Re: Spam to this list?
On 7/09/2014 9:27 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 01:09:57AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. With Benoit's help, we have converted most of these filters and applied them to the list. They don't generate false positives on my side so they should be safe. Thank you for making an effort on this. Also, please let me post a few numbers. On Friday, the server rejected 5495 emails at the connection level, 206 based on a few correctness rules, and only delivered 83 to the mailing list, 37 of which were valid, and 10 of which were valid but caused by someone who intentionally wants to harm the list, which leaves 36 spam out of 5737, which is 0.63%. I had to delete about 10-20 of them by hand from my box, I don't remember, which indicates that the extra filters could catch about half of the remaining ones on average, without false positives. I doubt you can count the 5495 messages - however I would count the 83 and the breakdown of such. Personally, I consider that if we kill 99.5% of spam and only let 0.5% leak through for the sake of not getting any false positives, it's already reasonably good for an open mailing list. I know that some people won't share this point of view, but that suits my goals for this list. I think we disagree here, but I'll let the matter rest. -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Spam to this list?
On Monday, September 8, 2014, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 7/09/2014 9:27 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 01:09:57AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. With Benoit's help, we have converted most of these filters and applied them to the list. They don't generate false positives on my side so they should be safe. Thank you very much for taking the time to discover that we're seeing more spam than you and for implementing some additional filters! -- Morgan --- http://makkintosshu.com/ http://seriesparts.com/ http://rikuwoiku.com/ http://unna.org/
Re: Spam to this list?
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 01:09:57AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. With Benoit's help, we have converted most of these filters and applied them to the list. They don't generate false positives on my side so they should be safe. Also, please let me post a few numbers. On Friday, the server rejected 5495 emails at the connection level, 206 based on a few correctness rules, and only delivered 83 to the mailing list, 37 of which were valid, and 10 of which were valid but caused by someone who intentionally wants to harm the list, which leaves 36 spam out of 5737, which is 0.63%. I had to delete about 10-20 of them by hand from my box, I don't remember, which indicates that the extra filters could catch about half of the remaining ones on average, without false positives. Personally, I consider that if we kill 99.5% of spam and only let 0.5% leak through for the sake of not getting any false positives, it's already reasonably good for an open mailing list. I know that some people won't share this point of view, but that suits my goals for this list. Regards, Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:40:42AM +1000, Steven Haigh wrote: On 6/09/2014 9:09 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: Ah, but your facts are in the discussion thread. I've seen very few people supporting the current state of things. Numbers here aren't on your side : # cat subscribers.d/*|wc -l 830 830 persons are currently subscribed to this list, 22 of which have posted in this thread, with some not even sharing your opinion. So that's about 98% which is hardly very few by my standards. Oh come on. Trying to say that because you don't have 400+ replies saying 'put spam filters on' that it doesn't matter is trivial is almost I don't even know the word for it That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that 830 persons are still subscribed despite this amount of spam so by definition they still support this. And that is a fact. I urge all people who cannot stand this anymore to unsubscribe, it will already reduce the noise on this list, because the time we spend discussing this is not spent addressing the issue. FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. I don't want to try and insult you here - but tools are around to take care of these problems Yes and tools take time as well. Initially this list was offered to help contributors and developers and with more subscribers it becomes a real burden to maintain because a few are always unsatisfied. What else can I say ? - and have been done by people much smarter than you or I... The sad truth is that spammers exploit things like this list... The archives increase their google rankings for spam and make things harder for EVERYONE, not just this list. Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. So you've lost at least half your subscriber base, and you can't see a problem with this? No. I don't have a goal of saying my list is bigger than yours. This list is there so that people can exchange. Period. It is natural that people subscribe during the period of a bug report and unsubsribe when they're no more interested. I'm seeing the unsubscribe messages. Most of them happen when there is a long thread like this one because these e-mails pass through their spam filters and they find them boring. Sorry, but even including ALL posts in this thread over the past few days, the amount of spam STILL outnumbers the amount of content going through this list - something that is almost negligent in this day and age... Yes, I confess that I regularly prefer to dedicate 5 hours to sleep each 24h than to assign one hour to try to optimise spam fighting on this list. This is probably negligent. But I need this time to be able to work on the product which is the subject of this list. I also know that every time we play a bit with some options to combat spam, *I* to have to deal with the people whose mails are eaten. And worst, those whose e-mails are eaten are the ones who have absolutely no problem with the spam either since they're filtered on their side. So I guess what will it take before something happens? Someone to fork the list off to somewhere else and fragment your community? Could be an idea. It would save me a lot of time, and I would not have to deal with complains from people whose e-mails are eaten, I'd just have to redirect them to the new list maintainer and get rid of the issue. And we'll also see how many people are bothered by the spam level to the point of making the move to the new list. Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 09:14:48AM +0800, Alexey Zilber wrote: Please don't take our issues with the spam personally. why shouldn't I when people come here and say hey I'm getting many spam, please fix this ? I'm not the one who generates these spam and people ask me to simply filter it, still the solutions they offer are either incompatible with my skills (I'm not going to develop filters nor scripts myself to handle emails) or the basic rules I want for this list (open, not subscribers only), or my available time (eg: moderate e-mails). So yes, these complains get me nervous when I know that these people are free to unsubscribe and read the archives or resubscribe when they need. Everyone appreciates the list You're too optimistic IMHO. Like on every list, some people like to be there to maintain useless out of topic threads. and the help it's provided, so keep in mind people are just voicing their opinions (and most of us have strong opinions) regarding spam. I too have my opinion regarding spam and I expressed it. I hate spam but it's part of todays internet, and I got used to even not see it. Just like I don't complain about dust in the air nor blame all the world for this. Going over the previous threads, imho if you don't have Greylisting, maybe that's the way to go? We used to have some, I have some old memories of disabling it because it caused some issues to some senders, I don't have all the details in mind. You know, we're only aware of trouble for senders when they send me the message which always looks like this : hey, I tried to send this to the list but it doesn't show up, is there anything wrong with the list ?. And each time this happens, it's hours of troubleshooting, discovering nasty side effects of any filtering method for a very small minority of people, so we have to find another solution and that takes time. While my opinion still stands that the only real way to combat this spam is to make it a 'subscribe to post' list; if you're using Greylisting, why not build it so that unsubscribed users have a weighted value, so users who post a lot are automatically whitelisted (before passing their email through spamassasin or other such spam scanner). Because 1) I don't know how to do that, and 2) that still means that non- subscribers suffer from a more aggressive filtering than subscribers which is not the purpose of this open list. Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:33:42PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: ??? 5 septembre 2014 20:38 +0300, Juho Mäkinen j...@unity3d.com : Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either May I ask why this is not a good thing? I see no valid reason why not subscribed members should be allowed to post. The subscription already checks that the sender email is valid, thus should be a decent way to remove most of the spam with very little configuration and maintenance. I think all my other lists which I've subscribed require that you need to be subscribed so you can post. This can be cumbersome for someone wanting to just ask a question or just send a patch. You need to subscribe, send your patch, then unsubscribe. This can happen even when you are subscribed but used an alternate email address for the patch (for example, your professional email). Exactly, that's what I faced several times on oss-sec when trying to post from work while I'm subscribed at home, and on postfix where I'm not subscribed and was simply replying to some e-mails where I was CCed for review of the proxy protocol implementation. It's quite frustrating to see your response ignored and people continue to debate over a question while your response lies in some moderator's queue. On the top of my head, the Linux kernel mailing-list (and other related mailing-lists) doesn't require subscription. Indeed. *This* list is not going to be subscribers only because it's the wrong solution to the spam problem : spam must not prevent people from communicating normally. Thanks, Willy
RE: Spam to this list?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. just my two cents, lukas
Re: Spam to this list?
I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay.
Re: Spam to this list?
2014-09-05 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Grilly nico...@vocationcity.com: I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). That can't be a global solution On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay.
RE: Spam to this list?
DIY: install your own anti-spam system :) I use Amavis, it works well: https://plus.google.com/+S%C3%A9bastienWENSKE/posts/T6CiUedUZzG Regards, Sebastien De : Kevin Maziere [mailto:ke...@kbrwadventure.com] Envoyé : vendredi 5 septembre 2014 13:16 À : Nicolas Grilly Cc : Lukas Tribus; Baptiste; Steven Haigh; haproxy Objet : Re: Spam to this list? 2014-09-05 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Grilly nico...@vocationcity.commailto:nico...@vocationcity.com: I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). That can't be a global solution On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.commailto:luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay.
Re: Spam to this list?
Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. On 5/09/2014 9:46 PM, Sébastien WENSKE wrote: DIY: install your own anti-spam system :) I use Amavis, it works well: https://plus.google.com/+S%C3%A9bastienWENSKE/posts/T6CiUedUZzG Regards, Sebastien *De :*Kevin Maziere [mailto:ke...@kbrwadventure.com] *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 septembre 2014 13:16 *À :* Nicolas Grilly *Cc :* Lukas Tribus; Baptiste; Steven Haigh; haproxy *Objet :* Re: Spam to this list? 2014-09-05 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Grilly nico...@vocationcity.com mailto:nico...@vocationcity.com: I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). That can't be a global solution On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com mailto:luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Spam to this list?
On 09/05/2014 08:07 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. I agree w/ every point here. I do run my own spam filter (spamassassin) and it works very well. But it mostly trusts email that has a valid DKIM signature. Since the spam from list does have valid DKIM sigs it makes it through my filter easily. To fix this I'd have to make special spam rules just for this list to ignore DKIM signatures. That of course defeats the purpose of them in the first place. Please either filter the spam or require some kind of registration before posting to the list. Thank you, Colin Ingarfield
Re: Spam to this list?
I totally agree with this. Please, set up some anti-spam measure to the list. 2014-09-05 10:15 GMT-03:00 Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com: On 09/05/2014 08:07 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. I agree w/ every point here. I do run my own spam filter (spamassassin) and it works very well. But it mostly trusts email that has a valid DKIM signature. Since the spam from list does have valid DKIM sigs it makes it through my filter easily. To fix this I'd have to make special spam rules just for this list to ignore DKIM signatures. That of course defeats the purpose of them in the first place. Please either filter the spam or require some kind of registration before posting to the list. Thank you, Colin Ingarfield
Re: Spam to this list?
I agree as well. Regards, Michael On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:33 AM, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com wrote: I totally agree with this. Please, set up some anti-spam measure to the list. 2014-09-05 10:15 GMT-03:00 Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com: On 09/05/2014 08:07 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. I agree w/ every point here. I do run my own spam filter (spamassassin) and it works very well. But it mostly trusts email that has a valid DKIM signature. Since the spam from list does have valid DKIM sigs it makes it through my filter easily. To fix this I'd have to make special spam rules just for this list to ignore DKIM signatures. That of course defeats the purpose of them in the first place. Please either filter the spam or require some kind of registration before posting to the list. Thank you, Colin Ingarfield
Re: Spam to this list?
Thank you, all is said. Alex. On 05/09/14 15:07, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. On 5/09/2014 9:46 PM, Sébastien WENSKE wrote: DIY: install your own anti-spam system :) I use Amavis, it works well: https://plus.google.com/+S%C3%A9bastienWENSKE/posts/T6CiUedUZzG Regards, Sebastien *De :*Kevin Maziere [mailto:ke...@kbrwadventure.com] *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 septembre 2014 13:16 *À :* Nicolas Grilly *Cc :* Lukas Tribus; Baptiste; Steven Haigh; haproxy *Objet :* Re: Spam to this list? 2014-09-05 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Grilly nico...@vocationcity.com mailto:nico...@vocationcity.com: I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). That can't be a global solution On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com mailto:luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay.
Re: Spam to this list?
I'm also reading this on gmail... but many spams are not caught by gmail here... (10+ last day) If not implementing anti-spam we could perhaps go to a moderated system - Subscribed users pass moderation automatically - Non-subscribed users need to be moderated, and will be added to the allowed-posting list - Spam can be blocked and blacklisted immediately - No spam will enter the archives, no spam will be sent to the subscribers. I'm willing to co-moderate the list... if we have a hand full of people doing this, we can make sure that posts by non-subscribers are approved relatively quickly Any chance of getting this done? On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:33 PM, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com wrote: I totally agree with this. Please, set up some anti-spam measure to the list. 2014-09-05 10:15 GMT-03:00 Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com: On 09/05/2014 08:07 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. I agree w/ every point here. I do run my own spam filter (spamassassin) and it works very well. But it mostly trusts email that has a valid DKIM signature. Since the spam from list does have valid DKIM sigs it makes it through my filter easily. To fix this I'd have to make special spam rules just for this list to ignore DKIM signatures. That of course defeats the purpose of them in the first place. Please either filter the spam or require some kind of registration before posting to the list. Thank you, Colin Ingarfield -- Mark Janssen -- maniac(at)maniac.nl Unix / Linux Open-Source and Internet Consultant Maniac.nl Sig-IO.nl Vps.Stoned-IT.com
Re: Spam to this list?
On 05/09/2014 11:17, Lukas Tribus wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. just my two cents, lukas Here is my 2 cents. The amount of spam I receive through this list is far, and I mean FAR outweighed by the valuable information that I get from posts as they currently come in. Besides, any spam I get, is handled by our MTA/Spam server anyway. So I think I received around 5 in the last 10 days. The one or 2 emails that do come through, or that I dont get, is dealt with pretty swiftly with either a lightning click of the Delete button, or a restore from spam. whichever be required for the appropriate action. -- Trustpay Global Limited is an authorised Electronic Money Institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority registration number 900043. Company No 07427913 Registered in England and Wales with registered address 130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom. For further details please visit our website at www.trustpayglobal.com. The information in this email and any attachments are confidential and remain the property of Trustpay Global Ltd unless agreed by contract. It is intended solely for the person to whom or the entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, copy, distribute, print or rely on the content of this email or its attachments. If this email has been received by you in error please advise the sender and delete the email from your system. Trustpay Global Ltd does not accept any liability for any personal view expressed in this message.
Re: Spam to this list?
I am sorry, but I have to intervene here with a comment. Point 5 is totally unfair. These guys are not here to run a mail server, but to provide us with an excellent piece of software to do a very good job in our environment. Like I said in a previous email and as Sébastien WENSKE said, maybe try and manage it yourself. On 05/09/2014 14:07, Steven Haigh wrote: Sorry, this is a stupid suggestion. 1) The spam still makes it onto the list archives - See: http://marc.info/?l=haproxyr=1b=201409w=2 2) It dilutes the mailing list content by creating a massive drop in signal to noise (24+ spam messages in the past day?!?) 3) It causes the reputation as a mail sender of the haproxy mailing lists to be greatly reduced - meaning eventually hosts will reject mail from the list - legit or not. 4) This is a problem that has been 'solved' on other mailing lists for at least a decade. 5) It gives the impression to people wanting to use haproxy that the admin team don't know what they're doing. I've gotten more spam from this single list in the last 24 hours than I have from the total of ALL my other mailing lists in the past few months. If you aren't going to do proper spam filtering, AT LEAST do moderation of non-member posts. This single action will just about cure the spam problem. Its starting to become a joke. On 5/09/2014 9:46 PM, Sébastien WENSKE wrote: DIY: install your own anti-spam system :) I use Amavis, it works well: https://plus.google.com/+S%C3%A9bastienWENSKE/posts/T6CiUedUZzG Regards, Sebastien *De :*Kevin Maziere [mailto:ke...@kbrwadventure.com] *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 septembre 2014 13:16 *À :* Nicolas Grilly *Cc :* Lukas Tribus; Baptiste; Steven Haigh; haproxy *Objet :* Re: Spam to this list? 2014-09-05 12:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Grilly nico...@vocationcity.com mailto:nico...@vocationcity.com: I have no advice on what to do, but I'm a regular reader of the ML and I receive almost no spam from the ML because it is filtered in a very efficient way by the Gmail spam filter (I use Gmail). That can't be a global solution On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com mailto:luky...@hotmail.com wrote: I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. -- Kobus Bensch Trustpay Global LTD email signature Kobus Bensch Senior Systems Administrator Address: 22 24 | Frederick Sanger Road | Guildford | Surrey | GU2 7YD DDI: 0207 871 3958 Tel: 0207 871 3890 Email: kobus.ben...@trustpayglobal.com mailto:kobus.ben...@trustpayglobal.com -- Trustpay Global Limited is an authorised Electronic Money Institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority registration number 900043. Company No 07427913 Registered in England and Wales with registered address 130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom. For further details please visit our website at www.trustpayglobal.com. The information in this email and any attachments are confidential and remain the property of Trustpay Global Ltd unless agreed by contract. It is intended solely for the person to whom or the entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, copy, distribute, print or rely on the content of this email or its attachments. If this email has been received by you in error please advise the sender and delete the email from your system. Trustpay Global Ltd does not accept any liability for any personal view expressed in this message.
Re: Spam to this list?
If you're going to come up with a ridiculous analogy, you might as well get it right. For your analogy to work, you would also have to keep in mind that the people that are being shot at have actually signed up to be shot at, just like you signed up to be on the mailing list. It wouldn't be a simple task for Willy to take over moderating a mailing list, and with all of the work he does on HAProxy, I think some of you could be a bit more appreciative of everything he does. I'm sure if someone were to volunteer to help tackle this problem, that he'd be more than willing to consider alternate options. -- Andy Walker System Administrator FBS - creators of flexmls 3415 39th St S Fargo, ND 58104 701-235-7300 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 5/09/2014 11:46 PM, Kobus Bensch wrote: On 05/09/2014 11:17, Lukas Tribus wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. just my two cents, Here is my 2 cents. The amount of spam I receive through this list is far, and I mean FAR outweighed by the valuable information that I get from posts as they currently come in. Besides, any spam I get, is handled by our MTA/Spam server anyway. So I think I received around 5 in the last 10 days. The one or 2 emails that do come through, or that I dont get, is dealt with pretty swiftly with either a lightning click of the Delete button, or a restore from spam. whichever be required for the appropriate action. I should also be able to walk around town shooting at people Its easy enough for people to buy a bullet proof vest... If they don't have one, its their problem... Its the wrong way to look at it... Why waste thousands of CPU cycles across thousands of machines worldwide because we're too stubborn to fix the problem at the source? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299
Re: Spam to this list?
I with agree Andy Walker. I am also willing to help in any way, whether that be SPAM system admin, or whatever. On 05/09/2014 15:00, Andy Walker wrote: If you're going to come up with a ridiculous analogy, you might as well get it right. For your analogy to work, you would also have to keep in mind that the people that are being shot at have actually signed up to be shot at, just like you signed up to be on the mailing list. It wouldn't be a simple task for Willy to take over moderating a mailing list, and with all of the work he does on HAProxy, I think some of you could be a bit more appreciative of everything he does. I'm sure if someone were to volunteer to help tackle this problem, that he'd be more than willing to consider alternate options. -- Andy Walker System Administrator FBS - creators of flexmls 3415 39th St S Fargo, ND 58104 701-235-7300 On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 5/09/2014 11:46 PM, Kobus Bensch wrote: On 05/09/2014 11:17, Lukas Tribus wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. just my two cents, Here is my 2 cents. The amount of spam I receive through this list is far, and I mean FAR outweighed by the valuable information that I get from posts as they currently come in. Besides, any spam I get, is handled by our MTA/Spam server anyway. So I think I received around 5 in the last 10 days. The one or 2 emails that do come through, or that I dont get, is dealt with pretty swiftly with either a lightning click of the Delete button, or a restore from spam. whichever be required for the appropriate action. I should also be able to walk around town shooting at people Its easy enough for people to buy a bullet proof vest... If they don't have one, its their problem... Its the wrong way to look at it... Why waste thousands of CPU cycles across thousands of machines worldwide because we're too stubborn to fix the problem at the source? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 -- Kobus Bensch Trustpay Global LTD email signature Kobus Bensch Senior Systems Administrator Address: 22 24 | Frederick Sanger Road | Guildford | Surrey | GU2 7YD DDI: 0207 871 3958 Tel: 0207 871 3890 Email: kobus.ben...@trustpayglobal.com mailto:kobus.ben...@trustpayglobal.com -- Trustpay Global Limited is an authorised Electronic Money Institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority registration number 900043. Company No 07427913 Registered in England and Wales with registered address 130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom. For further details please visit our website at www.trustpayglobal.com. The information in this email and any attachments are confidential and remain the property of Trustpay Global Ltd unless agreed by contract. It is intended solely for the person to whom or the entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, copy, distribute, print or rely on the content of this email or its attachments. If this email has been received by you in error please advise the sender and delete the email from your system. Trustpay Global Ltd does not accept any liability for any personal view expressed in this message.
Re: Spam to this list?
On 6/09/2014 12:00 AM, Andy Walker wrote: If you're going to come up with a ridiculous analogy, you might as well get it right. For your analogy to work, you would also have to keep in mind that the people that are being shot at have actually signed up to be shot at, just like you signed up to be on the mailing list. I signed up to a mailing list for haproxy - not to be a spam sink. I can't believe that in this day and age people actually make excuses for this... It wouldn't be a simple task for Willy to take over moderating a mailing list, and with all of the work he does on HAProxy, I think some of you could be a bit more appreciative of everything he does. I'm sure if someone were to volunteer to help tackle this problem, that he'd be more than willing to consider alternate options. Yes, yes it is a simple task. I run many mailing lists - both private and public - and NONE get spam through to them. Previously, it was mentioned that the subscriber to poster count was a massively different ratio - and with all the spam that flows via here, I don't have any problem believing that - but I do wonder what it would be like if action was actually taken to not be a spam sink. I am actually taking some effort to bring the topic up... If I didn't think the list was valuable, I'd have just unsubscribed weeks ago... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 5/09/2014 11:46 PM, Kobus Bensch wrote: On 05/09/2014 11:17, Lukas Tribus wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste I know that people have strong opinions about this which is why previous discussions have been a bit tense, but I think we will have to discuss this again sooner or later. I got 16 SPAM mails through the ML in the last 12 hours (and 3 valid post), and the trend in the last weeks shows that this is getting worse. Now, having a some antispam solution in front of the ML requires maintenance and will inevitably lead to false positives, thats probably not what we want or have the resources to do. Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either, however if the alternative is that important topics (from both subscribed and not subscribed users) are buried in tens of SPAM threads every day, I think its a small price to pay. just my two cents, Here is my 2 cents. The amount of spam I receive through this list is far, and I mean FAR outweighed by the valuable information that I get from posts as they currently come in. Besides, any spam I get, is handled by our MTA/Spam server anyway. So I think I received around 5 in the last 10 days. The one or 2 emails that do come through, or that I dont get, is dealt with pretty swiftly with either a lightning click of the Delete button, or a restore from spam. whichever be required for the appropriate action. I should also be able to walk around town shooting at people Its easy enough for people to buy a bullet proof vest... If they don't have one, its their problem... Its the wrong way to look at it... Why waste thousands of CPU cycles across thousands of machines worldwide because we're too stubborn to fix the problem at the source? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au mailto:net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Spam to this list?
hi, this is not spam but some bad behavior of a person that is inscribing the mail of this mailing list to newsletter just to annoy people. This guy must be laughing like mad about how such a looser he is but no spam filter will prevent this, there is no filter against human stupidity that is legal in our country. regards, Ghislain.
Re: Spam to this list?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Ghislain wrote: hi, this is not spam but some bad behavior of a person that is inscribing the mail of this mailing list to newsletter just to annoy people. This guy must be laughing like mad about how such a looser he is but no spam filter will prevent this, there is no filter against human stupidity that is legal in our country. That's precisely the point unfortunately :-/ And the other annoying part are those recurring claims from people who know better than anyone else and who pretend that they can magically run a mail server with no spam. That's simply nonsense and utterly false. Or they have such aggressive filters that they can't even receive the complaints from their users when mails are eaten. Everyone can do that, it's enough to alias haproxy@formilux.org to /dev/null to get the same effect! But the goal of the ML is not to block the maximum amount of spam but to ensure optimal delivery to its subscribers. As soon as you add some level of filtering, you automatically get some increasing amount of false positive. We even had to drop one filter a few months ago because some gmail users could not post anymore. I'm open to suggestions, provided that : 1) it doesn't add *any* burden on our side (scalability means that the processing should be distributed, not centralized) 2) it doesn't block any single valid e-mail, even from non-subscriber 3) it doesn't require anyone to resubscribe nor change their ingress filters to get the mails into the same box. 4) it doesn't add extra delays to posts (eg: no grey-listing) because that's really painful for people who post patches and are impatient to see them reach the ML. I'm always amazed how people are anonyed with spam in 2014. Spam is part of the internet experience and is so ubiquitous that I think these people have been living under a rock. Probably those people consider that we should also run blood tests on people who want to jump into a bus to ensure that they don't come in with any minor disease in hope that all diseases will finally disappear. I'm instead in the camp of those who consider that training the population is the best resistance, and I think that all living being history already proved me right. I probably received 5 more spams while writing this, and who cares! Best regards, Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
I think most of us are getting soft being gmail users. I haven't seen this amount of spam in my inbox today, probably in years. Personally, I would go with an automated sub/unsub list. People who need help will usually take the effort to subscribe to a list, so I'm not sure what the advantage is of having an open list. It's like having an open smtp relay. I think at the very least implementing DNSBL might help (at least for the spam received today) if you decide not to go the subscription route... -Alex On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Ghislain wrote: hi, this is not spam but some bad behavior of a person that is inscribing the mail of this mailing list to newsletter just to annoy people. This guy must be laughing like mad about how such a looser he is but no spam filter will prevent this, there is no filter against human stupidity that is legal in our country. That's precisely the point unfortunately :-/ And the other annoying part are those recurring claims from people who know better than anyone else and who pretend that they can magically run a mail server with no spam. That's simply nonsense and utterly false. Or they have such aggressive filters that they can't even receive the complaints from their users when mails are eaten. Everyone can do that, it's enough to alias haproxy@formilux.org to /dev/null to get the same effect! But the goal of the ML is not to block the maximum amount of spam but to ensure optimal delivery to its subscribers. As soon as you add some level of filtering, you automatically get some increasing amount of false positive. We even had to drop one filter a few months ago because some gmail users could not post anymore. I'm open to suggestions, provided that : 1) it doesn't add *any* burden on our side (scalability means that the processing should be distributed, not centralized) 2) it doesn't block any single valid e-mail, even from non-subscriber 3) it doesn't require anyone to resubscribe nor change their ingress filters to get the mails into the same box. 4) it doesn't add extra delays to posts (eg: no grey-listing) because that's really painful for people who post patches and are impatient to see them reach the ML. I'm always amazed how people are anonyed with spam in 2014. Spam is part of the internet experience and is so ubiquitous that I think these people have been living under a rock. Probably those people consider that we should also run blood tests on people who want to jump into a bus to ensure that they don't come in with any minor disease in hope that all diseases will finally disappear. I'm instead in the camp of those who consider that training the population is the best resistance, and I think that all living being history already proved me right. I probably received 5 more spams while writing this, and who cares! Best regards, Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
Back in the old days we did this with the MySQL list - if the message does not contain a set of magic keywords that would frequently appear in a legitimate message, we reply to the poster telling him to include those. He could just reply and the message would go through. I do not recall that we checked first to see if the poster was subscribed, but we should have. So in that spirit but with some improvements one solution could be: - if the poster is subscribed or is on the white list of posters (we can generate this by examining if he had posted before, received a reply, and then replied to the thread again - to exclude auto-responders to spam) let the message through - if not send him back some kind of a challenge Maybe to avoid auto-reply bots, the challenge could be intelligent, e.g randomly generate a short Perl script or a C program and ask the user to respond with the output. Of course, a spam bot author could rather easily create special logic to figure out that output, but chances are he is not going to bother. But if he does, we can punish him by adding the logic to detect his address and in that special case send the code that takes control of his system, gathers info on all of his spam systems, and shuts down all of them if he forgets that he needs to execute the code we send him in a chrooted jail or some other safe environment.
Re: Spam to this list?
Hi Sasha, On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:15:34AM -0600, Sasha Pachev wrote: Back in the old days we did this with the MySQL list - if the message does not contain a set of magic keywords that would frequently appear in a legitimate message, we reply to the poster telling him to include those. He could just reply and the message would go through. I do not recall that we checked first to see if the poster was subscribed, but we should have. While that could have worked in the old days where users only used to send messages by hand, now people also use git send-email to send a series. For example, Simon uses that to propose his work to be integrated and that's the proper way to work. So this method risks to block one or two messages in a series, and that's really problematic because it requires manual handling of something usually totally automated (ie: mail subject is taken directly from the Git commit). So in that spirit but with some improvements one solution could be: - if the poster is subscribed or is on the white list of posters (we can generate this by examining if he had posted before, received a reply, and then replied to the thread again - to exclude auto-responders to spam) let the message through - if not send him back some kind of a challenge Maybe to avoid auto-reply bots, the challenge could be intelligent, e.g randomly generate a short Perl script or a C program and ask the user to respond with the output. That's already too much for a user wanting to report a bug. We don't want to discourage users from posting. When I discuss with end users, many, I really mean *many* tell me I faced an issue with X or Y, I'm not sure, etc. I say please post your bug to the ML so that we can work on it. They almost never do it. This is not specific to this list, people do exactly the same with the kernel mailing list. Most people are shy with mailing lists, and many newcomers have to be almost raped to accept to post a message. The smallest stopper you put in front of them and they'll give up. I already checked in the past, and more than half of the 800+ permanent subscribers have never posted. Of course, a spam bot author could rather easily create special logic to figure out that output, but chances are he is not going to bother. But if he does, we can punish him by adding the logic to detect his address and in that special case send the code that takes control of his system, gathers info on all of his spam systems, and shuts down all of them if he forgets that he needs to execute the code we send him in a chrooted jail or some other safe environment. I'd see it differently : if he wants to automate that, let's have him post his crap to feed gmail spam boxes once in a while, and not bother legitimate users with unneeded controls. Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:38:05PM +0800, Alexey Zilber wrote: I think most of us are getting soft being gmail users. I haven't seen this amount of spam in my inbox today, probably in years. Same here and shit happens from time to time. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and find 50 spam in my box for no apparent reason. And so what ? Just hit t on each of them, ;s and save them to the spam box. That takes about 12-15 seconds while my coffee heats up. Not the end of the world. Personally, I would go with an automated sub/unsub list. People who need help will usually take the effort to subscribe to a list, so I'm not sure what the advantage is of having an open list. Probably because you've never got any of your posts rejected by a list you used to reply to when someone CCed you. It's like having an open smtp relay. It's a bit exagerated. I think at the very least implementing DNSBL might help (at least for the spam received today) if you decide not to go the subscription route... We already *do* have some DNSBL, and one of them had to be removed because the bastards^Wnice guys who maintain them wanted to show the world their strong muscles and to blacklist gmail, so valid subscribers started to get bothered and to send me the messages they wanted me to relay. Not the most efficient way to make people participate to a mailing list if you want my opinion... The problem in this world is not people trying to annoy others, it's people trying to help those who don't seek help. In the sake of making the world better, they constrain people to follow their new rules without having any clue what these people need in the first place. Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either May I ask why this is not a good thing? I see no valid reason why not subscribed members should be allowed to post. The subscription already checks that the sender email is valid, thus should be a decent way to remove most of the spam with very little configuration and maintenance. I think all my other lists which I've subscribed require that you need to be subscribed so you can post. - Garo
Re: Spam to this list?
❦ 5 septembre 2014 20:38 +0300, Juho Mäkinen j...@unity3d.com : Restricting the list to subscribed user (subonlypost) is not a good thing either May I ask why this is not a good thing? I see no valid reason why not subscribed members should be allowed to post. The subscription already checks that the sender email is valid, thus should be a decent way to remove most of the spam with very little configuration and maintenance. I think all my other lists which I've subscribed require that you need to be subscribed so you can post. This can be cumbersome for someone wanting to just ask a question or just send a patch. You need to subscribe, send your patch, then unsubscribe. This can happen even when you are subscribed but used an alternate email address for the patch (for example, your professional email). On the top of my head, the Linux kernel mailing-list (and other related mailing-lists) doesn't require subscription. -- Use library functions. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plauger)
Re: Spam to this list?
*From: *Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu *Sent: * 2014-09-05 11:19:22 EDT *To: *Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com, haproxy@formilux.org haproxy@formilux.org *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Ghislain wrote: hi, this is not spam but some bad behavior of a person that is inscribing the mail of this mailing list to newsletter just to annoy people. This guy must be laughing like mad about how such a looser he is but no spam filter will prevent this, there is no filter against human stupidity that is legal in our country. That's precisely the point unfortunately :-/ And the other annoying part are those recurring claims from people who know better than anyone else and who pretend that they can magically run a mail server with no spam. That's simply nonsense and utterly false. Or they have such aggressive filters that they can't even receive the complaints from their users when mails are eaten. Everyone can do that, it's enough to alias haproxy@formilux.org to /dev/null to get the same effect! But the goal of the ML is not to block the maximum amount of spam but to ensure optimal delivery to its subscribers. As soon as you add some level of filtering, you automatically get some increasing amount of false positive. We even had to drop one filter a few months ago because some gmail users could not post anymore. I'm open to suggestions, provided that : 1) it doesn't add *any* burden on our side (scalability means that the processing should be distributed, not centralized) 2) it doesn't block any single valid e-mail, even from non-subscriber Have it ever been tried enabling a spam filter in a dry-run mode? Run it for a year, and just have it add a header indicating whether it would have blocked the message. Then see if any legitimate messages would have been blocked. I also want to point out that the mailing list itself sometimes lands on various blacklists because of the amount of spam coming from it. So now users using mail providers subscribing to these blacklists are not just not losing a few messages, they're losing every message. 3) it doesn't require anyone to resubscribe nor change their ingress filters to get the mails into the same box. 4) it doesn't add extra delays to posts (eg: no grey-listing) because that's really painful for people who post patches and are impatient to see them reach the ML. In the past you stated that you have grey-listing enable ( http://marc.info/?l=haproxym=139748200027362w=2 ), and here you're stating that you don't want it. Now I'm confused which is really the case. If indeed grey-listing is not enabled, why not enable it for non-subscribers? I'd bet that all the people sending patches are subscribed. I'm always amazed how people are anonyed with spam in 2014. Spam is part of the internet experience and is so ubiquitous that I think these people have been living under a rock. Probably those people consider that we should also run blood tests on people who want to jump into a bus to ensure that they don't come in with any minor disease in hope that all diseases will finally disappear. I'm instead in the camp of those who consider that training the population is the best resistance, and I think that all living being history already proved me right. I would argue the opposite, this is 2014, we should have capable spam handling technologies. And indeed we do! The thing is that spam handling has to be handled on the original recipient of the email (haproxy@formilux.org). Once the message has been sent through a relay (the mailing list), many spam filtering capabilities no longer work (DNSBL, greylisting, SPF, etc). Thus it is the responsibility of the relay to do the filtering. I probably received 5 more spams while writing this, and who cares! Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. You've stated in the past that you don't like it when actions result in people unsubscribing from the list. How many people unsubscribe because they are tired of the spam? I know I barely pay as much attention to the mailing list as I used to because of the amount of spam. Oh look, a message. SPAM. Oh look, a message. SPAM again... -Patrick
Re: Spam to this list?
Hi, Le 05/09/2014 20:39, Patrick Hemmer a écrit : Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. Without facts, this is as true as if I argue that the majority doesn't care that much but are more annoyed by the amount of mails containing the subject Spam to this list?. -- Cyril Bonté
Re: Spam to this list?
*From: *Cyril Bonté cyril.bo...@free.fr *Sent: * 2014-09-05 15:50:21 EDT *To: *Patrick Hemmer hapr...@stormcloud9.net, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu, Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com, haproxy@formilux.org haproxy@formilux.org *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? Hi, Le 05/09/2014 20:39, Patrick Hemmer a écrit : Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. Without facts, this is as true as if I argue that the majority doesn't care that much but are more annoyed by the amount of mails containing the subject Spam to this list?. Ah, but your facts are in the discussion thread. I've seen very few people supporting the current state of things. Yes it is possible there are other people who haven't replied, but I think we can make a couple deductions: * Those who have strong feelings on the matter have already reported in * Those who havent either: * don't have a strong opinion * feel their stance is sufficiently represented. * haven't checked their mail In all cases, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the sample set already provided would reflect the general trend of further responses. Meaning that the majority opinion would remain the majority opinion. -Patrick
Re: Spam to this list?
I don't know how feasible this would be, but I have an idea that I think would satisfy most people and could be rolled out in phases providing better functionality as each phase is deployed. 1. Set up a spam filter that simply tags messages with a special header if it is thought to be spam. This would allow people to set up a simple filter if they want. 2. Allow people to choose to have the messages tagged as possible spam sent to them or not. At this point, client side filters are no longer needed. 3. Watch for responses to messages tagged as spam. If one is seen from a list subscriber, unflag the message as spam and send to the original to those who have opted out of receiving possible spam. 4. Allow people who wish to be spam moderators the ability to tag things as false positives/negatives. This will improve the spam filtering over time and valid messages could be forwarded along. The downside is that there is probably a fair amount of work to be done to make all of this happen. One argument against this is that false positives prior to implementing step 3 would only be seen by part of the the list. But then that is effectively the case right now for anyone who filters spam on their side. On Sep 5, 2014 12:52 PM, Cyril Bonté cyril.bo...@free.fr wrote: Hi, Le 05/09/2014 20:39, Patrick Hemmer a écrit : Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. Without facts, this is as true as if I argue that the majority doesn't care that much but are more annoyed by the amount of mails containing the subject Spam to this list?. -- Cyril Bonté
Re: Spam to this list?
On Friday, September 5, 2014, Patrick Hemmer hapr...@stormcloud9.net wrote: *From: *Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','w...@1wt.eu'); *Sent: * 2014-09-05 11:19:22 EDT *To: *Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gad...@aqueos.com'); *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maniac...@gmail.com');, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com');, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','co...@ingarfield.com');, haproxy@formilux.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','haproxy@formilux.org'); haproxy@formilux.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','haproxy@formilux.org'); *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? I probably received 5 more spams while writing this, and who cares! Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. You've stated in the past that you don't like it when actions result in people unsubscribing from the list. How many people unsubscribe because they are tired of the spam? I know I barely pay as much attention to the mailing list as I used to because of the amount of spam. Oh look, a message. SPAM. Oh look, a message. SPAM again... I have to cast my vote in favor of spam prevention methods for this list as I've come close to unsubscribe on several occasions due to the amount I receive. I am very glad I hadn't while the discussion of haproxy 1.5 w/SSL support was underway, but a surprisingly significant percentage of the spam I receive comes from this list. I too am a Gmail user, so see less to the inbox and while it's only a couple keystrokes to file it away, I do frequently find valid messages in my Junk folder that I have to reverse the process for. I have maintained mail servers and mailing lists for companies until relatively recently, so I fully understand your concern for increase maintenance efforts (and there have already been numerous offerings of assistance there) and potential loss of support feedback, but most admins who are attempting to use haproxy are very familiar with joining a mailing list to post. I dare say that many, like myself, assume that requirement anyway. It does seem to be poor netiquette to proliferate spam by only put in the bare minimum effort. Now, you know it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum... But, really, it's about the compound amount of lost productivity for us subscribers, so please keep that in mind while your weighing the pros and cons. Thanks for haproxy and the excellent support that you provide for it. -- Morgan --- http://makkintosshu.com/ http://seriesparts.com/ http://rikuwoiku.com/ http://unna.org/
Re: Spam to this list?
On Friday, September 5, 2014, Patrick Hemmer hapr...@stormcloud9.net wrote: *From: *Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','w...@1wt.eu'); *Sent: * 2014-09-05 11:19:22 EDT *To: *Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gad...@aqueos.com'); *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','maniac...@gmail.com');, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com');, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','co...@ingarfield.com');, haproxy@formilux.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','haproxy@formilux.org'); haproxy@formilux.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','haproxy@formilux.org'); *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? I probably received 5 more spams while writing this, and who cares! Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. You've stated in the past that you don't like it when actions result in people unsubscribing from the list. How many people unsubscribe because they are tired of the spam? I know I barely pay as much attention to the mailing list as I used to because of the amount of spam. Oh look, a message. SPAM. Oh look, a message. SPAM again... I have to cast my vote in favor of spam prevention methods for this list as I've come close to unsubscribe on several occasions due to the amount I receive. I am very glad I hadn't while the discussion of haproxy 1.5 w/SSL support was underway, but a surprisingly significant percentage of the spam I receive comes from this list. I too am a Gmail user, so see less to the inbox and while it's only a couple keystrokes to file it away, I do frequently find valid messages in my Junk folder that I have to reverse the process for. I have maintained mail servers and mailing lists for companies until relatively recently, so I fully understand your concern for increase maintenance efforts (and there have already been numerous offerings of assistance there) and potential loss of support feedback, but most admins who are attempting to use haproxy are very familiar with joining a mailing list to post. I dare say that many, like myself, assume that requirement anyway. It does seem to be poor netiquette to proliferate spam by only put in the bare minimum effort. Now, you know it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum... But, really, it's about the compound amount of lost productivity for us subscribers, so please keep that in mind while your weighing the pros and cons. Thanks for haproxy and the excellent support that you provide for it. -- Morgan --- http://makkintosshu.com/ http://seriesparts.com/ http://rikuwoiku.com/ http://unna.org/
Re: Spam to this list?
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:08:11PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: *From: *Cyril Bonté cyril.bo...@free.fr *Sent: * 2014-09-05 15:50:21 EDT *To: *Patrick Hemmer hapr...@stormcloud9.net, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu, Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com, haproxy@formilux.org haproxy@formilux.org *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? Hi, Le 05/09/2014 20:39, Patrick Hemmer a écrit : Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. Without facts, this is as true as if I argue that the majority doesn't care that much but are more annoyed by the amount of mails containing the subject Spam to this list?. Ah, but your facts are in the discussion thread. I've seen very few people supporting the current state of things. Numbers here aren't on your side : # cat subscribers.d/*|wc -l 830 830 persons are currently subscribed to this list, 22 of which have posted in this thread, with some not even sharing your opinion. So that's about 98% which is hardly very few by my standards. FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. Willy
Re: Spam to this list?
On 6/09/2014 9:09 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:08:11PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: *From: *Cyril Bonté cyril.bo...@free.fr *Sent: * 2014-09-05 15:50:21 EDT *To: *Patrick Hemmer hapr...@stormcloud9.net, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu, Ghislain gad...@aqueos.com *CC: *Mark Janssen maniac...@gmail.com, david rene comba lareu shadow.of.sou...@gmail.com, Colin Ingarfield co...@ingarfield.com, haproxy@formilux.org haproxy@formilux.org *Subject: *Re: Spam to this list? Hi, Le 05/09/2014 20:39, Patrick Hemmer a écrit : Obviously quite a few people care. This is your list, and I respect that, but your opinion seems to be the minority. Without facts, this is as true as if I argue that the majority doesn't care that much but are more annoyed by the amount of mails containing the subject Spam to this list?. Ah, but your facts are in the discussion thread. I've seen very few people supporting the current state of things. Numbers here aren't on your side : # cat subscribers.d/*|wc -l 830 830 persons are currently subscribed to this list, 22 of which have posted in this thread, with some not even sharing your opinion. So that's about 98% which is hardly very few by my standards. Oh come on. Trying to say that because you don't have 400+ replies saying 'put spam filters on' that it doesn't matter is trivial is almost I don't even know the word for it FWIW, I've noticed that there is actually *more* spam than what I do receive, simply because my trivial procmail filters catch about half of it. I'll see if I find a way to port them to postfix in order to reduce this amount for everyone to the level I'm seeing on my side. I don't want to try and insult you here - but tools are around to take care of these problems - and have been done by people much smarter than you or I... The sad truth is that spammers exploit things like this list... The archives increase their google rankings for spam and make things harder for EVERYONE, not just this list. Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. So you've lost at least half your subscriber base, and you can't see a problem with this? Sorry, but even including ALL posts in this thread over the past few days, the amount of spam STILL outnumbers the amount of content going through this list - something that is almost negligent in this day and age... So I guess what will it take before something happens? Someone to fork the list off to somewhere else and fragment your community? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Spam to this list?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: snip Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. Willy Willy, Please don't take our issues with the spam personally. Everyone appreciates the list and the help it's provided, so keep in mind people are just voicing their opinions (and most of us have strong opinions) regarding spam. Going over the previous threads, imho if you don't have Greylisting, maybe that's the way to go? While my opinion still stands that the only real way to combat this spam is to make it a 'subscribe to post' list; if you're using Greylisting, why not build it so that unsubscribed users have a weighted value, so users who post a lot are automatically whitelisted (before passing their email through spamassasin or other such spam scanner). Thanks Willy! -Alex
Re: Spam to this list?
Oops... didn't cc the list on this. fixing... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Michael Johnson - MJ m...@revmj.com wrote: Rather than continue discussing/arguing about this, I've attempted to take action to solve the problem. I've created a googlegroup called haproxy-filtered and attempted to subscribe it to the haproxy mailing list. All spam is set to be moderated, otherwise it is unmoderated. This message will work as a test to see if I successfully subscribed it to the mailing list. Assuming it works, if you want permission to moderate the spam, let me know (I probably will not be doing any moderating myself). On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Alexey Zilber alexeyzil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: snip Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. Willy Willy, Please don't take our issues with the spam personally. Everyone appreciates the list and the help it's provided, so keep in mind people are just voicing their opinions (and most of us have strong opinions) regarding spam. Going over the previous threads, imho if you don't have Greylisting, maybe that's the way to go? While my opinion still stands that the only real way to combat this spam is to make it a 'subscribe to post' list; if you're using Greylisting, why not build it so that unsubscribed users have a weighted value, so users who post a lot are automatically whitelisted (before passing their email through spamassasin or other such spam scanner). Thanks Willy! -Alex -- Michael Johnson - MJ -- Michael Johnson - MJ
Re: Spam to this list?
For those interested, the google group I am mirroring the haproxy mailing list to can be found at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/haproxy-filtered Since I set this up, there have been 3 messages to the list. 1 was someone signing the haproxy list up for a a french mailing list and made it through the filters. On was a legitimate post which was flagged as spam, and one was a legitimate post that showed up initially as expected. This is a very small sample size, but so far indicates the problematic nature of this sort of filtering that Willy was concerned about. If you have any interest in moderating this mirrored list, let me know as I don't plan on doing much moderating myself once I am confident that things are working correctly. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Michael Johnson - MJ m...@revmj.com wrote: Oops... didn't cc the list on this. fixing... On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Michael Johnson - MJ m...@revmj.com wrote: Rather than continue discussing/arguing about this, I've attempted to take action to solve the problem. I've created a googlegroup called haproxy-filtered and attempted to subscribe it to the haproxy mailing list. All spam is set to be moderated, otherwise it is unmoderated. This message will work as a test to see if I successfully subscribed it to the mailing list. Assuming it works, if you want permission to moderate the spam, let me know (I probably will not be doing any moderating myself). On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Alexey Zilber alexeyzil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: snip Now please let me remind me something important : this list is provided for free to make it easier for developers and users to exchange together. It's managed on spare time, it's fast and free to subscribe just like it's fast and free to unsubscribe. Some users do indeed subscribe, participate to a thread then unsubscribe. There have been about 3 times more subscriptions than current subscribers, many of which coming back from time to time. So for people for whom this amount of spam is a terrible experience, there are a lot of options. However when you're on the service side of things, options to fight spam *always* come from extra burden dealing with false positives. So the situation is clearly far from being perfect, but it used to be reasonably well balanced for 7 years now. Only very recently we started to get subscribed to several lists and probably the address has better circulated to spammers resulting in an increase in the amount of spam. But I certainly won't spend as much time dealing with anti-spam problems as I already spent in this sterile thread. Willy Willy, Please don't take our issues with the spam personally. Everyone appreciates the list and the help it's provided, so keep in mind people are just voicing their opinions (and most of us have strong opinions) regarding spam. Going over the previous threads, imho if you don't have Greylisting, maybe that's the way to go? While my opinion still stands that the only real way to combat this spam is to make it a 'subscribe to post' list; if you're using Greylisting, why not build it so that unsubscribed users have a weighted value, so users who post a lot are automatically whitelisted (before passing their email through spamassasin or other such spam scanner). Thanks Willy! -Alex -- Michael Johnson - MJ -- Michael Johnson - MJ -- Michael Johnson - MJ
Re: Spam to this list?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: Hi guys, I've noticed that this list seems to get more spam than I've ever experienced before on any mailing list. Is there anyone administrating this list? Is spamassassin used on the list? -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299 Hi Steven, It's a common asked question: https://www.google.fr/search?q=haproy+formilux+spamoq=haproy+formilux+spam Baptiste
