Salve Steve!
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Willie Wonka wrote:
> > Oh - and I use Mozilla Mail - but this list (and others) have w-a-y too
> > much mail for me to d/l and sort through - which is why I prefer
> > webmail over pop3. I did subscribe to this list (for 10 minutes) once,
> >
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Willie Wonka wrote:
> > Oh - and I use Mozilla Mail - but this list (and others) have w-a-y
too
> > much mail for me to d/l and sort through - which is why I prefer
> > webmail over pop3. I did subscribe to this list (for 10 minutes)
once,
> > but again, it's too tedious to try
Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:
> Willie Wonka wrote:
> > [...]
> > Oh - and I use Mozilla Mail - but this list (and others) have w-a-y
too
> > much mail for me to d/l and sort through
>
> Create a filter that sends the mail-list messages to a special
folder.
> It is very manageable
Willie Wonka wrote:
> Oh - and I use Mozilla Mail - but this list (and others) have w-a-y too
> much mail for me to d/l and sort through - which is why I prefer
> webmail over pop3. I did subscribe to this list (for 10 minutes) once,
> but again, it's too tedious to try and use the webmail's severl
Willie Wonka wrote:
[...]
Oh - and I use Mozilla Mail - but this list (and others) have w-a-y too
much mail for me to d/l and sort through
Create a filter that sends the mail-list messages to a special folder.
It is very manageable this way.
> [...] plus I do NOT use
javascript in my brows
At 1144863607 past the epoch, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too
much) wrote:
> No it does not. If you were a spammer, would you want to
> send spam to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think not.
I don't see why not: If I were a spammer, I would perhaps
mind if my spam was going to the abuse address of _my_isp_,
b
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2006-04-06, Tudi LE BLEIS penned:
> > On 4/4/06, Monique Y. Mudama <...> wrote:
> >
> >> Months later, I had filled half my quota, entirely with mailing
> >> list entries. But there's no way to delete more than a page of
> >> messages at a time via their web interf
Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:
Florian Kulzer wrote:
[...]
Your problem boils down to the fact that Thunderbird does not provide
any convenient commands to make use of that information. When I was
getting increasingly annoyed by this myself (with Mozilla Mail), I came
across the fol
Florian Kulzer wrote:
[...]
Your problem boils down to the fact that Thunderbird does not provide
any convenient commands to make use of that information. When I was
getting increasingly annoyed by this myself (with Mozilla Mail), I came
across the following Thunderbird extension:
http://www.cwei
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 20:13:25 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Reply to the list and you won't have that problem,
> > > will you? Or will you? I do. Every post.
> >
> > Your problem boils down to the fact that Thunderbird does not provide
> > any
Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reply to the list and you won't have that problem,
> > will you? Or will you? I do. Every post.
>
> Your problem boils down to the fact that Thunderbird does not provide
> any convenient commands to make use of that information. When I was
> getting i
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 15:24:53 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
[...]
> >And how can recipients repond to such messages?
> >
> >They must edit every messges they want to respond...
> >Sorry, this is not serieuse at all.
>
> Oh? Well, I'd better quit posting here. My message
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2006-04-12 12:57:56, schrieb Mike McCarty:
[snip]
A better solution to this is to use something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This results in the sender being unable to find the destination,
and eventually giving up on sending the email in the first
place.
It does
Am 2006-04-12 12:57:56, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> Apropos of this, it could be done better.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> has a valid domain, which results in actual sending and delivery
> of an e-mail. Robots which mine this address will flood the net
> with e-mails which must be discarded by earthli
Am 2006-04-12 04:15:59, schrieb Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much):
> That makes sense to me. I think that some people are confused about the
> difference between spam sent to their inboxes and spam sent the list.
Ack
> Some people don't know how to filter list messages to a separate folder,
>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 05:39:45PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:
> To subscribe, an actual e-mail address must be submitted.
Yes, but the list does not require posts to be sent from subscribed
addresses. You can either post from a separate address or not subscribe
at all.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:31:23 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> > has a valid domain, which results in actual sending and delivery
> > of an e-mail. Robots which mine this address will flood the net
> > with e-mails which must be discarded by earthlink.net.
>
>
Mike McCarty wrote:
> has a valid domain, which results in actual sending and delivery
> of an e-mail. Robots which mine this address will flood the net
> with e-mails which must be discarded by earthlink.net.
Trust me, ELNK deserves it. Any of their customers that turn on their
spam filterin
Mike McCarty wrote:
Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:
[...]
My e-mail address is "rather uninviting" to spammers :)
Apropos of this, it could be done better.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
has a valid domain,
Which is perfectly acceptable and necessary.
which results in actual sending and
Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:
Pascal Hakim wrote:
Making people subscribe is a barrier to entry, and we want to make it as
easy as possible for people to contribute. [...]
That makes sense to me. I think that some people are confused about the
difference between spam sent to t
Pascal Hakim wrote:
Making people subscribe is a barrier to entry, and we want to make it as
easy as possible for people to contribute. [...]
That makes sense to me. I think that some people are confused about the
difference between spam sent to their inboxes and spam sent the list.
Some peop
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a
> >>level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:36:05AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Quoting Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Even if we assume that I fell asleep on the page down key while counting
> >4., and guess that I missed half, we're still talking about blocking
> >over 800 valid messages.
> >
> >2
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> I still haven't read a reasoned case for leaving the list open for
> posting to The World, subscribed or not.
Because there are those who are like me before I learned how to use mutt
-- they won't use pine for liscence reason, the graph
On 4/7/06, Matthew R. Dempsky <> wrote:
> Then compare that to how many messages were spent responding to (and
> even translating) the occasional spam, arguing whether fruit is on
> topic, redundantly discussing about petsupermarket, misdirected
> unsubscribe emails, and incessent whining about the
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a
level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users.
What unnecessary grief?
Take a look through the debian-user archiv
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
> I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a
> level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users.
What unnecessary grief?
Take a look through the debian-user archive for March 2006. Count how
many
On 2006-04-06, Tudi LE BLEIS penned:
> On 4/4/06, Monique Y. Mudama <...> wrote:
>
>> Months later, I had filled half my quota, entirely with mailing
>> list entries. But there's no way to delete more than a page of
>> messages at a time via their web interface (please, someone, prove
>> me wr
Pascal Hakim wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
Can you quote:
I can't do the last twelve months, as we don't keep our data that far
back, and some of these numbers have to be counted invidually, but
here are the numbers for March.
Due to our multi st
On 4/4/06, Monique Y. Mudama <...> wrote:
> On 2006-04-04, Pascal Hakim penned:
> > I'm sorry, but I don't believe you can say something is another
> > user's responsability. The last thing the listmaster team wants to
> > have to do is to go through every message that has leaked the
> > headers an
Pascal Hakim wrote:
'lo,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I predict that
(1) two already-formed factions will immediately chime in
(2) a near flame war will ensue
(3) no such figures will be forthcoming
Sorry.
No, no; as I wrote below I'm *hoping* to be pr
Quoting Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Even if we assume that I fell asleep on the page down key while counting
4., and guess that I missed half, we're still talking about blocking
over 800 valid messages.
25/37700 works out to be 0.066% of spam not being blocked. It's still
annoying of cour
'lo,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:19:27AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Doofus wrote:
> >
> >Can you quote:
>
> H! Someone calling for reasoned, rational discussion!
> H! Someone start a flamewar, instanter!!!
>
> >1. the total number of posts from all sources received b
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
>
> Can you quote:
I can't do the last twelve months, as we don't keep our data that far
back, and some of these numbers have to be counted invidually, but
here are the numbers for March.
Due to our multi step filtering process I can't
Doofus wrote:
Can you quote:
H! Someone calling for reasoned, rational discussion!
H! Someone start a flamewar, instanter!!!
1. the total number of posts from all sources received by the d-u list
servers in the last twelve months,
2. the number of posts received
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:51:30AM +0100, Doofus wrote:
>
> Can you quote:
>
> 1. the total number of posts from all sources received by the d-u list
> servers in the last twelve months,
>
> 2. the number of posts received by non list members in the same period,
Presumably you mean *from* non-
Pascal Hakim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:21:47AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
raju writes:
Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
done through google groups?
Is there anything that can be done with goo
Bruno Buys wrote:
Raju,
The lists are spammed, I agree. But being able to post without
subscription is part of the openness Debian wants to achieve.
I'll never accept this reasoning. To my mind it takes openness to a
level that just causes unnecessary grief for many legitimate users. Why
On 2006-04-04, Pascal Hakim penned:
> I'm sorry, but I don't believe you can say something is another
> user's responsability. The last thing the listmaster team wants to
> have to do is to go through every message that has leaked the
> headers and deal with that. Someone's already mentioned that i
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:28:58AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Is the crossassassin something specific to d-u or is it used for all the
> lists on lists.debian.org? I ask because, some lists like debian-www
> receive much more spam from non-subscribers than the amount of
> "non-subscribe
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:03:40AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> At 1144114138 past the epoch, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > some lists like debian-www receive much more spam from
> > non-subscribers than the amount of "non-subscriber spam"
> > received by d-u.
>
> I've noticed debian-www being ver
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:58:52PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:
> Pascal Hakim wrote:
> >
> >Some people leak headers into the body of their email.
> >
> >For example, the first email in this month's archive:
> >
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/04/msg0.html
>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:58:52PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Just use HTML numeric character references to encode things that look
> like email-addresses. E.g.:
> "@" --> (
> ".com" -> e;?f;
".com" -> e;?f;d;
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux
At 1144114138 past the epoch, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> some lists like debian-www receive much more spam from
> non-subscribers than the amount of "non-subscriber spam"
> received by d-u.
I've noticed debian-www being very busy, but I think that's
because webmaster@ forwards to it.
--
Jon Do
Pascal Hakim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:21:47AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
raju writes:
Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
done through google groups?
Is there anything that can be done with go
On 2006-04-03, kamaraju kusumanchi penned:
>
> The advantages I see are
>
> (1) A web interface to subscribe/unsubscribe and change
> mail/digest/no email options. So we will not see those unsubscribe
> emails.
I forgot to mention that this is hopelessly optimistic. I belong to a
few yahoo groups
On 2006-04-04, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) penned:
> My e-mail addy has the word "spam" in it; therefore, I get almost
> *no* spam. I got one a couple of weeks ago, and that's it.
I actually started using this email address several years ago, to
discourage people from emailing me directly
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
[...]
(I personally suspect that the email address I use confuses a lot of
spam apps. "Hrm, remove the word spam ... but wait, that's not a
legal address, toss that." I do check this address, but it's pretty
easy to identify the fake amazon/chase/ebay/paypal/etc phishin
Pascal Hakim wrote:
Some people leak headers into the body of their email.
For example, the first email in this month's archive:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/04/msg0.html
Don't worry about the body. It's the posters' responsibilities to
protect other people e-mail addys whe
On 4/3/06, Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people leak headers into the body of their email.
gmail does by default, apparently.
I do wonder if there really is a point to masking out the email
addresses in the archive. If I were a spammer, one of the first things
I'd do is sign up t
On Monday 03 April 2006 18:45, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>On 2006-04-03, kamaraju kusumanchi penned:
>> The advantages I see are
>>
>> (1) A web interface to subscribe/unsubscribe and change
>> mail/digest/no email options. So we will not see those unsubscribe
>> emails.
>
>Disadvantage: It requires
Pascal Hakim writes:
> Some people leak headers into the body of their email.
But most people don't, and most of those who do could avoid doing so.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2006-04-03, Pascal Hakim penned:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:18:19PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
>> I'm having trouble envisioning this as a huge problem. At some
>> point, whatever converts the mailing list to HTML had access to the
>> headers, so it seems like it would be pretty easy to
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 05:18:19PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2006-04-03, Pascal Hakim penned:
> >
> > There have been a number of discussions about that. The main issue
> > with that so far, is that the @ sign is used by a number of
> > different programs to indicate things that aren't e
On 2006-04-03, Pascal Hakim penned:
>
> There have been a number of discussions about that. The main issue
> with that so far, is that the @ sign is used by a number of
> different programs to indicate things that aren't email address. We
> don't want to mangle arch/baz archive names, we don't want
On 2006-04-03, kamaraju kusumanchi penned:
>
>
> The advantages I see are
>
> (1) A web interface to subscribe/unsubscribe and change mail/digest/no
> email options. So we will not see those unsubscribe emails.
Disadvantage: It requires using a web interface to post. Everyone who
enjoys using a
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:21:47AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> >raju writes:
> >
> >>Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
> >>done through google groups?
> >>
> >
> >Is there anything that can be done with google groups that cann
John Hasler wrote:
> Is there anything that can be done with google groups that cannot be
> done through lists.debian.org?
Have sensible policies I'd wager.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:21:47AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>
> The second point is very important IMHO. Just create a new email
> address. Subscribe to d-u. Wait for 4-5 days. Look at the amazing amount
> of spam you get. Now create another email address. Subscribe to some
John Hasler wrote:
raju writes:
Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
done through google groups?
Is there anything that can be done with google groups that cannot be
done through lists.debian.org?
Can be done - no.
Will be done - yes.
1) In googl
raju writes:
> Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
> done through google groups?
Is there anything that can be done with google groups that cannot be
done through lists.debian.org?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
At 1144019509 past the epoch, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> But If I look into my gmail spam folder, most of the spam
> emails are addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (where xxx
> are the debian lists that I am subscribed to.
Two things:
what is the proportion of mail received which is NOT spam,
d
I am currently subscribed to some mailing lists that are moderated (i.e.
someone filters what is to be published).
Consequently there is no spam per se, but some clever ones have succeeded to
send messages that look like coming from the list ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruno Buys wrote:
kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
Hi all
IMHO debian lists are the sources of a lot of spam these days.
Over the past few years that I have been using Debian, the list
masters were not able to eradicate the spam problem on these lists. I
agree that they have been doing a great
kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
[let's consider moving to Google groups]
You asked what one can do with e-mail that one cannot do with Google
groups.
I can think of two things which are important to me:
I can use POP to pull my e-mail and manage what gets archived
and where on my own machine.
I do
kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
Hi all
IMHO debian lists are the sources of a lot of spam these days. Over
the past few years that I have been using Debian, the list masters
were not able to eradicate the spam problem on these lists. I agree
that they have been doing a great job in filtering o
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:11:49PM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Is there anything that can be done with lists.debian.org that cannot be
> done through google groups?
Maintaining ownership of the content of the list is one thing. Have you
read the google groups and gmail TOS?
And hey, tha
Hi all
IMHO debian lists are the sources of a lot of spam these days. Over
the past few years that I have been using Debian, the list masters were
not able to eradicate the spam problem on these lists. I agree that they
have been doing a great job in filtering out spam. But If I look into m
68 matches
Mail list logo
