
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/anotheranne%40f

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Mark Sapiro]

Andrew Hodgson  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>This is a Debian specific issue, look at:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448
>
>Andrew.

Aaah!  Thanks for the info.


-- 
Mark Sapiro 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Andrew Hodgson]

Hi,

This is a Debian specific issue, look at:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506448

Andrew.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Andrew Hodgson]

From: Mark Sapiro [mailto:m...@msapiro.net] 
Sent: 18 May 2012 20:27
To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org
Subject: RE: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

>Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>One other question if I may:
>>
>>/bin/mv: 
>>`/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' and 
>>`/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are 
>>the same file

>The nightly_htdig script runs the rundig shell script pointed to by 
>mm_cfg.HTDIG_RUNDIG_PATH

>My version (3.2.0b6 + some patches from
>) of that script doesn't look like 
>it does those mv commands.

Weird. I am using the Debian version but have downloaded the source and it has 
the following in the rundig script:

case "$alt" in
-a)
  ( cd $DBDIR && test -f db.docdb.work &&
for f in *.work
do
mv -f $f `basename $f .work`
done
test -f db.words.db.work_weakcmpr &&
mv -f db.words.db.work_weakcmpr db.words.db_weakcmpr) ;;
esac

The nightly_htdig script doesn't I believe seem to use the -a option but it 
looks as though that is being done anyway.  The patch on the FTP site for the 
rundig command seems to fix another issue with the script.

Andrew.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released

[Mark Sapiro]

There was an issue in the tarballs I released for Mailman 2.1.15rc1.

They didn't include the updated version information so they installed as
version 2.1.14. This should not cause problems other than the version
displaying incorrectly. If the tarball was installed as an upgrade over
a 2.1.14 installation, the update script would not run to update list
attributes, but the lists would be updated when they are later
instantiated so this shouldn't be a problem.

The release tarballs at

https://launchpad.net/mailman/2.1/
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mailman/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mailman/

have all been replaced with the correct one. There is still an issue
with the bzr branch on Launchpad in that the 2.1.15rc1 tag is on
revision 1354 instead of 1355, but that will be fixed soon.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan

--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Mark Sapiro]

Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
>One other question if I may:
>
>When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the 
>following output:
>
>htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board
>/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' 
>and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' are 
>the same file
>/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' 
>and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' are 
>the same file
>/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' 
>and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are the 
>same file


The nightly_htdig script runs the rundig shell script pointed to by
mm_cfg.HTDIG_RUNDIG_PATH

My version (3.2.0b6 + some patches from
) of that script doesn't
look like it does those mv commands.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan

--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released

[Mark Sapiro]

Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
>
>--On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro  wrote:
>
>>> I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss
>>> anything..
>>
>>
>> Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed,
>> it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1.
>
>Well, the web site still says 2.1.14 and I found this to explain it:
>
>mailman-2.1.15rc1]$ grep -r '2\.1\.14' *
>Mailman/Version.py:VERSION =3D '2.1.14'


You are correct. Somehow I did something out of sequence when packaging
the release. I will correct the tarballs.

-- 
Mark Sapiro The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, Californiabetter use your sense - B. Dylan

--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman 2.1.15rc1 released

[Sebastian Hagedorn]

--On 17. Mai 2012 12:58:11 -0700 Mark Sapiro  wrote:


I see that it's still calls itself 2.1.14. I hope I didn't miss
anything..



Where do you see it identify itself as 2.1.14? If properly installed,
it should identify itself as 2.1.15rc1.


Well, the web site still says 2.1.14 and I found this to explain it:

mailman-2.1.15rc1]$ grep -r '2\.1\.14' *
Mailman/Version.py:VERSION = '2.1.14'
...
--
.:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Gebäude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
.:.Regionales Rechenzentrum (RRZK).:.
.:.Universität zu Köln / Cologne University - ✆ +49-221-478-5587.:.--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Andrew Hodgson]

Hi,

One other question if I may:

When I run nightly_htdig -v to get the search engine updated, I get the 
following output:

htdig'ing archive of list: bcab-board
/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' 
and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/root2word.db' are the 
same file
/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' 
and `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/word2root.db' are the 
same file
/bin/mv: `/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' and 
`/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/bcab-board/htdig/synonyms.db' are the same 
file

Any suggestions?
Thanks.
Andrew.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org

Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

[Andrew Hodgson]

From: Mark Sapiro [m...@msapiro.net]
Sent: 17 May 2012 23:43
To: Andrew Hodgson; mailman-users@python.org
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Mailman/Htdig integration

>Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>Everything works fine, but if someone posts to a list it appears that the 
>>archive page gets re-generated without the search box at the top.  I feel I 
>>have missed something blindingly obvious and I am going to >kick myself when 
>>I find out what it is but at the moment I am still searching!


>Did you restart Mailman? If not, the old archtoc(nombox).html template
>is cached in ArchRunner.

That was it, once it was restarted everything worked fine!

Thanks for that, I knew it was something simple!
Andrew.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org