. And the delay is *not* at my end.
Jim
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:00:02 -0400
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filtering of mailing lists and NATs
it occurs to me
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
Every IETF mailing list has a charter, a known purpose for its use. It
is entirely reasonable and legitimate to reject all submissions that are
outside the scope of the charter. If we can not agree on that point
this whole
In die Tue, 22 May 2001 20:49:51 -0400
Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
I do this for the mailing list of the MPLS working group, so I'm aware of
what a nuisance it is. But as far as mailing list management goes, it's not
nearly as big a nuisance as trying to figure out which of
Can someone remind me what spamming exactly is?
From what I see in my inbox I must assume it is
something like boring 1000s of ietf subscribers with
tens of emails on filtering of mailing lists.
Am I right?
Leen Mak.
-Original Message-
From: Maurizio Codogno [mailto:[EMAIL
]
Subject: filtering of mailing lists and NATs
it occurs to me that most of the methods that have been proposed
for filtering spam from mailing lists have a lot in common with NATs.
in both cases, the proponents say (in effect) if it works for me and
for my small set of test
At 05:59 AM 5/23/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
What about months of work
wasted because a WG didn't get the input of those driven away by spam?
that's equally as bad as the months of work wasted because the WG
didn't get the input of someone driven away by the spam filter, of course.
Keith,
Keith, there are several barriers of entry for people who wish to work on
Internet protocols. There are financial barriers, time barriers and most of
all, educational barriers. We all have to learn how email lists work (some
of us had to learn USENET), just as we all had to learn how to
(maybe the above will fool majordomo into not filtering this message?)
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
Every IETF mailing list has a charter, a known purpose for its use. It
is entirely reasonable and legitimate to reject all submissions that are
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
all about mail filtering), in order to avoid
Date:Mon, 21 May 2001 20:21:10 -0700
From:grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Most spammers strike me as opportunistic and not overly interested
| in special-case-handling a couple of subscribe-to-send lists,
Of course, and as
In your previous mail you wrote:
This is not a technological problem - it is a social problem. We cannot
fix spam by technological means - it has to be fixed by social means.
= thanks for this nice summary about the spam problem!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You wrote:
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
all about mail filtering), in
Date:Mon, 21 May 2001 20:21:10 -0700
From:grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Most spammers strike me as opportunistic and not overly interested
| in special-case-handling a couple of subscribe-to-send lists,
Of course, and
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
all about mail filtering), in order to
however, I have seen a couple of occasions where I believe that
a 'moderator' acted inappropriately in filtering messages that
came from non-subscribers but were arguably on-topic for the lists.
So the non-subscriber subscribed, and their posts went through okay,
right?
no. the WG
Christian I would much rather receive and delete another annoying
Christian proposition to get rich quick or see lurid pictures than tolerate
Christian any form of censorship.
As has been pointed out, the non-member messages can be moderated. It takes
about one second to look at
Here is a suggestion.
Require people to subscribe to a list to post to the list.
This is in addition to requiring subscription to receive posts
mailed to the list. Nanog adopts this approach and has been
fairly successful in avoiding spam, I believe.
Subscription to Post can be made
Forgive me here, but I was pondering the problem of mailing lists filtering
last night, and want to float an idea.
The problem as I understand it is that non-subscribers to a given mailing
list may contribute good ideas or may be spammers. And short of
human-directed analysis it's impossible
As has been pointed out, the non-member messages can be moderated.
yes they can. but this requires a moderator who has the time to do
it, who can consistently do it in a timely manner, who acts as a
spam filter rather censoring content with which he/she does not
agree, and who is trusted by
Here is a suggestion.
Require people to subscribe to a list to post to the list.
worked great for the NAT WG list, which successfully used this technique
to discourage input from people harmed by NAT.
Keith
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
all about mail filtering), in order to
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams
per
day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or
to
learn
all about mail filtering), in
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a suggestion.
Require people to subscribe to a list to post to the list.
worked great for the NAT WG list, which successfully used this technique
to discourage input from people harmed by NAT.
NAT WG never had a separate
So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to learn
all about mail filtering), in
honoring our principle of open participation
and being open to good ideas from all sources.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pyda Srisuresh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filtering of mailing lists
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a suggestion.
Require
In die Tue, 22 May 2001 12:26:40 -0400
Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
As has been pointed out, the non-member messages can be moderated. It takes
about one second to look at a message and tell whether it is unsolicited
commercial or not.
but this means
- that there is a
James Aviani wrote:
So here is the idea: For email that comes from non-subscribers, forward it to
N subscribers randomly selected from the current subscribers. (Maybe pick
from the most recent posters, since they are most likely to be active.) If
one of subscribers thinks the mail is useful,
I think I might set a filter to look for this thread in the subject
line of my email and dump it. It only takes a minute to set it up.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
James Aviani wrote:
I know this is fairly low-tech, but it seemed like a reasonable and practical
solution to spamming.
This is a interesting if not good idea. Some of the details may need to
be worked out (like perhaps certain people opt in or opt out of being a
moderator), but the technical
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suresh,
I don't mind having WG lists moderate contributions from non-subscribers,
provided the moderator can act in a timely fashion (say within a day or
so) and the moderator allows any post that is even arguably on-topic for
the list.
Having a
My mail filters must be very effective. The 20 messages on this thread in
the last 2 days constitute over a months worth of spam I have been aware of.
Now if I could only figure out how to construct an automated filter for:
if list = IETF and content = 'personal inconvenience rant' then
John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Randomly selected moderators.]
Then you have to educate the subscribers on how to approve messages.
Include a short explanation in the message of why it is sent, and
offer to follow a URL to approve the message. One of the randomly
choosen subscribers
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Who knows. I suspect it would be a *vastly* long time before the
ratio of 'blocked mailing list' to 'personal email addresses' becomes
so high that spammers will special-case their code just to target
mailing lists. Today mailing lists are
Vernon Schryver wrote:
[..]
Besides, mailing list traffic tends to be
white listed and so bypass individual spam filters.
Which is why some of us would encourage the use of
techniques that make mailing lists less attractive
to opportunistic spammers.
I feel dizzy.
cheers,
gja
Maurizio but this means
Maurizio - that there is a person who has the right to decide whether the
Maurizio message is spam or not
Maurizio - that this person is willing to bear the burden for the sake of the
Maurizio whole community.
Maurizio I happen to do this for some lists, but it's a
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Besides, mailing list traffic tends to be
white listed and so bypass individual spam filters.
Which is why some of us would encourage the use of
techniques that make mailing lists less attractive
to opportunistic spammers.
I feel dizzy.
it occurs to me that most of the methods that have been proposed
for filtering spam from mailing lists have a lot in common with NATs.
in both cases, the proponents say (in effect) if it works for me and
for my small set of test cases, it must be okay to impose this on
everyone. if some
Keith Moore wrote:
it occurs to me that most of the methods that have been proposed
for filtering spam from mailing lists have a lot in common with NATs.
actually, have more in common with firewalls.
firewalls serve a filtering purpose, and (gasp!) people have
learned to configure proxies
it occurs to me that most of the methods that have been proposed
for filtering spam from mailing lists have a lot in common with NATs.
actually, have more in common with firewalls.
I beg to differ. People install firewalls to filter their own incoming
and/or outgoing traffic. Personally
Aidan Williams wrote:
[..]
To extend the analogy again in the opposite direction: now that
software is available to tunnel random traffic over HTTP, we can
expect firewall filtering to get harder, and become less effective.
Why would this not happen for email lists too?
Most spammers
Keith Moore wrote:
I beg to differ. People install firewalls to filter their own incoming
and/or outgoing traffic.
D'oh. I thought firewalls where also used to filter traffic
one did *not* ask for. Stuff that wasn't apriori declared part of
one's community of interest. Seemed a reasonable
Keith Moore wrote:
however, I have seen a couple of occasions where I believe that
a 'moderator' acted inappropriately in filtering messages that
came from non-subscribers but were arguably on-topic for the lists.
So the non-subscriber subscribed, and their posts went through okay,
right?
42 matches
Mail list logo
