On Tuesday 26 February 2002 16:52, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
John == John Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I find this feature is handy for small, private lists.
Sure. I have a couple that could be handled that way, but we just
defaulted them all off. We post the names
On Friday 22 February 2002 05:28, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
Making a private archive available to those who are list members
I haven't commented on this before, but the reason I find this solution
lacking is that most mailman lists (in my experience)
On Friday 22 February 2002 14:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On 2/21/02 5:25 PM, John Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nobody has bothered to do this YET. That we know of. But the spamhacks
are evolving rapidly.
Well, let's find out shall we? Set up a honeypot private list containing
On Friday 22 February 2002 16:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Excellent. Would you mind publishing an analysis so we can start making
some informed decisions as to what methods are effective?
Oh, that's easy. I haven't found evidence of any harvesting. I've also been
able to find evidence of
On Friday 22 February 2002 18:36, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
The best we can do here is implement something simple now that gets the
job done, and continuously test it to see if it's still good enough.
When it's not, we build another countermeasure.
I
On Thursday 21 February 2002 17:15, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
Web Forms for contacting the admin cold. If the admin replies, you can
continue the conversation via email.
Right, assuming the web form doesn't break.
Monitor the form. Your monitoring
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:08, Dale Newfield wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
It's a test to find out if the agent that requested the page is human or
some bot of some sort.
Assuming you can build such a test. Good luck.
Building a good one is tricky. It depends
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:41, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
There is some validity to the the club mentality, of we don't have to
fix it, we only have ot make it difficult enough to convince them to annoy
someone else. But if we assume we're building the New Defacto Standard
Listserver for
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 04:21, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:37:31PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
I never understood why mailman wasn't changed to allow users to change
there own addresses years ago. Being able to add valid receiving
addresses would help, too.
On Monday 18 February 2002 17:02, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On 2/17/02 7:48 PM, Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, the point is that even if mailman is 100% perfect, it's not
at all clear that that would result in even 1% less spam hitting home.
If that's even remotely close, then
On Monday 18 February 2002 17:56, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On 2/17/02 8:39 PM, John Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they can set up admin specific accounts that redirect to /dev/null,
then they can set up procmail to drop HTML mail, and say they're doing so
anywhere they're advertising
11 matches
Mail list logo
