(openssl-users) This is way off-topic, so let me apologize in advance.
Here's some of my own email numbers to give a piece of my perspective of
the talk about spam on the openssl list and why I just don't see a real
problem.
I run a pair of email servers on a very small domain that serves a
Boyle Owen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Scott Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The spammer who zapped the mod_ssl list (see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modssl&r=1&b=200403&w=2) has now
moved onto this list (see content-free mail apparently from rse...)
Can someone with admin
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The spammer who zapped the mod_ssl list (see
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modssl&r=1&b=200403&w=2) has now
moved onto this list (see content-free mail apparently from rse...)
Can someone with admin powers block th
On Mar 2, 2004, at 8:37 PM, Joseph Bruni wrote:
I don't know about that. During the latest Windows exploit virus blast
(when are they going to fix their stuff?) I kept getting bombed by AV
bounces aimed at openssl-users-l. Not to mention that the list was
DOWN during that time as well. A good n
Boyle Owen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I disagree.
I've lost the thread... You want to limit posting to subscribers only or
you don't?
I don't.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man
I don't know about that. During the latest Windows exploit virus blast
(when are they going to fix their stuff?) I kept getting bombed by AV
bounces aimed at openssl-users-l. Not to mention that the list was DOWN
during that time as well. A good number of my posts just got timed out
by my legit
> I think just simply requiring people to be list members before posting
> would be enough to make a big impact.
You dont necessarily have to force people to become members. Just
ensure that all anonymous posts are be moderated, and the problem
is solved. The spam, viruses and anonymous posts g
Have we now crossed the threshold where there are more off-topic
messages discussing spam than spam messages themselves?
There just doesn't seem to be a real need to take any action at all
given the small number of UCE or antivirus bounce messages.
r,
Lance
__
Vadim Fedukovich wrote:
a hotmail account might be considered a handy tool but it hardly could be
regarded as anonymous.
Please take a look at mixmaster.sf.net (the tool)
and network of remailers running around. There was mixmaster protocol
ietf draft published recently
That was the "or whatever".
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:47:43AM -0600, Scott Lamb wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Rich Salz wrote:
>
> >> I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
> >> would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
> >
> > In the past -- at least, say, 2-3 years ago -- we had a c
On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Rich Salz wrote:
I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
In the past -- at least, say, 2-3 years ago -- we had a couple of
anonymous posters who made very worthwhile contributions. Haven't
seen that
Rich Salz wrote:
Probably not worth supporting any more.
Ben Laurie wrote:
I disagree.
Ben's voice carries way more weight than mine :) I stand down...
/r$
--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gatew
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I disagree.
I've lost the thread... You want to limit posting to subscribers only or
you don't?
BTW, the mod_ssl list has been swamped by some spammer. Would this list
be immune to these posts (the spammer is craftily
Rich Salz wrote:
I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
In the past -- at least, say, 2-3 years ago -- we had a couple of
anonymous posters who made very worthwhile contributions. Haven't
seen that recently. Also, it used t
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lyngmo Ted
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Regarding all the spam...
Richard Levitte wrote:
> Ted Lyngmo wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to post messages to the mailing list without being a
> > member? If so,
> I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
> would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
In the past -- at least, say, 2-3 years ago -- we had a couple of
anonymous posters who made very worthwhile contributions. Haven't
seen that recently. Also, it used to be in the spi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:54:57 +0100, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
mads> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
mads> > mads> get someone to moderate the list - problem solved.
mads> >
mads> > *cough* you do know what
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> mads> get someone to moderate the list - problem solved.
>
> *cough* you do know what you're talking about, right?
>
yes. Allow members to post and only non-members if moderated through -
I wouldn't suggest it if I d
Richard Levitte wrote:
> Ted Lyngmo wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to post messages to the mailing list without
> > being a member? If so, what would we lose by changing that?
>
> I honestly don't know what we would lose. Maybe a sense of
> openness.
True, but considering how easy it is to become
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:32:40 +0100, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
mads> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:27:05PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
mads> >
mads> > I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
mads> > would lose.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:59:37 +0100, "Lyngmo Ted"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ted.lyngmo> Is it possible to post messages to the mailing list
ted.lyngmo> without being a member?
Yes, openssl-users is completely open.
ted.lyngmo> If so, what would we lose by changing
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:59:37 +0100, "Lyngmo Ted"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ted.lyngmo> If so, what would we lose by changing that?
I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
-
Please consider s
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:27:05PM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> I think I misunderstood that question. I honestly don't know what we
> would lose. Maybe a sense of openness.
>
get someone to moderate the list - problem solved.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coff
23 matches
Mail list logo
