Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
Well, if you require "FreeBSD" somewhere in the letter with exception of "To" field it would be quite enough. You only have to announce that the "FreeBSD" keyword should be included. "Linux" is optional. Spammers have no idea what FreeBSD is. On 5/26/21 1:34 PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of them just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also from freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. postmaster@ is aware of the problem, we do not yet have a clear-cut solution and we're investigating.
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
On 2021-05-26 22:50:57 (+0800), Julian H. Stacey wrote: Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of them just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also from freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. postmaster@ is aware of the problem, we do not yet have a clear-cut solution and we're investigating. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ? I'm on most lists & also seen much spam lately. Changing Mailman list configs to only allowing postings from subscribed addresses could dump nearly all spam; (I'm a Mailman admin elsewhere ). This was how the majority of FreeBSD mailing lists were configured. Most lists were set to discard postings from non-subscribers. Some were set to hold. A few were set to reject. But @freebsd.org has prefered open lists for near all lists. Best only for the initial fresh- after- install- questions@, IMO. This has not been true for a good while now. Historically, nearly all our lists were indeed open. In recent years, we've made most lists subscriber-only, with some exceptions and whitelists. List back end responses to eg isp@ & hackers@ have recently migrated from Mailman to Mlmmj, I guess that shouldn't directly affect spam protection ? but it'd be interesting to know what advantage the migration might bring @freebsd.org ? For one thing, running supported software means we can continue upgrading our mailservers with fewer worries. Mailman 2 relies on Python 2, which has unfortunately become abandonware. Philip -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
from Kurt Jaeger: > Hi! > > > On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: > > > I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via > > > this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your > > > phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. > > > Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? > > I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of > > them just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also > > from freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. > postmaster@ is aware of the problem, we do not yet have a clear-cut > solution and we're investigating. Maybe the problem of bouncing messages is related to the spam problem? I notice now there is an epidemic of multipart/alternative messages on FreeBSD lists, which is a recent change, not for the better. I posted, several days ago (May 22), a question about bouncing messages, that was on freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org . Tom
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > > > On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: > > > I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via > > > this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your > > > phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. > > > Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? > > I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of > > them just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also > > from freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. > > postmaster@ is aware of the problem, we do not yet have a clear-cut > solution and we're investigating. > -- > p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ? I'm on most lists & also seen much spam lately. Changing Mailman list configs to only allowing postings from subscribed addresses could dump nearly all spam; (I'm a Mailman admin elsewhere ). But @freebsd.org has prefered open lists for near all lists. Best only for the initial fresh- after- install- questions@, IMO. Mailman can also input from a spam phrases block list, though I haven't much used that on lists I run, as subscriber only block near all. Normaly the @freebsd.org anti spam mechanisms protect both lists & non lists. List back end responses to eg isp@ & hackers@ have recently migrated from Mailman to Mlmmj, I guess that shouldn't directly affect spam protection ? but it'd be interesting to know what advantage the migration might bring @freebsd.org ? ( Though I couldn't migrate most lists I run from Mailman to Mlmmj, as many lists I run are mostly non techs, incompetent with anything beyond click & fumble. Command lines of Majordomo & Mlmmj impossible for them ) Cheers, -- Julian Stacey http://berklix.com/jhs/ http://stolenvotes.uk http://www.berklix.org/~jhs/mail/sorbs/ Unreliable spam black list extorter.
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
Hi! > > On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: > > I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via > > this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your > > phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. > > Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? > I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of them > just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also from > freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. postmaster@ is aware of the problem, we do not yet have a clear-cut solution and we're investigating. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372Now what ?
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
> On May 25, 2021, at 8:53 PM, jake h wrote: > > I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via > this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your > phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. > Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? I'm receiving these too. It looks like the servers are bouncing some of them just for me, even. And I'm receiving not just from this list; also from freebsd-hackers@ and ports@. -- rollingbits — 📧 rollingb...@icloud.com 📧 rollingb...@gmail.com 📧 rollingb...@yahoo.com 📧 rollingb...@terra.com.br 📧 rollingb...@globo.com
Re: Spam mail being sent via the FreeBSD mailing lists
I got one this morning Blackmail stuff - just delete it. > On May 25, 2021, at 4:52 PM, jake h wrote: > > Hi everyone, > I have recently received several pieces of spam mail, apparently sent via > this mailing list. These pieces of mail are the usual spam formula; Your > phone has a virus, Ads, Fake blackmail, so on and so forth. > Has anyone else noticed these spam emails, or is it just me? > Thanks, > Jake
Re: [SPAM]Re: Latest -CURRENT/i386 could not start under VirutalBox 4.1.18 and 4.2 (Windows host): hangs up after atrtc0 detection
On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 22:24 +0200, Marek Salwerowicz wrote: > W dniu 2012-10-04 20:51, Lev Serebryakov pisze: > > Hello, Marek. > > You wrote 3 октября 2012 г., 23:17:35: > > > >>> atrtc0: port 0x70-0x71 on acpi0 > > MS> still the same in my environment, running FreeBSD 9.1 under ESXi5.1 host > > MS> Do you have any solution? > > In my case it was local patch for exotic embedded chipset... > Can you send me the patch so I can have a look if I don't use the same > chipset ? > > Regards, It is the patch attached to this PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170705 The patch fixes a problem with old AMD Geode chipsets, but causes a hang at atrtc attach when run under virtualbox, and I haven't had time yet to install and learn to use vbox enough to debug it. -- Ian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [SPAM]Re: Latest -CURRENT/i386 could not start under VirutalBox 4.1.18 and 4.2 (Windows host): hangs up after atrtc0 detection
W dniu 2012-10-04 20:51, Lev Serebryakov pisze: Hello, Marek. You wrote 3 октября 2012 г., 23:17:35: atrtc0: port 0x70-0x71 on acpi0 MS> still the same in my environment, running FreeBSD 9.1 under ESXi5.1 host MS> Do you have any solution? In my case it was local patch for exotic embedded chipset... Can you send me the patch so I can have a look if I don't use the same chipset ? Regards, -- Marek Salwerowicz ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [SPAM] freebsd-current Digest, Vol 367, Issue 6
--Best Regards,Littlecho This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content and is believed to be clean. > Original Message >From: freebsd-current-requ...@freebsd.org >To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org >Sent: Thu, Oct 28, 2010, 20:01 PM >Subject: [SPAM] freebsd-current Digest, Vol 367, Issue 6 > >Send freebsd-current mailing list submissions to > freebsd-current@freebsd.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > freebsd-current-requ...@freebsd.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > freebsd-current-ow...@freebsd.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of freebsd-current digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) (Matthias Apitz) > 2. Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) (Matthias Apitz) > 3. Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) (Matthias Apitz) > > >-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:23:48 +0200 >From: Matthias Apitz >Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) >To: Alberto Villa >Cc: Scot Hetzel , curr...@freebsd.org >Message-ID: <20101027172348.ga1...@tiny.sisis.de> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >El d燰 Wednesday, October 27, 2010 a las 05:10:32PM +, Alberto Villa >escribi: > >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Scot Hetzel wrote: >> > Where did you get your bcmwl5 driver? If you downloaded it from Acer, >> > it should work. If you downloaded it from anywhere else then this >> > might be why it didn't work for you. >> >> i don't remember, actually. anyway i thought the 5 was the driver >> version, i've just understood that it's the windows version :P >> i'll try the acer one, thanks for the suggestion! > >I could no get any bcmwl5 driver from Acer, only bcmwl6 version (which >is also installed in Win7 in my laptop). I have even asked Broadcom, but >they pointed me back to my dealer, to the reseller of the Acer laptop. >And asking them, they pointed to Acer. If someone has an bcmwl5 from >Acer, please contact me off-list. > > matthias >-- >Matthias Apitz >t +49-89-61308 351 - f +49-89-61308 399 - m +49-170-4527211 >e - w http://www.unixarea.de/ > > >-- > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:10 +0200 >From: Matthias Apitz >Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) >To: Scot Hetzel >Cc: Alberto Villa , curr...@freebsd.org >Message-ID: <20101028060610.gb1...@current.sisis.de> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >El d燰 Wednesday, October 27, 2010 a las 12:12:09PM -0500, Scot Hetzel escribi: > >> > Where did you get your bcmwl5 driver? If you downloaded it from Acer, >> > it should work. If you downloaded it from anywhere else then this >> > might be why it didn't work for you. >> > >> >> Just noticed that you didn't specify your computer manufacture. The >> above would only work for Matthias Apitz. >> >> You just need to download the driver from the manufacture of your computer. > >Why is this? Isn't it just the Wifi chip which matters? Could you sheet >a bit light on this? Thanks > > matthias >-- >Matthias Apitz >t +49-89-61308 351 - f +49-89-61308 399 - m +49-170-4527211 >e - w http://www.unixarea.de/ > > >-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:32:55 +0200 >From: Matthias Apitz >Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM4310 USB Controller (Wifi) >To: Scot Hetzel >Cc: Alberto Villa , curr...@freebsd.org >Message-ID: <20101028063255.ga17...@current.sisis.de> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > >El d燰 Wednesday, October 27, 2010 a las 12:07:51PM -0500, Scot Hetzel escribi: > >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Alberto Villa wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> >> NDISulator does not support 6.X NDIS API. You will need to find bcmwl5 >> >> driver. Note 5 vs 6 in driver name. >> >> Editing inf files will give you nothing. >> > >> > i've tried that driver, but apparently it doesn't support my card... >> > loading the .ko doesn't show anything... >> >> Where did you get your bcmwl5 driver? If you downloaded it from Acer, >> it should work. If you downloaded it from anywhere else then this >> might be why it didn't work for you. > >Following Scot's hint (thanks for this) I downloaded today morning the >WinXP x86 driver zip archive from www.Acer.com and built the bcmwl5_sys.ko with >ndisgen(8). The system panics on early boot stages when the kmod was >pulled in via loader.conf. > >If the system is up, you can kldload the module fine and the interface >ndis0 appears and even the card gets associated with the AP (i.e. >wpa_supplicant(8) must work fine). > >The ifconfig(8) shows the interface as: > >ndis0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 2290 > ether 90:4c:e5:00:0
Re: [SPAM] Re: Error message while updating src for FreeBSD 9 current
Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2010-09-23 14:02, Bartosz Stec wrote: On 2010-09-23 13:36, Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2010-09-23 13:21, Ralph Ellis wrote: Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2010-09-23 04:29, Ralph Ellis wrote: Hi, I recently upgraded my FreeBSD 8.1 installation to FreeBSD 9 current via buildworld and buildkernel. I was able to one general ports, src and doc update by cvsup but now I am getting the following error message when I do a src update. cvsup srcsupfile Connected to cvsup2.FreeBSD.org Updating collection src-all/cvs Edit src/bin/ps/extern.h Illegal instruction I am new to the mailing list. Is this a known error? Is this an error to do with the source tree or an issue on my end? Just for reference, the contents of my supfile are *default tag=. *default host=cvsup2.FreeBSD.org *default prefix=/usr *default base=/var/db *default release=cvs delete use-rel-suffix compress src-all ports-all doc-all Thanks in advance for your assistance, Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca Are you using cvsup or csup? Have you recompiled cvsup in case you use that? What's in your make.conf file? Illegal instruction is usually because the program is compiled for another CPU than what it's running on. It can also be that syscalls has changed, but then it usually complains about that. When doing a major version upgrade, you usually have to recompile all ports. Hope this helps! //Niclas I am using cvsup. I had recompiled my VirtualBox port but I had not finished recompiling the other major ports. Thanks for the suggestion. My make.conf is deliberately very plain jane with no special conditions or comments. Thanks Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca Try to recompile everything, or at least cvsup, and see if it works. //Niclas Niclas, did you perform 'make delete-old && make delete-old-libs' after upgrade to CURRENT? If you did, many of your ports won't longer work properly (or at all) because of missing libraries. If you didn't, you definitely should do something like 'portupgrade -afrRi' and after you done, you can get rid of these old files with commands above. You wouldn't get illegal instruction then though. Usually the application fails to load if dynamic libraries are missing. Of course it could take VERY long time depending on installed ports and machine spec., so if you just need to get your sources updated quickly I recommend: 1. Try csup instead of cvsup. It's integrated in both 8.x and in CURRENT, so should work "out of the box" That's a good idea. 2. If you (for some strange reasons) want to stick to cvsup, you'll probably make it work again by portupgrade -fR 'cvsup*' 3. another approach is to get cvsup binaries from package instead of compiling ports - check man pkg_add 4. If you need cvsup to update ports tree, try portsnap instead. It's faster and smarter, and integrated with system :) - check man portsnap Good luck! //Niclas ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Thanks for all the helpful suggestions. csup worked like a charm and solved the problem. I will be rebuilding my ports gradually, starting with the development ports like Perl, gcc, clang etc. I am also experimenting with a custom kernel where I am eliminating drivers and modules for isa, wireless devices and hardware only found on laptops. The early results are encouraging. I run fold...@home in a VirtualBox with Unbuntu x64 as a guest OS. Since trying a custom kernel, floating point performance has improved over 20%. This may also be due to some kernel improvements in FreeBSD 9. So far I am very impressed with the stability of the OS. I have not had problems with any of the programs that I run on a regular basis. I had expected to hit more bugs. I will get started on the rebuilds but with 1700 ports installed, I will wait for a free weekend to compile the big stuff. Thanks again Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [SPAM] Re: Error message while updating src for FreeBSD 9 current
On 2010-09-23 13:36, Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2010-09-23 13:21, Ralph Ellis wrote: Niclas Zeising wrote: On 2010-09-23 04:29, Ralph Ellis wrote: Hi, I recently upgraded my FreeBSD 8.1 installation to FreeBSD 9 current via buildworld and buildkernel. I was able to one general ports, src and doc update by cvsup but now I am getting the following error message when I do a src update. cvsup srcsupfile Connected to cvsup2.FreeBSD.org Updating collection src-all/cvs Edit src/bin/ps/extern.h Illegal instruction I am new to the mailing list. Is this a known error? Is this an error to do with the source tree or an issue on my end? Just for reference, the contents of my supfile are *default tag=. *default host=cvsup2.FreeBSD.org *default prefix=/usr *default base=/var/db *default release=cvs delete use-rel-suffix compress src-all ports-all doc-all Thanks in advance for your assistance, Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca Are you using cvsup or csup? Have you recompiled cvsup in case you use that? What's in your make.conf file? Illegal instruction is usually because the program is compiled for another CPU than what it's running on. It can also be that syscalls has changed, but then it usually complains about that. When doing a major version upgrade, you usually have to recompile all ports. Hope this helps! //Niclas I am using cvsup. I had recompiled my VirtualBox port but I had not finished recompiling the other major ports. Thanks for the suggestion. My make.conf is deliberately very plain jane with no special conditions or comments. Thanks Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca Try to recompile everything, or at least cvsup, and see if it works. //Niclas Niclas, did you perform 'make delete-old && make delete-old-libs' after upgrade to CURRENT? If you did, many of your ports won't longer work properly (or at all) because of missing libraries. If you didn't, you definitely should do something like 'portupgrade -afrRi' and after you done, you can get rid of these old files with commands above. Of course it could take VERY long time depending on installed ports and machine spec., so if you just need to get your sources updated quickly I recommend: 1. Try csup instead of cvsup. It's integrated in both 8.x and in CURRENT, so should work "out of the box" 2. If you (for some strange reasons) want to stick to cvsup, you'll probably make it work again by portupgrade -fR 'cvsup*' 3. another approach is to get cvsup binaries from package instead of compiling ports - check man pkg_add 4. If you need cvsup to update ports tree, try portsnap instead. It's faster and smarter, and integrated with system :) - check man portsnap Good luck! -- Bartosz Stec ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: spam
* mikem ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I don't think the effort is worth the reward. If the frequency > increases, then the issue should be revisited. > > If we do decide this problem merits action... How about filtering list messages through spamassassin? Anything that matches can get bounced so false positivies get noticed and spammers remove it from the list cos it appears inactive. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
I meant anyone who is subscribed as a starting point, and going forwards, anyone referenced in an email and not explicitly NACK'd On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Riccardo Torrini wrote: > On 22-Dec-2001 (22:23:24/GMT) aaron wrote: > > [...removed CC: because I suppose all subscribed this list...] > > > >> any address found in the archives is automatically subscribed > > Any address found N times (where N >> reasonably high number, like > 10, because we can not really assume that the archives are clean). > > > > b) distribute power of moderation (*) > > We can adopt Wf2Q+ from Luigi for this :-) > > > Riccardo. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
my 2 cents worth, I don't think the effort is worth the reward. If the frequency increases, then the issue should be revisited. If we do decide this problem merits action... A simple solution would be to restrict posts to subscribers of the lists (-questions could be an exception). Another simple solution (if we are using mail filters) is to designate a group of people as spam watchers. When they spot a spam they forward it to a special addres ( i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]), which then includes it in some sort of filter recipe. The disadvantage of such a scheme is that only subsequent spams from the poster or containing the same (body|header) are filtered. That is, the spam gets through to th list the first time. The advantage is that this whole process is only triggered when a spam is spotted. The other solutions have the disadvantage of being triggered on every post or every post by a non-subscriber. I would venture to guess that most non-subscriber posts are legitimate. Besides, most people are too busy to take on moderator roles. Although this solution obviously provides less than 100% spam free lists, I think it will prove itself pretty effective because I've noticed that most spams get sent to the list more than once-- the recent "Linus Torvalds..." spam comes to mind. Ok, my 2 cents worth has gone on too long :-) mikem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
On 22-Dec-2001 (22:23:24/GMT) aaron wrote: [...removed CC: because I suppose all subscribed this list...] >> any address found in the archives is automatically subscribed Any address found N times (where N >> reasonably high number, like 10, because we can not really assume that the archives are clean). > b) distribute power of moderation (*) We can adopt Wf2Q+ from Luigi for this :-) Riccardo. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > I would suggest that we use a 'modified' subscription method, > where simply being mentionned in the list is enough to subscribe.. > > Now, before you laugh.. there's a twist.. > any address found in the archives is automatically subscribed > and that includes in the text.. also any mail not subscribed it treated > as if it were a moderated list. i.e. sent for OK to someone. > once that peson OKs it the person can send mail. I'd suggest that there be (...) > the mail will subscribe the sender. Julian, I think your idea and mine were pretty close. I believe the goals are: a) not to slow down -current or -hackers by moderation (=> use many moderators as you noted) b) distribute power of moderation (*) c) use technology as much as possible for automation of subscription (thats why I suggested public keys and signatures, since they are a safe indicator that somebody is not imposting as someone else via mail headers) and finally d) keep it as simple as possible I believe your idea would work out great and it would not force people to use gpg/pgp (cf point d). On the other hand signatures seem to be the only way to make sure a certain mail is in fact coming from a subscribed person. Given the current load on -current a process checking each incoming mail for 1) having a sig 2) having a valid sig 3) checking if a certain pub key of a certain subscriber maches the sig - should not be such a problem. Anyway I would like to hear how others feel about that. (*) I could imagine something like: there are n moderators and when the mail arrives m (m << n) random moderators are forwarded the new mail. It is sufficient if one of the m moderators accepts the message as not being spam. So if a submitter feels left out by some moderator chances are higher his/her message will be accepted the next time by a different moderator - as long as it is not spam :) If the -current subscribers would want such a scheme I would be happy to help in any way needed. Let me know. greetings, Aaron Kaplan. --- COSHER = Completely Open Source, Headers, Engineering, and Research To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
I would suggest that we use a 'modified' subscription method, where simply being mentionned in the list is enough to subscribe.. Now, before you laugh.. there's a twist.. any address found in the archives is automatically subscribed and that includes in the text.. also any mail not subscribed it treated as if it were a moderated list. i.e. sent for OK to someone. once that peson OKs it the person can send mail. I'd suggest that there be a mailing list of 'moderators' maybe 20 or so people to take the load (I'm talking about -current and -hackers here) the people just 'forward the mail to -current or -hackers if they think it's ok, and delete it if it's spam or if they already saw it go through.. The act of forwarding the mail will subscribe the sender. On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, aaron wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > > > :I'm starting to get spam since I joined this list, and the spam is > > :coming from freebsd.org. If I'm reading the headers right, it's coming > > :in through a freebsd.org mail server. > > > > Ha. In the last two weeks the amount of personal spam I receive has > > gone up exponentially. I'm getting around 60 a day now. I'm not > > surprised that the list is seeing a big increase. > > > > I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of > > spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it. > > I doubt it: > a) the have secretaries (if at all!) to read the mail > b) spam = money > > the solution must lie in something with authentication. E.g. everyone > subscribing to this list has to submit his/her pub key and every message > should be signed. > I image this as something like a quasi-moderated list. If you post > something to the list it will first be read by a moderator. If the > moderator agrees on the fact that this is not spam, it _must_ be accepted > to the list and thereby the sig / pub key is inserted into a DB. Future mails > arriving from the just included submitter will be sent to the list without > moderation. > > Thus the moderator is a a one time check for submitters. only people > interested in the subject will pass. spammers wont have the time to get > interested in -current internals. (usually). After passing once you are > free to post as before. > > I know many people wont like the idea presented above. But it is the only > reasonable check I can think of that would exclude spam while at the same > time permitting reasonable open access. > Of course I am open to better ideas. > > greetings, > aaron (Vienna) > > --- > COSHER = Completely Open Source, Headers, Engineering, and Research > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :I'm starting to get spam since I joined this list, and the spam is > :coming from freebsd.org. If I'm reading the headers right, it's coming > :in through a freebsd.org mail server. > > Ha. In the last two weeks the amount of personal spam I receive has > gone up exponentially. I'm getting around 60 a day now. I'm not > surprised that the list is seeing a big increase. > > I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of > spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it. I doubt it: a) the have secretaries (if at all!) to read the mail b) spam = money the solution must lie in something with authentication. E.g. everyone subscribing to this list has to submit his/her pub key and every message should be signed. I image this as something like a quasi-moderated list. If you post something to the list it will first be read by a moderator. If the moderator agrees on the fact that this is not spam, it _must_ be accepted to the list and thereby the sig / pub key is inserted into a DB. Future mails arriving from the just included submitter will be sent to the list without moderation. Thus the moderator is a a one time check for submitters. only people interested in the subject will pass. spammers wont have the time to get interested in -current internals. (usually). After passing once you are free to post as before. I know many people wont like the idea presented above. But it is the only reasonable check I can think of that would exclude spam while at the same time permitting reasonable open access. Of course I am open to better ideas. greetings, aaron (Vienna) --- COSHER = Completely Open Source, Headers, Engineering, and Research To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Julian Stacey wrote: > > I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of > > spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it. > > -Matt > > That would help, (most SPAM I receive even in Germany is from USA), but > spammers would move offshore from USA & still target us, just as most German > language spamming is now from countries outside Germany, so presumably German > language spammers pay foreign intermediaries or subsidiaries to spam. > > Hostile counter attacks could supplement laws & filtering ... > - I got a panic stricken international phone call from a UK > spammer near where I used to live, after I mailed & threatened > to report him to local police &/or launch net attacks on his facilities. > - Anyone know of PD sourced tools & indexes that automate co-ordination > of hostile counter attacks on identified spammers ? > Don't counterattack, you have to be 250% sure the server is the spammers own, and his alone. What if the spammer either is just a client, or has broken into the server? It is not legal to break your neigbours house, even if it is to shut down his 500W stereo. I believe somebody got into serious trouble by launching a worm, which closed holes other worms could use. > PS Maybe if we were to regularly automatically scramble all email addresses > in our web searchable mail archives ? just inserting ._ErAsE_ThIs_. in every > email address would protect us from easy harvesting by simple spammer robots. Yeah, that would help for 3 months or so. Then the harvesters will be adapted. The way to go, I think is procmail based content filters, and dnsbl, like spamcop. I report many spams to spamcop. Leif To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
> I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of > spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it. > -Matt That would help, (most SPAM I receive even in Germany is from USA), but spammers would move offshore from USA & still target us, just as most German language spamming is now from countries outside Germany, so presumably German language spammers pay foreign intermediaries or subsidiaries to spam. Hostile counter attacks could supplement laws & filtering ... - I got a panic stricken international phone call from a UK spammer near where I used to live, after I mailed & threatened to report him to local police &/or launch net attacks on his facilities. - Anyone know of PD sourced tools & indexes that automate co-ordination of hostile counter attacks on identified spammers ? PS Maybe if we were to regularly automatically scramble all email addresses in our web searchable mail archives ? just inserting ._ErAsE_ThIs_. in every email address would protect us from easy harvesting by simple spammer robots. Julian J.StaceyMunich Unix (FreeBSD, Linux etc) Independent Consultant Reduce costs to secure jobs: Use free software: http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/free/ Ihr Rauchen = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz ! Schnupftabak probieren ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
:I'm starting to get spam since I joined this list, and the spam is :coming from freebsd.org. If I'm reading the headers right, it's coming :in through a freebsd.org mail server. Ha. In the last two weeks the amount of personal spam I receive has gone up exponentially. I'm getting around 60 a day now. I'm not surprised that the list is seeing a big increase. I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: spam
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Joe Halpin wrote: >I'm starting to get spam since I joined this list, and the spam is >coming from freebsd.org. If I'm reading the headers right, it's coming >in through a freebsd.org mail server. >Is this just a normal part of being on the list? You're not getting the spam directly. The spam is sent to the mailing list and then sent to you as a subscriber. This is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that the mailing lists are open to posting from non-subscribers. Brandon D. Valentine -- "Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari." - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
here's an idea..
why not have two addresses for the list.
the first would be the public address, and would be restricted to subscribers.
the second would be a non-published address, which would be unrestricted,
and would feed the published list via a side door.
only the first list would be open for subscriptions.
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | tec...@{w6yx|tantivy}.stanford.edu | kc6...@w6yx.ampr.org
| P.O. Box 9792, Stanford, Ca 94309-9792
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Chuck Robey writes: > Garrett's points are why I sugggested that it would not be a useable > approach for -questions, newbies, and mabye hackers, 'cause they all get > a fair amount of posts like what Garrett describes. Current and > committers do NOT get such an audience, and the argument doesn't hold > for those lists, which do get spammed. Oh no? I regularly send mail to -current and -committers from at least three different addresses, none of which are subscribed. Listen up. We've been through this before. We all agreed it wouldn't work. If you wanna know why, search the archives instead of making the problem considerably worse by starting (and fueling) threads such as this. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Chuck Robey wrote: > > Garrett's points are why I sugggested that it would not be a useable > approach for -questions, newbies, and mabye hackers, 'cause they all get > a fair amount of posts like what Garrett describes. Current and > committers do NOT get such an audience, and the argument doesn't hold > for those lists, which do get spammed. 1) It *DOES* hold for committers, since it's closed subscription. For example, Matthew Dillon would be left out. 2) It *DOES* hold for -current, since many committers find it's signal/noise ratio too low. For instance, Robert Nordier (the boot guy). -- Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS) d...@newsguy.com d...@freebsd.org "Proof of Trotsky's farsightedness is that _none_ of his predictions have come true yet." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > > > A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care > > if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. > > The could, but most wouldn't, wouldn't even know how. It wouldn't be > a sure cure, but it would sure help. Don't do it on newbies type lists, > like -questions or -newbies, even multimedia gets a lot of newbies. > Current and committers would be good candidates. So you got some spam from the mailing list, so you generate a few hundred more emails about the spam, i'm being spammed by anti spam email :) Rob To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
< said: > a fair amount of posts like what Garrett describes. Current and > committers do NOT get such an audience, and the argument doesn't hold > for those lists, Yes they do. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Chuck Robey scribbled this message on May 10: > On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > > > A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care > > if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. > > The could, but most wouldn't, wouldn't even know how. It wouldn't be > a sure cure, but it would sure help. Don't do it on newbies type lists, > like -questions or -newbies, even multimedia gets a lot of newbies. > Current and committers would be good candidates. there are a couple MAJOR problems with doing that to committers: a) I don't use my j...@freebsd.org account to send mail, I'd have to do that, as just simply being a commiter gets your freebsd account subscribed to cvs-committers. I wondered why I was getting double commit messages when I became a committer, till I realized this and unsubscribed from cvs-all. b) If a normal user responds to mail to cvs-all, us committers wouldn't get the response as their reply would be dropped because they aren't on cvs-committers, but everyone else on cvs-* would get the reply. I have only recieved 61 spam messages so far since the begining of the year, this includes the dups to multiple mailing lists and myself. This is about one every other day, and considering most are dups, that isn't even two a week... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 541 684 8449 Cu Networking P.O. Box 5693, 97405 "The soul contains in itself the event that shall presently befall it. The event is only the actualizing of its thought." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Steven P. Donegan" > > I have received more email today related to SPAM than I have actual SPAM > in the last month+ What has triggered this solution looking for a problem? > that is an eloquent statement of the situat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
> > < said: > > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > > there difficulties that make this impossible? > > Yes, there are. > i forgot to mention that such a policy creates a single "allowed" address per user...not good. jmb > -GAWollman > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
> Delivered-To: j...@hub.freebsd.org > Cc: curr...@freebsd.org > References: <19990510173115.0aaf815...@hub.freebsd.org> > Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:14:56 +0200 > From: Mark Murray > > "Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > > with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer > > would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece > > of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the > > time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very > > strange threads...could be enteraining. > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > there difficulties that make this impossible? yes...i have. that policy may be appropriate for some of the lists, but it is certainly not appropriate for -questions, -newbies and some others. a person could subscribe and then spam. not likely but possible. > > couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the > > lists. > > Do you have any stats of "accepted mail" vs "rejected mail" vs SPAM? used to keep track, but lost interest...didnt seem to be much information there. spam seems to come in waves. these days, for the freebsd-mailing lists at least, sems to be more like ripples ;) jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 10:29:16PM +0200, Mark Murray wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > < said: > > > > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > > > there difficulties that make this impossible? > > > > Yes, there are. > > Content-free answer. Please elaborate? You might like to check the mailing list archives. This has been discussed to death many, many times. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > Yes, but is stops the scrape 'n spammers who get the easy-to-reach > > addresses off the web page. > > It also stops perfectly legitimate users who are subscribed to a local > mailing-list exploder, read the lists through Usenet, or for other > reasons are subscribed with a different address from the one or ones > they use to post. Garrett's points are why I sugggested that it would not be a useable approach for -questions, newbies, and mabye hackers, 'cause they all get a fair amount of posts like what Garrett describes. Current and committers do NOT get such an audience, and the argument doesn't hold for those lists, which do get spammed. > > -GAWollman > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > > > > "Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > > > > with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail > > > > transfer would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) > > > > to approve each piece of email. if we use more than one > > > > moderator per list, the time-sequence of email would be > > > > lostwe would get some very strange threads...could be > > > > enteraining. > > > > > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to > > > post, or are there difficulties that make this impossible? > > I suggest following approach: moderate only mail that lack the > mailing list name in To: or Cc: headers. It is far from ideal, > but I think would work reasonably well. May I humbly suggest that we stop this discussion until spam becomes a real problem on this list? So far this thread has generated more noise than all spam that slipped trough to the list in the past year. Jonathan is doing an awful job, please give him credit for stopping the vast majority of spam messages and let this thread die. Cheers, Jeroen -- Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jer...@vangelderen.org - 0xC33EDFDE To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
< said: > Yes, but is stops the scrape 'n spammers who get the easy-to-reach > addresses off the web page. It also stops perfectly legitimate users who are subscribed to a local mailing-list exploder, read the lists through Usenet, or for other reasons are subscribed with a different address from the one or ones they use to post. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care > if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. I think most won't bother. Probably a good number of them are mailing automatically to a list of mailing lists. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
> > "Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > > > with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer > > > would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece > > > of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the > > > time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very > > > strange threads...could be enteraining. > > > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > > there difficulties that make this impossible? I suggest following approach: moderate only mail that lack the mailing list name in To: or Cc: headers. It is far from ideal, but I think would work reasonably well. Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
I have received more email today related to SPAM than I have actual SPAM in the last month+ What has triggered this solution looking for a problem? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Chuck Robey wrote: > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > > there difficulties that make this impossible? > > There might be some resistance to this for all lists, but how about > just, say, current and committers? Hackers == maybe? I can imagine that there could be resistance; I just want to know what the reasons are. Perhaps there is a solution that could be constructed. I have been hugely sucessful in getting my owm mailbox cleaned up. At one stage I was receiving 50-70 spams _a_day_; it is now about 5 a week and dropping. I had to get pretty fascist, but my false-positive is very low (maybe 7 in total). M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care > if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. The could, but most wouldn't, wouldn't even know how. It wouldn't be a sure cure, but it would sure help. Don't do it on newbies type lists, like -questions or -newbies, even multimedia gets a lot of newbies. Current and committers would be good candidates. > > Tom Veldhouse > ve...@visi.com > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Murray > To: Jonathan M. Bresler > Cc: curr...@freebsd.org > Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 3:17 PM > Subject: Re: SPAM > > > >"Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > >> with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer > >> would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece > >> of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the > >> time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very > >> strange threads...could be enteraining. > > > >Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > >there difficulties that make this impossible? > > > >> the amount of spam we get is very little. its easy to delte a > >> couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the > >> lists. > > > >Do you have any stats of "accepted mail" vs "rejected mail" vs SPAM? > > > >M > >-- > >Mark Murray > >Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > >with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Mark Murray wrote: > "Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > > with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer > > would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece > > of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the > > time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very > > strange threads...could be enteraining. > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > there difficulties that make this impossible? There might be some resistance to this for all lists, but how about just, say, current and committers? Hackers == maybe? I don't think anyone on current or committers will complain. > > > the amount of spam we get is very little. its easy to delte a > > couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the > > lists. > > Do you have any stats of "accepted mail" vs "rejected mail" vs SPAM? > > M > -- > Mark Murray > Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > > there difficulties that make this impossible? > > Yes, there are. Content-free answer. Please elaborate? M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote: > A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care > if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. Yes, but is stops the scrape 'n spammers who get the easy-to-reach addresses off the web page. The subscribed spammers at least have a verified email address, which is too easy to whack for the amount of trouble they went to. Spammers go fo massive bulk; subscribing to mailing lists doesn't fit the profile for the majority of them. M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
< said: > Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are > there difficulties that make this impossible? Yes, there are. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
A spammer could simply become a list member and then SPAM. They won't care if they are removed once they have perpetrated their abuse. Tom Veldhouse ve...@visi.com -Original Message- From: Mark Murray To: Jonathan M. Bresler Cc: curr...@freebsd.org Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 3:17 PM Subject: Re: SPAM >"Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: >> with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer >> would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece >> of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the >> time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very >> strange threads...could be enteraining. > >Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are >there difficulties that make this impossible? > >> the amount of spam we get is very little. its easy to delte a >> couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the >> lists. > >Do you have any stats of "accepted mail" vs "rejected mail" vs SPAM? > >M >-- >Mark Murray >Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
"Jonathan M. Bresler" wrote: > with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer > would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece > of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the > time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very > strange threads...could be enteraining. Have you ever considered only allowing list members to post, or are there difficulties that make this impossible? > the amount of spam we get is very little. its easy to delte a > couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the > lists. Do you have any stats of "accepted mail" vs "rejected mail" vs SPAM? M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
> From: Seamus Wassman > Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 20:31:00 -0700 > > I was quite surprised the First Time I got SPAM through this mailing list, I > thought for sure there would be someone to moderate it so that no garbage gets > through, I personally find it quite offensive to get SPAM on a help based > mailing list, I have been thinking that maybe this list should have someone > moderating it. Maybe I am way out of line, but I thought I would say my > peice. you are not out of line. ;) with volunteers, we could moderate the list(s). mail transfer would be slower as we wait for the moderator(s) to approve each piece of email. if we use more than one moderator per list, the time-sequence of email would be lostwe would get some very strange threads...could be enteraining. the amount of spam we get is very little. its easy to delte a couple messages. i do not believe it is worthwhile ot moderate the lists. jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: SPAM
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Seamus Wassman wrote: > I was quite surprised the First Time I got SPAM through this mailing > list, I thought for sure there would be someone to moderate it so > that no garbage gets through, I personally find it quite offensive > to get SPAM on a help based mailing list, I have been thinking that > maybe this list should have someone moderating it. Maybe I am way > out of line, but I thought I would say my peice. Are you aware of the traffic on these lists? Adding a moderator would be a job requiring at least several hours a day, and would add hours worth of delay to the lists. Jonothan, our postmaster, is pretty darn good at maintaining our kill file, so folks don't usually get 2 chances to spam us. > > -- > Seamus Wassman > sparh...@sparhawk.bc.ca > http://www.sparhawk.bc.ca > ICQ#: 7682151 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > +--- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). +--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
