Re: [vox-tech] Change to vox-tech list moderation
Quoting Bill Kendrick ([email protected]): > My problem was that the subject lines were all the same: a generic > message telling me something got auto-discarded. Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the '(n) messages were discarded' advisories. In the model where non-subscriber postings get held and expire out, the listadmin gets a daily summary of main headers of all held messages, which is _usually_ enough information to spot quickly any held non-spam. What I was saying is that, in the event of uncertainty about that judgement, if you _also_ receive an immediate notice on each message being held, then even if a non-spam expired out of the queue before you could approve it, you as listadmin can retrieve the full message from the immediate-notice advisory message and re-send it manually. I find this a workable routine, especially with a 3-day hold duration. Obviously, Views Differ{tm}. ;-> IMO, if the spam is too onerous even with intelligent management of the Mailman queues, then it means you aren't doing good enough spam-rejection inside the receiving MTA, and should concentrate on improving _that_. Linux MTAs have totally inadquate default antispam defences on (to my knowledge) all Linux distributions. I would guess this has been one of the biggest motivators driving the ongoing flight away from people operating their own MTAs and onto outsourced webmail (e.g., GMail, Fastmail, and competitors). Being stubborn, I went the other way: 'Ah, needs better early-SMTP antispam', and tightened things up. Again, absolutely not being critical of other people finding different solutions. Being caught in the middle of the spam war is a difficult situation, and mailing list managers, being SMTP forwarders, are inherently caught in the crossfire more than other systems are. ___ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Change to vox-tech list moderation
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 02:09:14AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Bill Kendrick ([email protected]): > > > Well, this wasn't clearing of Mailman's queue, but of my inbox. > > (Technically, a mailbox that slurps up all of the mailman administrative > > noise, via a good ol' procmail filter) > > I do sympathise. > > Personally, I've gotten really quick at quick-scanning and deleting > (usually) the Mailman held-message notices a couple of times a day that > accumulate in mbox ~/inboxes/lists . A few seconds and I'm done -- even > though I listadmin a whole bunch of Mailman lists for a half-dozen-ish > domains. My problem was that the subject lines were all the same: a generic message telling me something got auto-discarded. Some Mutt trickery to highlight "Subject:" lines within the body of messages helped [1], and heavy use of pattern matching features of Mutt to find spammy keywords (e.g., "~b rolex") [2] helped... but it was still Work(tm), and I've got enough of that in my life already. ;) > But I wasn't being critical, just pointing out something sometimes > missed. Appreciated! [1] Like so, in my ~/.mutt/muttrc color body brightgreen black "^Subject: " color body brightgreen black "^Subject: " [2] These, and friends: * l limit * D delete-pattern -- -bill! Sent from my computer ___ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Change to vox-tech list moderation
Quoting Bill Kendrick ([email protected]): > Well, this wasn't clearing of Mailman's queue, but of my inbox. > (Technically, a mailbox that slurps up all of the mailman administrative > noise, via a good ol' procmail filter) I do sympathise. Personally, I've gotten really quick at quick-scanning and deleting (usually) the Mailman held-message notices a couple of times a day that accumulate in mbox ~/inboxes/lists . A few seconds and I'm done -- even though I listadmin a whole bunch of Mailman lists for a half-dozen-ish domains. But I wasn't being critical, just pointing out something sometimes missed. ___ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Change to vox-tech list moderation
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 10:07:33PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > I mention all of the above because I keep finding Mailman admins doing > 'mind numbing and tedious' manual clearing of queues, unaware that > automatic expiry would do this work for them without any of that hassle. Well, this wasn't clearing of Mailman's queue, but of my inbox. (Technically, a mailbox that slurps up all of the mailman administrative noise, via a good ol' procmail filter) At this rate, I'm going to put the onus on the poster. If they actually want their message to hit the list, the need to do it properly. Since it's 99.999% spam these days, I'd rather not have to even look at it. It's not merely mind-numbing because it's tedious... looking at the crap people send out as spam, and thinking about the fact that _some_ people apparently fall for it, is a bit depressing. :( -- -bill! Sent from my computer ___ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
Re: [vox-tech] Change to vox-tech list moderation
Quoting Bill Kendrick ([email protected]): > I did not bother having posts held ("HOLD" option, vs "DISCARD"), since it > was a very rare occurrence. These days, since the mailing list volume is > extremely low (but the spammers still try sending messages to the list > address), almost ALL discarded messages are junk, and it's kind of mind > numbing and tedious (and a waste of my time) to have to go through them, > _just in case_ someone posted from a bad address. A different approach is to let the held spam expire out. On General Options, item 'Discard held messages older than this number of days. Use 0 for no automatic discarding' has a Mailman-default value of 0, i.e., hold forever -- which I consider crazy. Typically, I set that to '3' so I'm likely to catch held non-spam even over a three-day holiday weekend. As I also get notices of individual held spams ('Should the list moderators get immediate notice of new requests, as well as daily notices about collected ones?' on General Options set to 'yes' instead of 'no'), even _if_ I accidentally let a non-spam expire out of queue and realise that on (say) day 4, I still have the full message text and can bounce it to the list then. I mention all of the above because I keep finding Mailman admins doing 'mind numbing and tedious' manual clearing of queues, unaware that automatic expiry would do this work for them without any of that hassle. ___ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
