Don't worry about it. I get what you're saying. I guess no one should know this email address if they don't know the site or where to get both. Was just like "What? I know I said that but that's really turning it around". I'm having mucho trouble with either my modem or router right now (I've forwarded ports so I can DCC send, but the ports don't seem to be forwarded. Or the modem is being funky. Ain't that fun?). No harm -Russ
> -----Original Message----- > From: UM Linux User's Group [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Rob > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UM-LINUX] WTF??? > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:00:01PM -0500, Russ Kay wrote: > > Honestly Rob, please do not just take a snippet from my email. If you > are > > going to send that out, you might as well send out my last paragraph. I > > apologized for it being a bit lengthy, but it gives my opinion on the > > matter. The top is more of going through "what ifs". As stated later on, > I > > feel that it should be left as it is. > > Totally my bad -- I read the mail at the same time as doing something > else, and I didn't properly respond to all of the points. That said, > I do not believe that the list should remain as is.. rather, I like the > idea of only allowing member posts - with the caveat that non-member > posts don't get dropped silently. Spam filters can only do so much > (I still get 80% spam, even though I have a very aggressive spamassasin > ruleset), and it is my experience that the level spam drops when going > to a members-only posting policy. > > Let me try again for the rest of your mail. > > > That leaves the next point open to > > discussion. What happens if an incoming freshman hears about the LUG, > finds > > out the email address but didn't sign up? Simply wanted to ask the LUG a > > question? Or another LUG queries this LUG without signing up? Those are > just > > a few of the many possibilities out there. They send something but it > > doesn't go through? Maybe we can have it to (a) see if the address > really > > exists (b) if it does then send them a polite message explaining that > only > > LUG members may email the LUG (c) give an email address (spam free > format) > > where they can send email to if they have any questions (ie, the pres' > > email). The problem always occurs is that if we give info in the bounce > > backs and if someone is spamming us (versus a bot) then that person gets > the > > info (ie, how to join the list, email one of us, etc). If we just drop > > non-member sent emails or spam emails, then someone inquiring about the > LUG > > can't ask questions without knowing the web site. > > The standard way to handle this is the mail gets bounced to the list owner > to be moderated (even if the list itself is unmoderated). The moderator > can then allow the mail to go on to the list or get a nice message, etc, > depending on how legit the message looks. This is much less work than > full moderation, b/c non-member posts are (usually) relatively uncommon. > > The reason I mentioned 'mailman' is that it gives you a nice set of > options of how to handle this exact case - one can easily pick between > a) hold to moderate > b) polite message > c) drop > d) just allow through > > Which I know from experience with majordomo is a PITA... > > Also, I'm not sure that I believe you when you say that it is a problem > that a polite "you need to subcribe to post" mail include directions > for how to sign up to the list -- those directions are already (and > should remain) public, so it's not like we are giving spammers any > new information. > > > Umm...sorry if that was a bit long. What I'm trying to say is that how > it is > > is the way that makes most sense. If you personally have a problem with > the > > spam, then set some custom spam filters to look what is after the > > [UM-LINUX]. But ignoring non-members just doesn't seem practical. > > It's my experience (I can't tell you the number of mailing lists I've > setup and moderated - 40?) that the members-only posting policy is a > much better spam filter than actual spam filters. > > - Rob > .
