* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 13:04:14 -0700]:
> It can and has in the past. SpamCop's terms of service expressly forbid you
> from reporting mailing list traffic, spam or not.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Klein
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is th
On Tuesday 18 March 2008 11:59:30 am Klein Moebius wrote:
> If I enable SpamCop reporting in Spamassassin and subsequently
> report a spam message on a mailing list to SpamCop via Spamassasin,
> will the mailing list then get a block from SpamCop?
It can and has in the past. SpamCop&#
If I enable SpamCop reporting in Spamassassin and subsequently
report a spam message on a mailing list to SpamCop via Spamassasin,
will the mailing list then get a block from SpamCop?
--
Regards,
Klein
"I'm willing to sacrifice anything for this cause, even other peop
Am 2006-09-28 14:01:01, schrieb Mumia W..:
> I've gotten a couple of such messages with the virus removed.
What? - Maybe it was an accident... =8O
I have arround 400.000 of them in my Virus/Spam store
If you need such attachmenst, I can forwar it to you. ;-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
> filters. List subscribers then report that that spam to spamcop. Spamcop
> > then blames murphy for sending that spam.
>
> Spamcop will list an IP address based on two criterion
>
> 1) mails sent to spamtraps
> 2) mails reported by users as spam
SC also takes into
On Saturday 30 September 2006 12:02, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> My phrasing evidently wasn't clear. AIUI the problem isn't misdirected
> confirmation emails. The problem is that some spam makes it through debian
> filters. List subscribers then report that that spam to spamc
On Friday 29 September 2006 03:23, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> I hate to get into this discussion but...
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:09:46AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> > However apparently the problem is users reporting list emails to
> >
Cameron L. Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, s. keeling wrote:
> > Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > also, threadjacking, but its sp
. When
> that happens, it is incumbent on the owner of the server to take
> action. That's part of the responsibility of running an server on the
> net.
Indeed -- so what is the "action" that spamcop would like?
> Mistakes will occur from both ends and both parties
[This message has also been posted to linux.debian.user.]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, s. keeling wrote:
> Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
>> > lot of the
s. keeling wrote:
Here's some
aliases to help you look up the originator's complaint address which
you can Cc: in the same mail to get the originator's account killed
(there may be others, and I'd appreciate hearing about them :-):
afnic='whois -h whois.afrinic.net'
apnic='whois -h whois.a
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:59:57PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This appears only relevant to assets and The Debian project as a whole.
>
> How so? Personally, I'd say that the listmasters are clearly
> "individual Developer(s)
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:26 PM -0500, Miles Bader wrote:
> Anyway, the point is that simplistic assumptions like "if it
> arrives at a spamtrap, it must be spam" are just that -- simplistic.
> Spamcop ought to have measures in place to deal with the inevitable
Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > [...]
> > also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
> > lot of these "bounced email" spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
> > all has a .zip or .com binary attachment, so obvio
aybe they don't, and simply do it _randomly_.
Anyway, the point is that simplistic assumptions like "if it arrives at
a spamtrap, it must be spam" are just that -- simplistic. Spamcop ought
to have measures in place to deal with the inevitable cases where their
assumptions turn o
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:01:01PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote:
> On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >[...]
> >also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
> >lot of these "bounced email" spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
> >all has a .zip or .com bina
On 09/28/2006 12:23 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
also, threadjacking, but its spam related... is anyone else getting a
lot of these "bounced email" spam? I'm getting a TON of it lately. It
all has a .zip or .com binary attachment, so obviously its a virus or
somesuch, but man there's a
I hate to get into this discussion but...
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:09:46AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
[snippage]
>
> However apparently the problem is users reporting list emails to spamcop.
just to point out that I've personally been getting a few of these
lately. confirma
On 9/28/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The catch here is that you have no idea of what the spamtrap address is. I
dont think it is easy for humans to guess what the spamtrap addresses look
like.
That depends on what direction you're trying to go. Are you trying to
determine
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:15, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
> > > For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
> > > murphy.
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
> For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
> murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it
On Thursday 28 September 2006 01:44, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
> > For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
> > murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
>
> If murphy is se
Kamaraju Kusumanchi writes:
> What about the idea of placing a captcha in the subscription page
> (http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/subscribe) ?
Why do you want to prevent blind people from subscribing?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:57, Michael Marsh wrote:
> Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered through
> the web interface.
What about the idea of placing a captcha in the subscription page
(http://www.debian.o
an organization that tries
> to fight network abuse to cause problems for the FLOSS community. Worst
> of all, the Debian listmasters have swallowed the bait. That's why it
> is important, whether people like SpamCop or not, to arrange to get
> murphy whitelisted. Complainin
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:57, Michael Marsh wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
>
> Um, murphy sends confirmation email to any address registered through
> the web interface.
What about t
handled by a
> different host, though this still allows an attacker to DoS the
> confirmation server through spamcop, so that people using spamcop
> can no longer subscribe nor unsubscribe.
I agree with Michael: tricking a server that responsibly sends out
confirmation messages into sen
resses can be spoofed. This isn't about spam
coming from murphy, it's about a denial of service attack against it.
I suppose another option is to have the confirmations handled by a
different host, though this still allows an attacker to DoS the
confirmation server through spamcop, so t
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:21, John Kelly wrote:
> For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
> murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
If murphy is sending spamtraps, it deserves to be listed. period.
If it is not spamcop, there are tons
Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:21:14PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wr=
> ote:
> > On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >It's a non-issue.
> >
> > I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
> > by plebiscite.
>
On Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:17 PM -0500, David Jardine wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > 3) allow users to temporarily turn off list mail
> >
> Once
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This appears only relevant to assets and The Debian project as a whole.
How so? Personally, I'd say that the listmasters are clearly
"individual Developer(s) working on a particular task" who may "make
any technical or nontechnical decision with r
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
> [...]
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> [...]
>
> 3) allow users to temporarily turn off list mail
>
Once you've got used to how a mailing list works, which the above
users presumably have,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:05:10PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It should be, pretty much everything else in the Debian Project calls
> >for votes in order for a consensus.
>
> Heh - not quite. :-) The Constitution [1] spells o
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It should be, pretty much everything else in the Debian Project calls
for votes in order for a consensus.
Heh - not quite. :-) The Constitution [1] spells out the
organisational structure for formal decision-making within the
Project. Have a read;
On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a non-issue.
I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
by plebiscite.
--
Andrew Saunders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:21:14PM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/26/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's a non-issue.
>
> I agree. However much you might wish it, list policy is not determined
> by plebiscite.
Hi Andrew:
Thanks for your comments.
It should be,
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:35:27AM +0100 or thereabouts, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 9/24/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why don't such things ever get submitted for a vote, to see exactly
> >where the membership stands on this ?
>
> I would guess that the vast majority of those who
On Monday, September 25, 2006 8:08 PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> IIRC, the Debian lists are powered by mailman. Have they just
> disabled this functionality, or is it a technical/political issue?
If they use Mailman, there is a feature to allow users to determine
whether they receive lis
On 9/24/06, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why don't such things ever get submitted for a vote, to see exactly
where the membership stands on this ?
I would guess that the vast majority of those who post without being
subscribed don't follow the list except to monitor follow-ups to their
o
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth Goodman wrote:
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> 1) allow users to subscribe for posting only,
>
> 2) require users to subscribe before posting and
>
> 3) allow users to temporarily turn off lis
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 07:53:21PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
>
> I think the following would make Debian lists better for everyone:
>
> 1) allow users to subscribe for posting only,
>
IIRC, the Debian lists are powered by mailman. Have they just disabled
this functionality, or is it a technica
On Sunday, September 24, 2006 8:34 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 01:22:30PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth
> Goodman wrote:
>
> > You are right in saying there is no apparent way to subscribe
> > without getting all the list traffic. Without this feature, it
> > is impractical to
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:45:21 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, I don't like to cause unnecessary offence, so when you
>misinterpreted my words to imply such offence, I wanted to
>clarify that none was intended.
I don't believe you.
>As I am the looser here, this will be my
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:38:38 +0300, Andrei Popescu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
>> And what field is that?
>Airline (not low-cost)
Airlines? This should light a good firestorm.
>So, in your opinion, if other large busin
John Kelly wrote:
>
>
> Really? I wonder why then, in the next email you needed to further
> explain that you "made no assumptions" about my experience.
Well you did put a question mark at the end of it. As far as I am
aware that generally means you wanted a reply.
Also, I don't like to cause u
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:12:37 +0300, Andrei Popescu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
> >One of the first rules to learn is "Don't treat your customers like
> >numbers in a statistic. They
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:12:37 +0300, Andrei Popescu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
>One of the first rules to learn is "Don't treat your customers like
>numbers in a statistic. They are real persons with real problems and
>feelings"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:05:13 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You started this by saying your "experience" contradicts my "opinion"
>> to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>When I said my experience contradicts your opinion I meant
>exactly that, word for word.
R
John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well then obviously, if the number of complaining users is very small,
> then what I said must be true: many users won't complain.
>
> George, if this is a debate, you're losing.
I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
One of
John Kelly wrote:
>
> My statement is a simple if/then clause. It does NOT say "George is
> near the bottom of the authority chain." I made no assumptions. But
> if the shoe fits, you can wear it.
Ah well, you missed my point about customer service then (which
was my point by the way - shame,
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:55:18 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Kelly wrote:
>> So I only have an opinion, without experience? How would you know?
>I don't, so I make no assumptions that you do.
>> When you're near the bottom of the authority chain, perhaps submission
>> i
John Kelly wrote:
>
> So I only have an opinion, without experience? How would you know?
I don't, so I make no assumptions that you do.
> When you're near the bottom of the authority chain, perhaps submission
> is the best way to cope.
In that case I guess customer service == submission.
> Bu
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:46:20 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Kelly wrote:
>> Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
>> of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
>> a potential 2% false positives.
>Sorry, but my d
John Kelly wrote:
>
> Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
> of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
> a potential 2% false positives.
Sorry, but my direct experience contradicts your opinion.
No only will they not accept any loss o
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:34 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> One can endlessly debate the issue, but at the end of the day, if the
> majority wish this to be implemented, then it should be done. The views of a
> few, should never outweigh those of the majority, and it doesn't in the
> slightest prevent pe
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 01:22:30PM -0500 or thereabouts, Seth Goodman wrote:
> You are right in saying there is no apparent way to subscribe without
> getting all the list traffic. Without this feature, it is impractical
> to require that posters first confirm their email address.
Why ? I don't
On Friday, September 22, 2006 12:15 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> "Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150
> > > mails/day just for a simple answer.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:03:49AM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
At most of my clients you'll be out of a job in no time.
Maybe, but in most cases those are the people crying the loudest if they
don’t get a valuable mail because of „collateral damage”.
So you’ll lose either way.
If they can’t
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:29 +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Your job as a mail admin is simple: deliver all mails sent to me in my
> inbox, not more, not less. What I do with my mails is not your concern.
> Then you are always safe.
At most of my clients you'll be out of a job in no time.
Hans
on Debian to fix things on their end.
> >
> > Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but SpamCop listed the
> > server because of messages to a spamtrap. If this is correct, it had to
> > be a confirmation message :) Spam trap addresses are secret, so there'
John Kelly wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:29:20 +0200, Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You may tag mails, yes, but not more, unless you have a written
permission from me to do so, and I am informed about the risks.
My server, my rules. Who are you.
At a lot of places, he's the gu
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:29:20 +0200, Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You may tag mails, yes, but not more, unless you have a written
>permission from me to do so, and I am informed about the risks.
My server, my rules. Who are you.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:13:26PM +0100, John Kelly wrote:
Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
a potential 2% false positives.
Unless one of the lost mails is a very very important mail, th
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:16:23 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not operate large MTA's, though I have known people who do and they
>are definitely not fools. They understood that testing for forward DNS
>!= reverse DNS at connection time is an extremely cheap way to reduce
>t
Mumia W.. wrote:
On 09/22/2006 10:45 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Please define the phrase "far more difficult".
This is a serious request.
Mike
Perhaps I should've said it would make it far more discouraging for
people to report bugs and get help from debian-user if they had to
subscribe.
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:49 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:33:26 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize
> > > that sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
>
> > If users value reliably gettin
On 09/22/2006 10:45 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
Mumia W.. wrote:
[snip]
Closing the list would make it far more difficult for people to report
bugs and get help, and it wouldn't do ZIP to prevent spamcop listings.
Please define the phrase "far more difficult".
This is a serious
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 09:45 -0700, Alan Ianson wrote:
> Debian lists are not a source of spam, they are a victim of it.
A bit like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition makes
you a victim if it gets stolen.
Allowing non members to post will get you spammed.
Hans
--
To UNSUBSC
On 9/22/06, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> > just for a simple answer.
>
> There's no reason you h
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> > just for a simple answer.
>
> There's no reason you have to receive list traffic. You can already do
> thi
Mumia W.. wrote:
[snip]
Closing the list would make it far more difficult for people to report
bugs and get help, and it wouldn't do ZIP to prevent spamcop listings.
Please define the phrase "far more difficult".
This is a serious request.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;mai
Stephen wrote:
[snip]
It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
much of a hurdle to expect a newbie to debian to subscri
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:18:56 -0500, "Mumia W.."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The solution is to gently ask spamcop to exclude debian-formatted
>subscription confirmation messages from causing a listing. If they don't
>accommodate, then there is nothing we c
On 09/21/2006 07:55 AM, John Hasler wrote:
Daniele writes:
I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
wrong.
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is not
subsc
On Thursday 21 September 2006 14:55, John Hasler wrote:
> Daniele writes:
> > I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first
> > (and the only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop
> > isn't entirely wrong.
>
> The Debian mailing-list s
> Daniele writes:
> > I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
> > only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
> > wrong.
On 21.09.06 07:55, John Hasler wrote:
> The Debian mailing-list servers never s
Daniele writes:
> I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the first (and the
> only) source of spam in my inbox. I think that spamcop isn't entirely
> wrong.
The Debian mailing-list servers never send mail to anyone who is not
subscribed.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSU
t; Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but SpamCop listed the
> > server because of messages to a spamtrap. If this is correct, it had to
> > be a confirmation message :) Spam trap addresses are secret, so there's
> > no way to stop this except by talking to the DN
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:33:26 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize that
>> sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
>If users value reliably getting their messages more than they value spam
>reduction, which seems to be the case
ET is part of it, but SpamCop listed the
> server because of messages to a spamtrap. If this is correct, it had to
> be a confirmation message :) Spam trap addresses are secret, so there's
> no way to stop this except by talking to the DNSBL maintainers.
Are you saying that SpamC
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:38 PM -0500, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> It's not nice to require *everybody* to receive 100-150 mails/day
> just for a simple answer.
There's no reason you have to receive list traffic. You can already do
this if you subscribe via email. There is no reason the web
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:33 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%.
>
> > It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the
> > spam war an
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:39 AM -0500, Stephen wrote:
> This is why debian-user is being constantly blacklisted -- So the
> onus is on Debian to fix things on their end.
Strongly agree. Spam from USENET is part of it, but SpamCop listed the
server because of messages to a spamtra
"Seth Goodman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:44 PM -0500, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that closing mailing lists is the right way to fight
> against spam.
>
> The question is whether requiring a user to answer one confirmation
> message be
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%.
>It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the spam war
>anymore. Most systems would consider this false positive rate unusable
>by a large
On Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:44 PM -0500, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> I don't think that closing mailing lists is the right way to fight
against spam.
The question is whether requiring a user to answer one confirmation
message before posting is any real burden. You have to send mail to
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:30PM +0200 or thereabouts, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 21.09.06 12:39, Stephen wrote:
> > It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
> > without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
> > without needing to
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:57:31PM +0100 or thereabouts, John Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:15:58 -0400, Stephen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But debian-user is more than a mailing list. It's also gated to the
> >> Usenet newsgroup linux.debian.user, where anyone can post.
>
> >>
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 5:48 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:01:38 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > require matching DNS, forward and reverse
<...>
> > some large servers won't use it.
>
> I don't know of any. But if there really are some
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:15:58 -0400, Stephen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But debian-user is more than a mailing list. It's also gated to the
>> Usenet newsgroup linux.debian.user, where anyone can post.
>> Spam filtering of non subscribers, after the fact, is the only method
>> possible, under
On 21.09.06 12:39, Stephen wrote:
> It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
> without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
> without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
> much of a hurdle to expect a newbie to de
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:01:33PM +0100 or thereabouts, John Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0400, Stephen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
> >without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-us
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:15:29PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should see debian-www, it's much worse and it has a fraction of the
> traffic of d-u
This is an argument for the status quo -- Just because another list is
getting more ?
Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:19:38PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed pretty extensively a while ago. The conclusion
> > was that d-u has pretty effective spam-filtering, the signal-to-noise
> > ratio is very low.
>
> I
I am using spamassassin and only very occasinally are messages from this list
flagged! When they are, if it were a "false alarm", I set to "ham".
Spamassassin works on rules it downloads, user rules and is Bayes-trained by
marking emails as spam or ham.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0400, Stephen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
>without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
>without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
>much of
, those who mail spam.
> I have to agree with you Daniele. I don't use spamcop. However, I
> also have had to whitelist this list so that my spam solution
> doesn't dump posts from Debian. I also think something should be
> done on the list server.
What spamcop is trying
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:19:38PM +0300 or thereabouts, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> This has been discussed pretty extensively a while ago. The conclusion
> was that d-u has pretty effective spam-filtering, the signal-to-noise
> ratio is very low.
I understand your point, however it's annoying when
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:24 +0200
"Daniele P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 September 2006 15:23, John Kelly wrote:
> > >I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists.
> > >They are
> > > the first (and the only) sou
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
