From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 04:44:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id DAA06104; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sky.net (solar.sky.net [198.70.175.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id DAA04441 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sky.net.sky.net (ip92.kc.sky.net [206.230.165.92]) by sky.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA19863; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 05:23:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971001051937.00e17cc8@solar.sky.net> X-Sender: price@solar.sky.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 05:19:37 -0500 To: "Nathan J. Mehl" From: Paul Allen Rice Subject: Re: Today's award for "Most Obfuscated Bounce Message" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199709301951.PAA18099@horton-x.whoville.leftbank.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 03:51 PM 9/30/97 -0400, the following was submitted for consideration by Nathan J. Mehl: > >...goes without question to the lovely folks over at webtv.net: > >> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- >> <"numberone?user-id=2969781&subscriber-id=2969718&category=normal"@postoffic e.alma.webtv.net> > >Sheesh. > >-n Sort of reminds me of the following sub announcement majordomo sent me earlier this summer... PTS#u#CBH#u#D#c#PTS#u#CBH#u#D.PTS#u#CBH#u#P#c#DelaiR@health.qld.gov.au That's one helluva long address. I'd hate to type it in everytime. I verified it with the person who had it. She's a helth official in, if I remember right, Queensgate, Australia. In any event, the postmaster down there apparantly dishes these out to everyone. Shortly after this was received, I received a note from the person indicating it would change to a most human readably style. Oh well... Paul ------------------------------------------------------------ (o)(o) Paul Rice > Listowner: CircleJoke and Underground Mailling Lists \/ mailto:PaulRice@Broadcast.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky, University of California ------------------------------------------------------------ Support the anti-Spam amendment, go to http://www.cauce.org From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 07:45:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA11602; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id HAA11500 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA32057; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:23 -0700 From: Berg Received: by eskimo.com (8.8.7) id HAA16170; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710011418.HAA16170@eskimo.com> To: adamb@tezcat.com Subject: Re: AOL upgrade Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I wonder...would CCing a complaint about something illegal to the relevant federal agency cause AOL to react quicker...? ;) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 15:14:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA12143; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id OAA11940 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LunaCity.UUCP by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA26359 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for list-managers@greatcircle.com); Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:33:03 -0700 Received: by LunaCity.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 01 Oct 97 14:28:48 PDT for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: AOL upgrade - B.S. From: alyson l abramowitz Message-Id: Date: Wed, 01 Oct 97 14:23:52 PDT In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970930210940.008f56d0@mail.wco.com> Organization: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk AOL as a service holds no personal interest for me but I've got to say that my experience with them in the past year is that they are probably the most responsive site to closing down spam relatively quickly. It's rarely a day that goes by when I don't send them a new spam. And they do respond and shut down the users who do so. This is more than I can say for most of the other large services. They have less spam'ers coming though but they rarely do anything about them. So I wonder why they are responsive to me but not some of the rest of you folks? In any case, I can tell you that abuse@aol.com appears to be looked at and handled regularly from my experience. Best, Alyson From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 15:44:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA25289; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA25191 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id PAA22102; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710012240.PAA22102@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: berg@eskimo.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <199710011418.HAA16170@eskimo.com> (message from Berg on Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: AOL upgrade Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: Berg Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT) I wonder...would CCing a complaint about something illegal to the relevant federal agency cause AOL to react quicker...? ;) IMHO you should only send complaints to a federal agency if you feel that is the appropriate way to deal with the problem of the person you are complaining about. CC'ing them to "threaten" or hold a whip over AOL or any other place that isn't responding to your complaint fast enough is not productive. In the case of death threats or other messages where you are in fear of your life or personal safety, by all means involve as many agencies and orgs as you need. But not as a tool for speeding up response in an unrelated org for a non-emergency. I realize you were probably kidding but I wouldn't want anyone else to misread your statement and take it seriously. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 17:29:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16157; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netguide.com (nexus.netguide.com [199.108.80.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id RAA16018 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from delundel.netguide.com by netguide.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12518; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:23:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3432EA2B.71B8@netguide.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:26:19 -0700 From: David Lundell Reply-To: delundel@netguide.com Organization: CMP Media, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Subject: Subscription Verification Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi all- I currently coordinate the list management of 11 mailing lists with a total of 350,000+ subscribers. The lists are opt-in periodic newsletters (not discussion lists). Most of our subscriptions come to us via a Web interface on our site. Currently, we do not verify subscriptions. We recently had an event where someone was subscribed to all of our mailing lists, along with a bunch of lists produced by other organizations -- a kind of mail bombing attack most of you are probably somewhat familiar with. To make a long story short, the event is forcing us to evaluate the verification issue. I'd love feedback from you all regarding how you have set up your lists, and your thoughts on the following issues. First and foremost, do you feel, from an ethical standpoint, that mailing list administrators should always verify a user before subscribing that user? I'd also love to hear your thoughts on whether, legally, the victim of such an attack has grounds for recourse against a list provider. Also, does anyone verify unsubscribes too? If so, what are the merits of that? Lastly, if any of you have switched from no verification at all to some type of verification, did you notice a slow-down in the growth of your lists? Forgive me if I'm raising an issue that has been discussed here -- I've only been on this list for a couple months. All feedback and pointers to information sources are very welcome. Thanks! David Lundell Producer, E-mail Products CMPnet: http://www.cmpnet.com Free newsletters on technology and the Internet at: http://www.techweb.com/delivery/delivery.html From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 18:29:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA28264; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id SAA28175 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id UAA27630 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:23:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199710020123.UAA27630@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Subscription Verification Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 20:23:49 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10/1/97 7:26 PM CDT, David Lundell wrote... >First and foremost, do you feel, from an ethical standpoint, that >mailing list administrators should always verify a user before >subscribing that user? Most list owners will say yes. On an ethical standpoint, I tend to agree. With that said, most of my lists do not require confirmation to subscribe. This is primarily because the majority of my lists are geared towards very non-technical people who have trouble understanding the concept of verification. So, unless I have a problem, I leave verification off. One one list, I had to turn it on because I started getting bogus subscriptions. All my other public lists remain with confirmation off, and I haven't had any problems. >I'd also love to hear your thoughts on whether, legally, the victim of >such an attack has grounds for recourse against a list provider. Keep in mind the current state of legal affairs when it comes to the net. Courts are only barely aware that the Internet exists, and very little legal ground has been covered. While I suppose a case could be made for negligence against the list host, I wouldn't worry about it. Certainly not until after laws are in place to guard against UCE. >Also, does anyone verify unsubscribes too? If so, what are the merits of >that? I don't require confirmation for unsubscribe commands. Personally, I find it extremely annoying when I'm trying to get off a list and I have to confirm it. Faking a signoff request is a lot different than faking a signon request. It's not a way to spam someone for obvious reasons, so it probably doesn't have much. A minor annoyance, at best, and the person can always re-subscribe themself. >Lastly, if any of you have switched from no verification at all to some >type of verification, did you notice a slow-down in the growth of your >lists? Hard to say, since the list for which I turned confirmation on experiences very slow growth anyways. If it dropped from one new subscriber a week to one new subscriber every two weeks, I wouldn't have noticed. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 18:44:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA01418; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id SAA01172 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id RAA21589; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dave (dave.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.50]) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca (8.8.7/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA11836; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:59:36 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971001195645.00c3d6f0@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:56:45 -0500 To: delundel@netguide.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: Subscription Verification In-Reply-To: <3432EA2B.71B8@netguide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:26 PM 10/1/97 -0700, David Lundell wrote: >First and foremost, do you feel, from an ethical standpoint, that >mailing list administrators should always verify a user before >subscribing that user? Do you mean manually, or via automated mechanisms in the MLM software? I find that the automated verification mechanism in Majordomo (for example) handles that very well. After suffering numerous prank s*bscriptions earlier this year, they almost dropped to zero after enabling verification. I say "almost", because I've had a few cases where the prankster obtained a NetAddress account, s*bscribed to lists, and then set the account to forward to the victim. Of course, verification won't prevent that. >Lastly, if any of you have switched from no verification at all to some >type of verification, did you notice a slow-down in the growth of your >lists? I don't have any hard numbers to back it up (though I could produce them, if anyone's really interested), but I'd say there's been a very slight slow-down on my lists. I attribute that to the slight difficulty (if you can call it that) of processing the verifications, as it prevents s*bscriptions from those who are completely unable to follow written directions. I do not consider that to be a bad thing, because it helps keep those who are unable to manage their email from repeatedly demonstrating that fact in front of thousands of other people. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 1 20:44:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA10805; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sportsurf.net (sportsurf.net [192.41.36.58]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id TAA10531 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.204.56.156] (sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156]) by sportsurf.net (8.8.5) id UAA02852; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:51:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710020251.UAA02852@sportsurf.net> X-Authentication-Warning: sportsurf.net: Host sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156] claimed to be [192.204.56.156] Subject: Fwd: Re: distinction among: owner, monitor and moderator Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 23:00:40 -0000 x-sender: mark@sportsurf.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Mark Rauterkus To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Did you all see this? I was CCed and it didn't hit the list. ..... I think it has some clever ideas. Mark ---- snagged snip comes below. ---- > >For the purposes of this research, we are making a distinction among the > >following roles: list owner, list monitor and list moderator. With our program, we decided to break up the responsibilites and came up with the following different security roles: * server admin: has rights to all lists on the server, can do anything using the web interface or email commands. Doesn't receive any mail from any list. Receives software update notifications from us. * site admin: has rights over all the lists in their "site" (ie: a grouping of lists), similar responsibilities as a server admin. Can change virtual site settings (such as hostname, look & feel, etc). * list admin: can add/delete members, moderate, change FAQs, action phrases, autoresponders & change all list settings. Has no rights to anything but their own list. Members can also have any of the following extra rights, which are single yes/no parameters: * moderator: receives moderated message notifications, and can approve them * owner: receives mail sent to the owner-listname@... address * error mail receiver: has opted to receive notifications of error mail that Lyris has processed * announcer: can send messages to the list, no matter what the moderation settings are * poster: is allowed to send contributions when a list is set to reject non-posters (for example, a magazine with an author pool might use this) This works pretty well for us. However, we do get a lot of requests for a more limited list admin role, where the server administrator could remove specific functions from the list admin's menu. Usually, the server administrator fears that the admin is a danger to themselves, and will tinker with the wrong things, thus screwing up their own list (mucking with the open/closed/private/password security setting, for instance) > To take this one step further, I'm not even happy with the term, "LIST." The > LIST term is one that is getting old, IMHO, but should get dropped in the > next round of changes. Agreed. Several years ago, when we used to sell InfoMagnet (a windows front end to L.) we called them "Email Discussion Groups". However, the term "Discussion Groups" has now been coopted by the Newsgroup folks (that's what DejaNews calls them). And besides, "Discussion Groups" doesn't do justice to announcement lists and moderated-edit lists, which in many cases is what people are more familiar with. Nowadays, we simply call them "email lists" and say that there are several kinds of "email lists", such as "owner-controlled announcement lists", "moderated discussions", "moderated user-contributed announcements", and "open discussions". Recently, a new type has become popular, which we call "DocBots", as in "Document Robots". Surveys, document repositories, and other "email databases" fall into this general category, where there is an active relationship between the user and the list server. PS: I sent this message to the list several days ago, but it never was distributed. If Majordomo suddenly decides to distribute my week-old post, my apologies for sending two -err- now three copies. John jbuckman@shelby.com http://www.shelby.com Developers of *an other* Email List Server end mudged snip ---- From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 00:30:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA02844; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id XAA02730 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amys-answers.com ([205.160.203.108]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id FAA02161 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709291247.FAA02161@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from famroom.amys-answers.com by amys-answers.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.2CAEB6A0@amys-answers.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 7:49:11 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Amy Stinson" Organization: Amy's Answers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:38:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] Reply-to: amys@amys-answers.com In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970925141941.00ee2994@mail.idyllmtn.com> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am now cleaning up hundreds of bounces. All of my list members at Juno are being returned as unknown. This started happening yesterday with *some* of them, but now all of them are being returned. Is anyone else experiencing this? amy From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 00:35:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA05225; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id AAA05181 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from germany.it.earthlink.net (germany-c.it.earthlink.net [204.250.46.123]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id SAA23412 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (ip119.an6-atlanta2.ga.pub-ip.psi.net [38.6.6.119]) by germany.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01571 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710010146.SAA01571@germany.it.earthlink.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ray Osborne" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:42:41 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: list mgmt tools (bounces) Reply-to: tekjobs@themall.net X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail features of Pegasus. Pegasus has some good filtering characterisitics but I have been unable to write a script to remove the email addresses of bounced email from a list. I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that I am unaware of. At the moment I am employing a work at home secretary to keep my databases of email addresses fined tuned. What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that are no longer useful ? If you discussed this already then I would appreciate somebody telling me what date so I can find the archive. Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 00:43:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA05273; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id AAA05228 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webdreams.com (www.webdreams.com [199.125.85.28]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id WAA03188 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by webdreams.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/29Aug96-0251AM) id AA07391; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:07:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:07:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Brock Rozen Reply-To: Brock Rozen To: Kynn Bartlett Cc: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com>, cnorman@best.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL upgrade - B.S. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970930213428.00d868e4@mail.idyllmtn.com> Message-Id: X-Backup: Disable X-Url: http://www.torah.org/~brozen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > Maybe I'm just weird like that. If David has specifically said to > contact him directly instead of writing to abuse@aol.com, then hey, > it's his choice. (If he hasn't, though, you're probably out of > line in suggesting that as the best way to resolve your problems.) There's a difference between contacting majordomo to unsubscribe from a list and contacting someone about a spam. One can be handled by an automated system, the other cannot. I can sympathize with David, but if he's in charge of taking care of this and abuse@aol.net isn't doing the job -- then I could care frankly whether it bothers him or not, just as long as it doesn't bother me anymore! You see, I can be considerate -- but when other's lack of response begins to affect me, I no longer care for their workload. Their neglect is hurting mine and I won't accept that. Not to say that abuse@aol.net has been bad. They've helped me in many cases -- but I'm just presenting the situation if they were to get to a bad situation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@torah.org | http://www.torah.org/~brozen | ----------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 00:45:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA03308; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id XAA03300 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from luna2.shelby.com (luna.shelby.com [207.105.6.145]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id TAA07468 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kuno (kuno [207.105.6.156]) by luna2.shelby.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA24718 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:55:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199710010255.TAA24718@luna2.shelby.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:37:38 -0800 Subject: Re: distinction among: owner, monitor and moderator In-reply-to: <199709261806.MAA15560@sportsurf.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >For the purposes of this research, we are making a distinction among the > >following roles: list owner, list monitor and list moderator. With Lyris, we decided to break up the responsibilites and came up with the following different security roles: * server admin: has rights to all lists on the server, can do anything using the web interface or email commands. Doesn't receive any mail from any list. Receives software update notifications from us. * site admin: has rights over all the lists in their "site" (ie: a grouping of lists), similar responsibilities as a server admin. Can change virtual site settings (such as hostname, look & feel, etc). * list admin: can add/delete members, moderate, change FAQs, action phrases, autoresponders & change all list settings. Has no rights to anything but their own list. Members can also have any of the following extra rights, which are single yes/no parameters: * moderator: receives moderated message notifications, and can approve them * owner: receives mail sent to the owner-listname@... address * error mail receiver: has opted to receive notifications of error mail that Lyris has processed * announcer: can send messages to the list, no matter what the moderation settings are * poster: is allowed to send contributions when a list is set to reject non-posters (for example, a magazine with an author pool might use this) This works pretty well for us. However, we do get a lot of requests for a more limited list admin role, where the server administrator could remove specific functions from the list admin's menu. Usually, the server administrator fears that the admin is a danger to themselves, and will tinker with the wrong things, thus screwing up their own list (mucking with the open/closed/private/password security setting, for instance) > To take this one step further, I'm not even happy with the term, "LIST." > The LIST term is one that is getting old, IMHO, but should get dropped in > the next round of changes. Agreed. Several years ago, when we used to sell InfoMagnet (a windows front end to LISTSERV) we called them "Email Discussion Groups". However, the term "Discussion Groups" has now been coopted by the Newsgroup folks (that's what DejaNews calls them). And besides, "Discussion Groups" doesn't do justice to announcement lists and moderated-edit lists, which in many cases is what people are more familiar with. Nowadays, we simply call them "email lists" and say that there are several kinds of "email lists", such as "owner-controlled announcement lists", "moderated discussions", "moderated user-contributed announcements", and "open discussions". Recently, a new type has become popular, which we call "DocBots", as in "Document Robots". Surveys, document repositories, and other "email databases" fall into this general category, where there is an active relationship between the user and the list server. John John Buckman Shelby Group Ltd. http://www.shelby.com Developers of Lyris Email List Server From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 01:29:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA18052; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (cvobku.cvo.mp.usbr.gov [140.214.189.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id BAA18010 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (MX G5.0) id 5; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:26:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:26:43 -0700 From: "Henry W. Miller" To: amys@amys-answers.com CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com, henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009BB25A.B4A7DDB3.5@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: RE: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: MX%"amys@amys-answers.com" 2-OCT-1997 00:33:07.36 > To: MX%"List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" > CC: > Subj: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:38:35 +0000, "Amy Stinson" said: "Amy Stinson" writes: > I am now cleaning up hundreds of bounces. All of my list members at > Juno are being returned as unknown. This started happening > yesterday with *some* of them, but now all of them are being > returned. Is anyone else experiencing this? > > amy > > Amy, Oh, yes. It started sometime Sunday afternoon, but appears to have been fixed by Monday morning, around 0930, PDT. -HWM From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 03:44:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA23960; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vpm.com ([209.60.152.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id CAA23862 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by vpm.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) id CAA22607; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:11:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Stout Message-Id: <199710020911.CAA22607@vpm.com> Subject: Re: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] To: henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV (Henry W. Miller) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <009BB25A.B4A7DDB3.5@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> from "Henry W. Miller" at "Oct 2, 97 01:26:43 am" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I tried emailling a friend that has a juno.com account and it is still returning 'User unknown' messages as of 10PM 10/01/97. Mark > > From: MX%"amys@amys-answers.com" 2-OCT-1997 00:33:07.36 > > To: MX%"List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" > > CC: > > Subj: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] > > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:38:35 +0000, "Amy Stinson" said: > "Amy Stinson" writes: > > > I am now cleaning up hundreds of bounces. All of my list members at > > Juno are being returned as unknown. This started happening > > yesterday with *some* of them, but now all of them are being > > returned. Is anyone else experiencing this? > > > > amy > > > > > > > Amy, > > Oh, yes. It started sometime Sunday afternoon, but appears to > have been fixed by Monday morning, around 0930, PDT. > > -HWM > From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 04:30:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA27951; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (cvobku.cvo.mp.usbr.gov [140.214.189.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id CAA27800 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (MX G5.0) id 1; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:40:08 -0700 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:40:07 -0700 From: "Henry W. Miller" To: mcs@vpm.com CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009BB264.F5B41C86.1@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: Re: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: MX%"mcs@vpm.com" "Mark Stout" 2-OCT-1997 02:11:03.08 > To: MX%"henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV" > CC: MX%"List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" > Subj: Re: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Stout said: Mark Stout writes: Mark, > I tried emailling a friend that has a juno.com account and it is still > returning 'User unknown' messages as of 10PM 10/01/97. > > Mark > I hope that this is not too obvious a question, but are you certain that your friend's email address is still valid? Or maybe it's a one-shot failure - I have seen that as well. I would HATE to think that there are hundres, nay thousands of bouced email messages waiting for the right moment at Juno to spring forth and get me. (Yes, it has been one of THOSE weeks...) -HWM > > > > From: MX%"amys@amys-answers.com" 2-OCT-1997 00:33:07.36 > > > To: MX%"List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" > > > CC: > > > Subj: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:38:35 +0000, "Amy Stinson" said: > > "Amy Stinson" writes: > > > > > I am now cleaning up hundreds of bounces. All of my list members at > > > Juno are being returned as unknown. This started happening > > > yesterday with *some* of them, but now all of them are being > > > returned. Is anyone else experiencing this? > > > > > > amy > > > > > > > > > > > > Amy, > > > > Oh, yes. It started sometime Sunday afternoon, but appears to > > have been fixed by Monday morning, around 0930, PDT. > > > > -HWM > > > From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 08:25:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA26740; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyberq.quality.org (cyberq.quality.org [199.181.80.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA26717 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (help@localhost) by cyberq.quality.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01394 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:08:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)" To: List Managers List Subject: re: "death threat" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Will whoever received that please contact me privately? Thanks. Bill ============================================================================= Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149 President, Associated Quality Consultants, Inc. Fax: +1 703 834 8209 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our Online Quality Resources Website and Bookstore at http://www.quality.org ============================================================================= From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 10:16:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA13954; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hardhead.otw.com (hardhead.otw.com [206.97.113.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id KAA13920 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MyShadow.dtor.com (root@modem7.otw.com [206.97.113.17]) by hardhead.otw.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA08243; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:55:48 GMT Received: from MyShadow.dtor.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MyShadow.dtor.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01097; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:14:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199710021614.MAA01097@MyShadow.dtor.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 05/05/96 To: tekjobs@themall.net cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:06:30 -0000." <199710021509.IAA19696@italy.it.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 12:14:27 -0400 From: Hal Wine Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Ray Osborne" () wrote: >How does list software handle bounces ? Just deletes the bounce >warning as it comes back or actually remove the email address from >the master list ? If it removes email addresses of bounced mail then >there must be some code that it is using to do this. If it just >deletes the warning then I do that anyway by filling up a mail folder >with bounced mail and dumping it now and then. Usually, the behaviour is configurable. I set the number of bounces within a time period to determine when it deletes the email address. I need not see any of the bounce messages. And, yes, there is code, but it's somewhat heuristic to catch all the variations. And, mostly they're programmed in something that has very strong regular expression capability (e.g. Perl or Procmail), which I doubt Pegasis has. >This makes me think if there is no standard just convention then it >will make it difficult for any software to actually remove email >addresses of bounced mail. And if there is all this email out there >just bouncing around will it not be slowing down the Internet to some >degree ? No, there's not a lot of email bouncing, because most folks keep their lists clean. If you're not keeping your list clean, then you're contributing to excessive bounce messages. >This is how I overcame this list. But that list is not as crucial as >my Computer Professionals lists and I wanted a better technology way >to solve this problem Then get list software. -- Hal Wine DTOR Consulting From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 12:17:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA27559; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id LAA27467 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id NAA03760 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:42:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199710021842.NAA03760@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 13:42:52 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 9/30/97 4:42 PM CDT, Ray Osborne wrote... >I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of >returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that >I am unaware of. At the moment I am employing a work at home secretary >to keep my databases of email addresses fined tuned. Most sites comply with the standard for bounce messages, which is contained in an RFC somewhere (I don't have the number handy). Some, of course, do not. Those are the ones that are typically more difficult to deal with. >What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that >are no longer useful ? An actual mailing list management package. :) Also, I hear that some people like SmartBounce , though I haven't tried it myself. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 13:20:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA29177; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id LAA29159 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id LAA20398; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021854.LAA20398@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: amys@amys-answers.com CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <199709291247.FAA02161@honor.greatcircle.com> (amys@amys-answers.com) Subject: Re: Juno Problems[via LSMTP - see www.lsoft.com] Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: "Amy Stinson" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:38:35 +0000 I am now cleaning up hundreds of bounces. All of my list members at Juno are being returned as unknown. This started happening yesterday with *some* of them, but now all of them are being returned. Is anyone else experiencing this? How very odd... Unfortunately, my ISP's list software won't let me see bounces (it's very annoying) so I checked the roundabout way. I just got an up to date copy of hte list subs and my 7 juno subscribers all look fine (there are #'s in front of the names that tell you if they've been bouncing). No juno subscriber has been removed from the list for bouncing (4 days in a row). Of course, it may not have hit me yet... Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 13:36:15 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA26060; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id LAA26015 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id LAA13946; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021831.LAA13946@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: delundel@netguide.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <3432EA2B.71B8@netguide.com> (message from David Lundell on Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:26:19 -0700) Subject: Re: Subscription Verification Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:26:19 -0700 From: David Lundell First and foremost, do you feel, from an ethical standpoint, that mailing list administrators should always verify a user before subscribing that user? No. There are a lot of pluses to verification but I don't think it's the list admin's moral duty to do it. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on whether, legally, the victim of such an attack has grounds for recourse against a list provider. Probably about the same recource someone has against a magazine owner after being the victim of an attack where someone else filled in 100 magazine subscription cards without their knowledge. Though I'm just guessing. Also, does anyone verify unsubscribes too? If so, what are the merits of that? I've thought about it. I only know of one time where the wrong person was unsubscribed. Some jerk unsubbed *me* from my own list. But people already have so much trouble unsubbing (and the motivation to keep trying is very very different from people wanting to join a list) that I won't do it unless unsubbing others becomes a huge problem. Lastly, if any of you have switched from no verification at all to some type of verification, did you notice a slow-down in the growth of your lists? Well I went from a manuelly run list on one ISP to an auto one with verification on another. I had some level of ver on the old list since I wouldn't sub people from third party addresses. But, no, there is no difference. Verifying subs has been a godsend and I highly recommend it for most lists, especially large publically available ones. I went from a handful a month to zero in almost a year accusations of subbing people to the list without their permission. I don't get as many angry unsubs (though there are a few) but that's also because I give minimal help to new subscribers since if I help them too much they will inevidibly post to the list and whine to be unsubbed too (this happened to me with someone who was on the list less than a month and I had made promise he wouldn't do that if I subbed him myself). Yes, I do get a larger workload since some people have trouble with the verfication process, but far more people have trouble with the sub software, despite my detailed directions. Also, now I have had only 2 spams on the entire list ever since moving (from the same person, someone from my ISP who subbed then posted the same ad twice before I was able to catch it and boot him). The feature that disallows posts from non-subscribers is the key here I think, but the verification feature is an extra safeguard against spammers who send out mass subs before sending mass spams. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 13:46:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA28562; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sportsurf.net (sportsurf.net [192.41.36.58]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id LAA28383 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.204.56.156] (sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156]) by sportsurf.net (8.8.5) id MAA11112; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:48:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710021848.MAA11112@sportsurf.net> X-Authentication-Warning: sportsurf.net: Host sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156] claimed to be [192.204.56.156] Subject: Fwd: Re: distinction among: owner, monitor and moderator Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 14:57:35 -0000 x-sender: mark@sportsurf.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Mark Rauterkus To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Re: distinction among: owner, monitor and moderator That seems to trip on Taboo too. Hi Folks, I was CCed a message, and a rather elegant one it is, IMHO. However, when the original author sent it into the list -- it didn't appear. This is the fourth attempt to get this message to you all -- as we are seeming running into a "TABOO" problem. Perhaps this fellow's email or else his domain name is on the list's taboo set-up? With this message, I've zapped all statements of his company affiliation. This message should go out to all to see now. IMHO, this message isn't spam and is 100% on target. As for the taboo things -- well, that isn't my call. I don't know this guy, nor do I know the folks who run this list. But, I do know that this was a fine bit of knowledge that was sent to the list that seems to not want to get out to the subscribers. The snagged snip follows ---- > >For the purposes of this research, we are making a distinction among the > >following roles: list owner, list monitor and list moderator. With *y***, we decided to break up the responsibilites and came up with the following different security roles: * server admin: has rights to all lists on the server, can do anything using the web interface or email commands. Doesn't receive any mail from any list. Receives software update notifications from us. * site admin: has rights over all the lists in their "site" (ie: a grouping of lists), similar responsibilities as a server admin. Can change virtual site settings (such as hostname, look & feel, etc). * list admin: can add/delete members, moderate, change FAQs, action phrases, autoresponders & change all list settings. Has no rights to anything but their own list. Members can also have any of the following extra rights, which are single yes/no parameters: * moderator: receives moderated message notifications, and can approve them * owner: receives mail sent to the owner-listname@... address * error mail receiver: has opted to receive notifications of error mail that Lyris has processed * announcer: can send messages to the list, no matter what the moderation settings are * poster: is allowed to send contributions when a list is set to reject non-posters (for example, a magazine with an author pool might use this) This works pretty well for us. However, we do get a lot of requests for a more limited list admin role, where the server administrator could remove specific functions from the list admin's menu. Usually, the server administrator fears that the admin is a danger to themselves, and will tinker with the wrong things, thus screwing up their own list (mucking with the open/closed/private/password security setting, for instance) > To take this one step further, I'm not even happy with the term, "LIST." The > LIST term is one that is getting old, IMHO, but should get dropped in the > next round of changes. Agreed. Several years ago, when we used to sell another product (a windows front end to another product) we called them "Email Discussion Groups". However, the term "Discussion Groups" has now been coopted by the Newsgroup folks (that's what DjaNws(sic) calls them). And besides, "Discussion Groups" doesn't do justice to announcement lists and moderated-edit lists, which in many cases is what people are more familiar with. Nowadays, we simply call them "email lists" and say that there are several kinds of "email lists", such as "owner-controlled announcement lists", "moderated discussions", "moderated user-contributed announcements", and "open discussions". Recently, a new type has become popular, which we call "DocBots", as in "Document Robots". Surveys, document repositories, and other "email databases" fall into this general category, where there is an active relationship between the user and the list server. PS: I sent this message to the list several days ago, but it never was distributed. If Majordomo suddenly decides to distribute one of the other four older posts, our apologies for sending four copies. John some email address zapped Some company name zapped Developers of some other product name zapped too. --- end of snarlled snip above ---- -------------- Mark Rauterkus, Publisher, S.S.S. http://www.sportsurf.net mrauterkus@sportsurf.net http://www.SportSurf.Net/FootNotes FootNotes: Mac E-book authoring and distribution environment with built-in multi-media, lan, web, internet and e-mail capabilities. -------------- From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 17:30:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA05304; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA05085 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id PAA10804; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id PAA28458; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710022250.PAA28458@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970930213428.00d868e4@mail.idyllmtn.com> (message from Kynn Bartlett on Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:34:28 -0700) Subject: AOL contacts Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:34:28 -0700 From: Kynn Bartlett At 09:09 p.m. 09/30/97 -0700, Todd O. wrote: >I have gotten the sense that contacting David O'Donnel is about the only >way to get AOL to respond to valid complaints from internet users. Huh. I'd think that such things would be annoying and distract Mr. O'Donnell from his work, instead of helping. Yes, you'd think so. I guess that's why he now has a staff instead of answering all his own mail. Much the same way as I'd be annoyed if someone started writing to my personal email address or telephoning me, instead of writing to my majordomo's majordomo@Mlists.com address or the owner- address. Agreed on general principle but see below. Maybe I'm just weird like that. If David has specifically said to contact him directly instead of writing to abuse@aol.com, then hey, it's his choice. (If he hasn't, though, you're probably out of line in suggesting that as the best way to resolve your problems.) AOL gives the atropos@aol.net address out on their auto-return mail for all mail sent to postmaster and/or abuse. I forget exactly what they say to use it for, but they do say it's okay to use it (I think it's the usenet problems contact?). atropos is not David's personal email account. David is the person who contacted me when I wrote AOL several years ago about setting up a news echo. When I was having trouble with the 3 twits on my list who were harressing one of my subscribers (and the regular channels weren't fast enough for me), I wrote him (not even knowing he was the postmaster). He took immediate action and told me to write him if I ever had any other problems. Shortly after that I asked him to clarify: should I write him with all AOL user problems, or just the serious/timely ones? He said only for the latter. I think it's unfortunate (for David and his staff in particular) that AOL runs things such that you have to write the actual postmaster to get replies to your questions. Now, even if they don't get back to you, AOL is great about removing the accounts of spammers when you report them to postmaster or abuse. It's the techincal problems I have trouble getting answers to and I write atropos as a last resort. BUT for serious problems such as harressment and threats of bodily harm, I do think it's appropriate to write the top dog who can take care of it. David is that person. Of course, you have to be careful what you label serious...when too many people overdo it, it makes it harder for the rest of us with the true emergencies. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 2 17:39:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA26516; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.111]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id PAA26472 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710022206.PAA26472@honor.greatcircle.com> To: adamb@tezcat.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:07:11 EDT Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Most sites comply with the standard for bounce messages, which is > contained in an RFC somewhere (I don't have the number handy). RFCs 1891-4. However, I think it's a stretch to say that most sites comply. Recent versions of Unix sendmail do. But there are lots of other things out there that generate bounces in their own formats. From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 03:45:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id DAA25127; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rampart.mincom.com (rampart.mincom.com [203.15.57.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id XAA02763 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by rampart.mincom.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id QAA30321 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:39:19 +1000 Received: from portal.mincom.oz.au(192.55.181.11) by blocker via smap (V2.0) id xma030318; Fri, 3 Oct 97 16:39:13 +1000 Received: from deimos.mincom.oz.au (deimos [192.55.198.248]) by portal.mincom.oz.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA29002 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:39:10 +1000 Received: (from philh@localhost) by deimos.mincom.oz.au (8.8.4/8.7.3) id QAA08848 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:39:07 +1000 (EST) From: Phil Homewood Message-Id: <199710030639.QAA08848@deimos.mincom.oz.au> Subject: Re: Today's award for "Most Obfuscated Bounce Message" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:39:07 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199710030030.RAA25702@honor.greatcircle.com> from "List-Managers-Digest" at Oct 2, 97 05:30:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP6] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Sort of reminds me of the following sub announcement majordomo sent me > earlier this summer... > > PTS#u#CBH#u#D#c#PTS#u#CBH#u#D.PTS#u#CBH#u#P#c#DelaiR@health.qld.gov.au > > That's one helluva long address. I'd hate to type it in everytime. I > verified it with the person who had it. She's a helth official in, if I > remember right, Queensgate, Australia. In any event, the postmaster down > there apparantly dishes these out to everyone. Shortly after this was > received, I received a note from the person indicating it would change to a > most human readably style. Queensland, not Queensgate. And yes, they have moved to something more humanly readable. Pity that a given address is not guaranteed to remain constantly unambiguous (for example, Joe Smith might be smithj@health.blah, but if Jane Smith then gets an account, yup, smithj (user is ambiguous) I know not what the MTA is. I don't want to know. All I know is that we have a lot of employees contacting to Qld Health, and trying to keep their aliases in order hurts badly. They also have no postmaster@. P. -- Phil Homewood email: philh@mincom.com Postmaster/Hostmaster/Webmaster Mincom Pty Ltd phone: +61-7-3364-9715 Brisbane, QLD Australia fax: +61-7-3364-9910 From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 08:46:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA02366; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zipcode.atg.aol.com (zipcode.atg.aol.com [152.163.8.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA02322 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (zhou@localhost) by zipcode.atg.aol.com with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.3) id LAA27949; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:26:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: zipcode.atg.aol.com: zhou owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:26:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Yingying Zhou X-Sender: zhou@zipcode.atg.aol.com To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: "David O'Donnell" Subject: Re: AOL contacts (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding this message for Daivd O'Donnell since he is not on this list. Feel free to email him if you have any questions with this message. Yingying ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: PMDAtropos@aol.com To: zhou@aol.net Subject: Re: AOL contacts (fwd) > Yes, you'd think so. I guess that's why he now has a staff instead of > answering all his own mail. > > Much the same way > as I'd be annoyed if someone started writing to my personal email > address or telephoning me, instead of writing to my majordomo's > majordomo@Mlists.com address or the owner- address. > > Agreed on general principle but see below. > > Maybe I'm just weird like that. If David has specifically said to > contact him directly instead of writing to abuse@aol.com, then hey, > it's his choice. (If he hasn't, though, you're probably out of > line in suggesting that as the best way to resolve your problems.) Yingying Zhou kindly forwarded this message on to me, so please make sure to send replies to PMDAtropos@aol.com and not her. I'm concerned that people are note seeing resolution when they mail complaints to postmaster@aol.com or abuse@aol.net (yes, we prefer abuse@aol.net although abuse@aol.com *will* work). The reason my address (actually, now David Jackson's address - djackson@aol.net) was included on the postmaster/abuse auto-response was for people who've reported abuse and seen no change in its flow to contact me; and to provide an *emergency* contact point in the event you're seeing egregious immediate and damaging abuse, like a mailbomb. It wasn't to say "hey, don't send mail to abuse or postmaster, send it to me instead." Believe me, between the mail I get for work, the anti-junk mail list I'm on and the gazillions of bogus complaints about junk mail with forged AOL.COM headers, I get *plenty* of mail every day. So much so that I routinely have five to six hundred pieces in my mailboxes. Unfortunately, I don't know the whole context of this message thread, but I hope the following addresses will help people who have questions or problems with AOL: For problems with networking issues (DNS resolution, connectivity, etc) send mail to trouble@aol.net ^^^ note the NET, not COM! For problems with junk mail or USENET abuse by an AOL member (and after you've looked at the headers to make sure it's REALLY an AOL member) send mail to: abuse@aol.net abuse@aol.com postmaster@aol.com in that order of preference For junk mail you receive with forged AOL.COM headers send mail to: aollegal@aol.com ^^ note there are two lowercase "L"s here For IRC problems send mail to: tosirc@aol.com For routine questions about AOL send mail to: postmaster@aol.com If it's an emergency (mailbombing or similar realtime issue) send mail to: pmdatropos@aol.com atropos@aol.net right now, best to send to both addresses; I have better access to pmdatropos than atropos. If you're in a REALLY SERIOUS EMERGENCY, like a DOS attack by an AOL member, and you are *certain* it is an AOL member, page me at 1 800/SKY-PAGE pin 128-5338. Then call the AOL Network Operations Center at 703/453-5862. The NOC is staffed 24x7, whereas I occasionally require a little sleep. --David O'Donnell Director, AOL Internet Development Outreach & Technology From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 12:15:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA09997; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id MAA09845 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User.wco.com (rock29.wco.com [199.4.109.129]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id MAA20758; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971003121110.008e1c80@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:11:10 -0700 To: "David O'Donnell" From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Ongoing harrassment and mail bombing: dotmorriso Cc: atropos@aol.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David O'Donnel wrote: >I'm concerned that people are note seeing resolution when they mail >complaints to postmaster@aol.com or abuse@aol.net (yes, we prefer >abuse@aol.net although abuse@aol.com *will* work). Well, that makes two of us. Now, I'd like some action to go along with the concern. There has been serious abuse issued by your dotmorriso@aol.com account for over a month, now. Please correct this situation immediately. Details follow. On Saturday, August 30, several thousand subscribers to mountain biking lists, including four that I run, received unsolicited e-mail written by Mike Vandeman and sent from the account dotmorriso@aol.com. (You cancelled Mike Vandeman's Mjvvv account in in Feb. 1996 when I called you on the phone while he was in the process of crashing the server my lists run on. See http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/vand.html for details.) The mail was sent directly to the subscribers' addresses, not to the 20 or so lists from which the addresses were harvested. Apparently one message was sent for each letter of the alphabet and copied to all addresses beginning with that letter. Here on the heasers and beginning of one of those posts: /* begin original message */ Return-path: Envelope-to: jborg@xmission.com Delivery-date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:41:39 -0600 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.11.96] by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #4) id 0x4k2D-0007Cq-00; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:41:37 -0600 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id FAA15282; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 05:34:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Dotmorriso@aol.com Message-ID: <970830053439_1059583460@emout05.mail.aol.com> Subject: The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People Bcc: X-UIDL: b9de07cabb605077cd930224349c018c X-PMFLAGS: 34603136 0 I would like to create a mailing list for serious discussions of the impacts of mountain biking on wildlife and people. Please reply with "remove" as the subject or message if you do not want to receive such information, such as the following: [about 22K of diatribe deleted] /* end original message */ Many people sent complaints to you postmaster and abuse addresses during that episode, and continued to send them through at least September 5 I am told. On September 17, dotmorriso@aol.com struck again, this time on six or seven usenet newsgroups, including sci.environment, ca.environment, rec.backcountry, rec.bicycles.off-road, alt.mountain-bike, and rec.animals.wildlife, which is ported to another e-mail list that has been disrupted and intruded upon by Mike Vandeman over the years. The huge, three part message was posted individually to each newgroup, maximizing the waste of bandwidth and setting off flame wars that were widely cross-posted for weeks. The content of the message contained instructions to spam the thousands of subscribers to mountain biking lists at cycling.org, a list of the 32 lists from which addresses had been harvested, instructions to subscribe to those lists and disrupt them, and the addresses of thousands of subscribers with instructions to send them unwanted and unsolicited e-mail. It also contained instructions to call up the employers of any of those subscribers who seem to be using their work accounts to subscribe to the lists and complain to their employers about the alleged abuse of company assets. Yesterday, the employer of two subscribers working at Charles Scwab were contacted by Mike Vandeman who claimed to be a big and important Scwab customer while he lodged just such a complaint. Here are the message headers from one of the usenet messages I am describing: /* begin original message */ From: dotmorriso@aol.com (Dotmorriso) Newsgroups: rec.animals.wildlife Subject: How to Communicate with Mountain Bikers (Part 1) Date: 17 Sep 1997 09:56:52 GMT Lines: 1195 Message-ID: <19970917095600.FAA18804@ladder02.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com SnewsLanguage: English [over 1100 lines of instructions and e-mail addresses deleted] /* end original message */ Parts two and three of those messages consisted entirely of e-mail addresses of list subscribers. Again, complaints were sent to your postmaster and abuse addresses. Apparently nothing was done, or has been done because this morning, dotmorriso@aol.com is on the attack again. Beginning last night and continuing on into this morning, the same list of cycling.org subscribers has been receiving unsolicited and unwanted e-mail written by Mike Vandeman. I haven't been hit myself, because Vandeman knows better than to tip me off, but I have seen complaints flowing into my lists and others. David, please put an end to this, and let me know that it has been put to and end so that I can reassure my subscribers that they won't be bothered by dotmorriso@aol.com any longer. I am losing subscribers because of this ongoing abuse, my list and my personal account are showing a marked increase in spam since the posts to usenet, and I still have the sense that AOL isn't doing a damn thing about it. Please note that I am sending this to the list-managers list by way of explanantion of my earlier post ther explaining that I don't get the sense that AOL really takes care of matters such as these until you get involved. Please feel free to issue an explanation for the list. I will be happy to forward it for you if necessary. Thanks, Todd Ourston -- Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 15:45:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA16811; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA16750 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grev.idyllmtn.com (grev.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.108]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA02426; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971003153509.00e80414@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:35:09 -0700 To: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: Ongoing harrassment and mail bombing: dotmorriso Cc: "David O'Donnell" , atropos@aol.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971003121110.008e1c80@mail.wco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:11 p.m. 10/03/97 -0700, Todd O. wrote: >Please note that I am sending this to the list-managers list by way of >explanantion of my earlier post ther explaining that I don't get the sense >that AOL really takes care of matters such as these until you get involved. > Please feel free to issue an explanation for the list. I will be happy to >forward it for you if necessary. I personally don't care about any specific incidents and what's done in them; please _don't_ bring your personal difficulties onto this list. It's one thing for us to discuss the best way to handle problems with bad netizens, at AOL and elsewhere, but it's another thing to be dragged into the middle of your ongoing problems with anyone. -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` Virtual Dog Show is open! www.dogshow.com From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 16:15:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA25143; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA24954 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User.wco.com (clavius19.wco.com [199.4.109.19]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id QAA08220; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971003160934.007cf960@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:09:34 -0700 To: Kynn Bartlett From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Re: Ongoing harrassment and mail bombing: dotmorriso Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971003153509.00e80414@mail.idyllmtn.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19971003121110.008e1c80@mail.wco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:35 PM 10/3/97 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >I personally don't care about any specific incidents and what's >done in them; please _don't_ bring your personal difficulties >onto this list. As I explained in the portion of my message you quoted, I copied my mail to the list as an example of the lack of response I (and others) have received from AOL's abuse and postmaster addresses. My message was a reply to a message sent to the list on behalf of David O'Donnell. O'Donnell's message was sent because there still seems to be some interest and doubt about how to contact AOL and what to expect. I invited David O'Donnell to follow up with us here so that we can get to the bottom of this. I think that is in keeping with what you had in mind: >It's one thing for us to discuss the best way to handle problems >with bad netizens, at AOL and elsewhere, but it's another thing >to be dragged into the middle of your ongoing problems with >anyone. Once again, no one has been dragged anywhere. The focus of my message was not in the individuals involved, but the ongoing abuse and complaints to which AOL has not responded in any meaningful way. That is on topic. Your personal problems with me or others are not. If you or anyone else on the list has personal problems with me, please keep them personal. If you want a flame war, I'll let you know when I have time. In particuar, do take care not to send your personal complaints to AOL's priority complaint addresses when the person you are complaining about is not an AOL customer. Todd Ourston Not an AOL customer -- Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 16:45:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA28986; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA28926 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19804 ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:26:31 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971003121110.008e1c80@mail.wco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:24:18 -0700 To: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com>, "David O'Donnell" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Ongoing harrassment and mail bombing: dotmorriso Cc: atropos@aol.net, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM -0700 10/3/97, Todd O. wrote: >Apparently one message was sent for >each letter of the alphabet and copied to all addresses beginning with that >letter. Which is, of course, why "who/who" is turned off on my servers for all users, until I can write a more secure one. I ran into this one by accident myself, when a user with a single letter account wrote me and warned me. Ugh. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 17:00:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA05917; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA05828 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User.wco.com (rock35.wco.com [199.4.109.135]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id QAA22989; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971003165217.00806650@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:52:17 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Re: Ongoing harrassment and mail bombing: dotmorriso Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19971003121110.008e1c80@mail.wco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Cc: to AOL emergency addresses trimmed] At 04:24 PM 10/3/97 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Which is, of course, why "who/who" is turned off on my servers for all >users, until I can write a more secure one. I ran into this one by >accident myself, when a user with a single letter account wrote me and >warned me. Ugh. I've asked the owner/operator of our server to disable that feature. No response from him so far. I think it is a good idea, though. Back to the differences in stories about AOL's responsiveness, I think it may be that AOL is well drilled in cancelling accounts for UCE abuses, but they just don't know what to make of the sort of stories I have described. Does anyone else have some insights that may illuminate that perspective? Todd Ourston -- Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 3 18:00:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA16575; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id RAA16546 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dfl@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA28892 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:45:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Danny Lieberman Message-Id: <199710040045.UAA28892@panix.com> Subject: Re: Ongoing harrassment (etc) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (List Managers) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:45:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk (quoting Todd O) > Back to the differences in stories about AOL's responsiveness, I think it > may be that AOL is well drilled in cancelling accounts for UCE abuses, but > they just don't know what to make of the sort of stories I have described. > Does anyone else have some insights that may illuminate that perspective? Only that Vandeman is an example of the other sort of spamster: a ZEALOT who believes that they are posessed of a spiel that they must share with everyone they come in contact with. I just finished dealing with a similar case (if you're interested I'll email you privately) who insisted on attacking my ISP because they were "the enemy" since they gave ACTUP free access, whereas he was kicked off (he didnt bother saying it was for newsgroup spam). I'm not about to ask AOL to take action against this one, tho. -- Danny Lieberman dfl@panix.com From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 4 17:45:41 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA15868; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sparknet.net (mail.sparknet.net [207.67.22.80]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id RAA15851 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freedom.sparknet.net (chris-1800.sparknet.net [207.67.22.43]) by mail.sparknet.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA20007 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 19:38:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971004193636.00aae4d0@mail.sparknet.net> X-Sender: knight@mail.sparknet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 19:36:38 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Christopher Knight Subject: Re: Predicting e-mail traffic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:34 AM 9/27/97 -0700, Sam Brooks wrote: >Have there been any studies to predict the amount of traffic >a discussion list will generate, based on the number of subscribers? > >e.g. will 1,000 listmembers generate 150 posts per day, > sort of thing. >Thanks in advance >Sam We thought we'd give a little $8/month for less than 25 members small list hosting service..... After the final stats were in for September, they moved 56,768 Emails through their list. (this particular one was christian priest discussion). That blew our expectations by about 50,000 Emails. So, until you get a sample after 30 days of list traffic, you really don't know. Cheers! Christopher Knight http://SparkLIST.com/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 16:30:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA02896; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA02853 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA02884 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from germany.it.earthlink.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id IAA17356; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (ip72.an4-atlanta2.ga.pub-ip.psi.net [38.6.4.72]) by germany.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18891 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710011554.IAA18891@germany.it.earthlink.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ray Osborne" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:50:42 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: list mgmt tools (bounces) Reply-to: tekjobs@themall.net X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Sorry if this is the second time you received this but I didn't get a copy so I doubt it got out. Hi, I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail features of Pegasus. Pegasus has some good filtering characterisitics but I have been unable to write a script to remove the email addresses of bounced email from a list. I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that I am unaware of. At the moment I am employing a work at home secretary to keep my databases of email addresses fined tuned. What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that are no longer useful ? If you discussed this already then I would appreciate somebody telling me what date so I can find the archive. Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 16:35:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA02781; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA02771 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.teleport.com (mail1.teleport.com [192.108.254.26]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id HAA13176 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip-pdx05-29.teleport.com (ip-pdx05-29.teleport.com [206.163.123.158]) by mail1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA10520 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971001055953.1e27d10c@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: reedg@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 05:59:53 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Reed Gleason Subject: Shouldn't recipient's address be in headers? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Occasionally a s*bscriber will be receiving my list at one address, but will try to post or uns*bscribe from a different address, and they won't know what their subscribe address is. I tell them to look at all the headers and find out who the list messages are being sent to, but now I notice that, for my lists, the recipient isn't shown, at least not if you're using Eudora and click on "blah,blah,blah". Shouldn't lists be configured so the address the messages are sent to is in the headers? Some lists do... Listmom does: Return-Path: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net Received: from relay4.smtp.psi.net (relay4.smtp.psi.net [38.9.52.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA01271 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:41:51 -0700 (PDT)..... But List-managers doesn't: Return-Path: owner-list-managers-digest-outgoing@GreatCircle.COM Received: from relay5.UU.NET (relay5.UU.NET [192.48.96.15]) by portia.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA03871; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 01:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay5.UU.NET with ESMTP Seems most Majordomo lists don't, but some do. What should I tell my s*bscriber who gets the list, but can't post because they're "not a s*bscriber"? -- Reed Gleason; Reedg@teleport.com; Portland, OR. 503-283-1366 List"owner"(yeah, right) of goatslite@lists.teleport.com CAPER DIEM! ("play with your goats all day") From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 16:40:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA02861; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA02808 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from luna2.shelby.com (luna.shelby.com [207.105.6.145]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id JAA05259 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kuno (kuno [207.105.6.156]) by luna2.shelby.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10408; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:21:31 -0700 Message-Id: <199710021621.JAA10408@luna2.shelby.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:02:43 -0800 Subject: Re: distinction among: owner, monitor and moderator CC: Mark Rauterkus In-reply-to: <199709261806.MAA15560@sportsurf.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >For the purposes of this research, we are making a distinction among the > >following roles: list owner, list monitor and list moderator. With Lyris, we decided to break up the responsibilites and came up with the following different security roles: * server admin: has rights to all lists on the server, can do anything using the web interface or email commands. Doesn't receive any mail from any list. Receives software update notifications from us. * site admin: has rights over all the lists in their "site" (ie: a grouping of lists), similar responsibilities as a server admin. Can change virtual site settings (such as hostname, look & feel, etc). * list admin: can add/delete members, moderate, change FAQs, action phrases, autoresponders & change all list settings. Has no rights to anything but their own list. Members can also have any of the following extra rights, which are single yes/no parameters: * moderator: receives moderated message notifications, and can approve them * owner: receives mail sent to the owner-listname@... address * error mail receiver: has opted to receive notifications of error mail that Lyris has processed * announcer: can send messages to the list, no matter what the moderation settings are * poster: is allowed to send contributions when a list is set to reject non-posters (for example, a magazine with an author pool might use this) This works pretty well for us. However, we do get a lot of requests for a more limited list admin role, where the server administrator could remove specific functions from the list admin's menu. Usually, the server administrator fears that the admin is a danger to themselves, and will tinker with the wrong things, thus screwing up their own list (mucking with the open/closed/private/password security setting, for instance) > To take this one step further, I'm not even happy with the term, "LIST." The > LIST term is one that is getting old, IMHO, but should get dropped in the > next round of changes. Agreed. Several years ago, when we used to sell InfoMagnet (a windows front end to LISTSERV) we called them "Email Discussion Groups". However, the term "Discussion Groups" has now been coopted by the Newsgroup folks (that's what DejaNews calls them). And besides, "Discussion Groups" doesn't do justice to announcement lists and moderated-edit lists, which in many cases is what people are more familiar with. Nowadays, we simply call them "email lists" and say that there are several kinds of "email lists", such as "owner-controlled announcement lists", "moderated discussions", "moderated user-contributed announcements", and "open discussions". Recently, a new type has become popular, which we call "DocBots", as in "Document Robots". Surveys, document repositories, and other "email databases" fall into this general category, where there is an active relationship between the user and the list server. PS: I sent this message to the list several days ago, but it never was distributed. If Majordomo suddenly decides to distribute my week-old post, my apologies for sending two copies. John John Buckman Shelby Group Ltd. http://www.shelby.com Developers of Lyris Email List Server From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 16:46:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA03857; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA03801 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from germany.it.earthlink.net (germany-c.it.earthlink.net [204.250.46.123]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id JAA07241 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (ip242.an3-atlanta2.ga.pub-ip.psi.net [38.6.3.242]) by germany.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12574 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021615.JAA12574@germany.it.earthlink.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ray Osborne" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:12:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Web hosting for List Owners/Managers Reply-to: tekjobs@themall.net X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello All, Now this is the area I would like to research and do some shopping on. Does any list owners/managers have a Web hosting service they are particulary happy with ? I am shopping for one. What would a list owner/manager want with a good Web hosting service ? Multiple Auto Responders comes to mind. Multiple email alias for filtering purposes. Good track history of being on line 100 per cent. Professionalism is important as I deal with a lot of corporate clients. Anybody else have a wish list that they would impose on a good Web hosting service ? Seems like there is a million out there. Anybody have a Web host they would recommend for a multiple-list owner ? Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 16:50:10 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA03706; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA03688 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from italy.it.earthlink.net (italy-c.it.earthlink.net [204.250.46.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA26808 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (ip204.an3-atlanta2.ga.pub-ip.psi.net [38.6.3.204]) by italy.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA19696; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021509.IAA19696@italy.it.earthlink.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ray Osborne" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:06:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Reply-to: tekjobs@themall.net CC: Hal Wine X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ray wrote: >I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In >particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail >features of Pegasus. Hal wrote: >That's why folks use list software -- bounce handling is a big problem to >solve. Ray Responded: How does list software handle bounces ? Just deletes the bounce warning as it comes back or actually remove the email address from the master list ? If it removes email addresses of bounced mail then there must be some code that it is using to do this. If it just deletes the warning then I do that anyway by filling up a mail folder with bounced mail and dumping it now and then. >I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of >returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that >I am unaware of. Hal >No standard, many conventions. This makes me think if there is no standard just convention then it will make it difficult for any software to actually remove email addresses of bounced mail. And if there is all this email out there just bouncing around will it not be slowing down the Internet to some degree ? Ray>What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that Ray>are no longer useful ? Hal >My list software. If you have a large enough list to keep a secretary Hal >busy, you need list software. I dunno it's not a big problem as I retire my oldest mail lists and tell my subscribers to resubscribe. I just did this with my Human Resource Professionals list and it worked quite well. I have a huge list of Human Resource professionals of major corps around the US which I have been building for the past two year. After this time I would end up with over 500 bounces so I took the old list and told any active subscribers to resubscribe into a new list. This is how I overcame this list. But that list is not as crucial as my Computer Professionals lists and I wanted a better technology way to solve this problem Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 17:00:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA05783; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA05756 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.teleport.com (mail1.teleport.com [192.108.254.26]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id VAA11445 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip-pdx08-22.teleport.com (ip-pdx24-07.teleport.com [206.163.125.231]) by mail1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA00881 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971002215513.3cefaf72@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: reedg@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 21:55:13 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Reed Gleason Subject: Shouldn't recipient's address be in headers? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Occasionally a s*bscriber will be receiving my list at one address, but will try to post or uns*bscribe from a different address, and they won't know what their s*bscribe address is. I tell them to look at all the headers and find out who the list messages are being sent to, but now I notice that, for my lists, the recipient isn't shown, at least not if you're using Eudora and click on "blah,blah,blah". Shouldn't lists be configured so the address the messages are sent to is in the headers? Some lists do... Listmom does: Return-Path: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net Received: from relay4.smtp.psi.net (relay4.smtp.psi.net [38.9.52.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA01271 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:41:51 -0700 (PDT)..... But List-managers doesn't: Return-Path: owner-list-managers-digest-outgoing@GreatCircle.COM Received: from relay5.UU.NET (relay5.UU.NET [192.48.96.15]) by portia.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA03871; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 01:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay5.UU.NET with ESMTP Seems most Majordomo lists don't, but some do. What should I tell my s*bscriber who gets the list, but can't post because they're "not a s*bscriber"? -- Reed Gleason; Reedg@teleport.com; Portland, OR. 503-283-1366 List"owner"(yeah, right) of goatslite@lists.teleport.com CAPER DIEM! ("play with your goats all day") From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 17:15:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA06922; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA06886 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id DAA27827 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from findel (bollow@findel [129.132.146.134]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.6.12/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id MAA19900; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:18:22 +0200 Received: (bollow@localhost) by findel (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id MAA14230; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:18:21 +0200 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:18:21 +0200 Message-Id: <199710041018.MAA14230@findel> From: Norbert Bollow To: tekjobs@themall.net CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199710010146.SAA01571@germany.it.earthlink.net> (rko22@earthlink.net) Subject: BOUNCEFILTER (Re: list mgmt tools (bounces)) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of > returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that There is a standard (defined in RFC1892 and RFC1894) but many MTA's out there generate bounces which don't conform to the standard. It is not trivial to handle them all automatically and reliably. Vince Sabio has a program named SmartBounce which actually tries to parse all of those weird formats, see http://www.bsabio.com/SmartBounce/ I have also written an automated bounce-handler, which is named Bouncefilter. It uses a different (and in my opinion, much superior) strategy, see the excerpt from the README below. Another advantage of Bouncefilter is that it is fully and truly free software, you get the source code and you're allowed to improve it and even redistribute it. The downside is that Bouncefilter isn't available for so many platforms yet, in fact the only version which is known to work reliably is the one for my own (heavily hacked) version of Majordomo. I've also made an "alpha release" of a version for Majordomo 1.94.x (it is available at http://www.lists.oulu.fi/bh-workers/html/msg00040.html and I had hoped that someone would do some testing and bug-fixing on it so that it could be made generally available as a free bounce-handler for Majordomo, but it seems that nothing has happened in that direction yet. Actually it shouldn't be too hard to port Bouncefilter to very different environments. Fell free to grab the alpha version mentioned above and port it to your environment, or hire a consultant who'd do that for you. In the long run I'm sure that'd be significantly cheaper than your current approach, and in addition other will be able to profit from this if you allow me to incorporate that port into future official version of Bouncefilter. (If you have some patience I might even be willing to port Bouncefilter for you for a relatively low fee, as soon as I've finished that Ph.D. thesis which I'm trying hard to get finished before the end of this year.) > What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that > are no longer useful ? If you discussed this already then I would > appreciate somebody telling me what date so I can find the archive. You'll find some archived discussions at http://www.lists.oulu.fi/bh-workers/html/maillist.html May blessings from the eternal God surprise and overtake you! Norbert. General information about BOUNCEFILTER: If you are the list-owner for a Majordomo mailing list, you have probably already received countless error messages when mail delivery to one or more of the addresses on your list fails. There is a great variety of different reasons why this can happen. For example, the recipient's mailbox may be full (some system allow each user to store only a limited number of e-mail messages) or the receiving host might be down or unreachable for a period of time. Also, when an email account is closed, in many cases people don't bother to unsubscribe from mailing lists first. If the list-owner has to handle this flood of error messages manually, that can be a small inconvenience or a lot of work, depending on how many subscribers the list has. BOUNCEFILTER is a computer program designed to remove this burden from the shoulders of the list-owner, while at the same time giving the best possible service to your subscribers. If an address starts generating error messages, BOUNCEFILTER will try to send daily warning messages for a few days (in many cases temporary failures of mail delivery are the fault of the ISP, or e-mail provider, and the subscriber will probably not be informed that there were such problems unless someone tells them). If an e-mail address continues to generates error messages for more than four days, BOUNCEFILTER will unsubscribe the address automatically and continue to send warnings for about a month. The list-owners receive a daily summary of the activities of bouncefilter (just one e-mail message per day). Depending on how Majordomo is set up, this message may also contain information on other things, like when an address is SUBSCRIBEd or UNSUBSCRIBEd. Occasionally, someone will reply to the warnings from bouncefilter; such replies are forwarded to the list-owners. Some people write to say that the problem with their e-mail address has been fixed. In such cases you may want to check if the adddress has been removed already, and in that case subscribe the address again. Other people write something like "How do we go about correcting this problem?" in response to the "Warning: It was not possible to send you e-mail!" messages. In that case, you can simply write "Contact your ISP, or e-mail provider. Possibly the problem has already been fixed." Here is a brief (somewhat technical) description of how bouncefilter works: My 'bouncefilter' script receives all messages to owner-$Listname\@myhost and checks if they are delivery status notifications (DSNs). Those which are not DSNs are forwarded to the list-owners. Those DSNs which conform to RFC 1894 (which is a proposed internet standard for the format of DSNs) are parsed and acted upon as follows: To those addresses which are marked as "failed", bouncefilter sends a warning message which starts like this: From: owner-$ListName\@$whereami Subject: Warning: It was not possible to send you e-mail! This is just a warning message to let you know that we got an error message for your e-mail address. This means that you did not receive one or more items of mail from the $ListName list, and possibly other, more personal e-mail messages did not reach you either. The warning messages also contains a copy of the human-readable part of the DSN. To each of these addresses, these warning messages are repeated on a daily basis unless no "failed" DSN arrives from that address. If after five days there are still "failed" DSNs from that address, the address is automatically unsubscribed. Bouncefilter still sends daily warning messages (until one of them does not bounce with a "failed" DSN) for 25 more days which start like this: From: owner-$ListName\@$whereami Subject: Warning: You're off the $ListName list now! After we received error messages which indicated that it was not possible to send e-mail to your address, your address was removed from the $ListName list $Days. Unfortunately in such a situation it is normally not possible to notify you of the problem, because e-mail will not reach you. What we do in such a situation is that we try to send you a warning message like this every day for a whole month until one of the messages gets through to you. Since you read this, possibly the problem has gone away now, and you might want to subscribe again to the $ListName list. You can do this by sending the command subscribe $ListName in the body of an e-mail message To: Needless to say, the list-owners receive a daily e-mail message with a log of what is going on. There are four special cases of which I haven't explained yet how my bouncefilter treats them: a) The (unfortunately still very frequent) case of DSNs which don't conform to RFC1894. b) The address (which is subscribed to a list) forwards to an invalid address which might generate error messages for which don't mention the subscribed address at all. c) Someone subscribed a local exploder to my list but goofed so that the DSNs go to my owner-$Listname alias instead of going to the operator of the local exploder. d) Some hosts send DSNs to the address in the From: or To: header of the message like they should. (Unfortunately, sending DSNs to the envelope From address is a SHOULD and not a MUST in RFC1123.) Cases a), b) and c) are all handled by a simple trick: Every 10 days or so, (the frequency of this can be set from the configuration file) resend sends one of the list's messages in a special way: Instead of sending the message to the -outgoing alias with an envelope-from of owner-$Listname\@$whereami, the message is sent individually to each subscriber with a special envelope-from of bouncefilter+$ListName=$1=$2\@$whereami where $1 and $2 are obtained as follows: $Addr=$Address; $Addr=~s/=/=.=/g; $Addr=~/^(.*)\@(.*)$/; The processing of error bounces for these addresses relies on the feature of sendmail that local delivery of messages addressed to an address of the form $User+$Extra delivers to the mailbox or alias $User. Bouncefilter will extract the information which is contained in the $Extra from the To: header. (this is not the perfect solution, and in principle I'd know how to improve it, but that would require me to hack the sendmail.cf and I don't have time for that) All such bounces which are not recognized (by some simple heuristics) as "delay notifications" are treated as failed DSNs, as above. Case d) is different, because the DSNs are sent to the wrong address, and the trick with putting that bouncefilter+ address into the envelope doesn't help. Bouncefilter deals with this problem in the following way: Since there is no reliable way of parsing such DSNs, bouncefilter discards BOUNCEs of such DSNs from Majordomo's 'resend' program (so that the list-owners don't get flooded with them) and every six months the following message is sent to all subscribers to weed out the subscriber database: From: bouncefilter+$ListName=$1=$2\@$whereami To: bouncefilter+$ListName=$1=$2\@$whereami Subject: Mailing list $ListName: Semi-annual subscription reminder Hello! This message is a reminder that you are subscribed to the mailing list $ListName with the e-mail address $Address. We hope that you are enjoying this mailing list. In that case, you can simply delete this message and you will remain subscribed. Otherwise, you may simply reply to this message - it doesn't matter if you write some text in your reply or if you send back an empty message - and you will be unsubscribed automatically. On behalf of the list-owners, $whereami P.S. If you are subscibed with an outdated e-mail address which still works, and you want to change it so that you're subscribed with your up-to-date e-mail address, you can reply to this message for getting your old e-mail address unsubscribed, but don't forget to send a separate message to $whoami for subscribing with your current e-mail address. For that subscription request it doesn't matter what you put in the Subject: line, but in the 'text area' of your e-mail message put the command: subscribe $ListName This does not only provide a reminder for updating e-mail addresses in mailing list subscriptions, but it also gets rid of bad addresses at hosts which send DSNs to the From: or the To: address and not the envelope from address. (As a side effect, this may remove addresses with "cannot send message for N hours" warnings if those warnings go to the header From: or To: address instead of the envelope from. I firmly believe that this is justified: When a host doesn't obey that SHOULD in RFC1123, and this non-compliance causes trouble, it is right to unsubscribe that address and send a notification which notes that they might want to find an e-mail provider who sends error messages to the right address.) Note: Handling of case d) is not fully implemented yet. See the file doc/TODO.bouncefilter for details. Note: In future releases, common cases of non-1894-compliant bounces will probably be treated similarly like 1894-compliant bounces are handled today. Bug reports, other comments, etc. can be sent by e-mail to the author Norbert Bollow . Please Cc: such messages to Richard Bullington who has volunteered to act as Release Coordinator for the Bouncefilter project. There is also a related mailing list: > To subscribe to BH-WORKERS send email to and in > the body of the message write: > > subscribe bh-workers your@email.address.here > end Blessings from Switzerland! Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow (Zuerich, Switzerland; http://pobox.com/~nb) serving Christ Jesus; co-owner of the CHURCHPLANTERS mailing list. From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 17:23:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA03834; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA03761 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from germany.it.earthlink.net (germany-c.it.earthlink.net [204.250.46.123]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id JAA06192 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (ip242.an3-atlanta2.ga.pub-ip.psi.net [38.6.3.242]) by germany.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA09808 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021608.JAA09808@germany.it.earthlink.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Ray Osborne" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:05:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: list mgmt tools (bounces) Reply-to: tekjobs@themall.net X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thanks ! How does this software handle bounces ? Does it just delete the bounced receipt or does it actually remove the email address from a master list ? See my problem isn't with disposing of bounce receipts but rather taking out the email address. This is an issue because I get paid by my clients to advertise on my lists and they want to know how many people will actually read their announcements. It pays me to employ a work at home secretary to fine tune my mail lists. So I need to do accurate counts on my multiple lists. As a ethical list owner I think it is dishonest to say well I have 6,000 email addresses in that target group and neglect the fact that 35% of it is bounced email. I suppose I have to start counting the bounces eh ? But anybody notice that bounces come in packets and some bounces are replicated ? From: Marc Mead Reply-to: "mmead@revnet.com" To: "'tekjobs@themall.net'" Subject: RE: list mgmt tools (bounces) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:57:59 -0500 Organization: Revnet Systems Hi Ray, have you looked at GroupMaster http://www.groupmaster.com ? It handles bounces in the background without you ever lifting a finger, and is extremely easy to use. Check it out and let me know if I can help further. Marc Mead mailto:mmead@revnet.com Revnet Systems 205-721-1420 ext. 717 -----Original Message----- From: Ray Osborne [SMTP:rko22@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 4:43 PM To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: list mgmt tools (bounces) Hi, I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail features of Pegasus. Pegasus has some good filtering characterisitics but I have been unable to write a script to remove the email addresses of bounced email from a list. I think the problem has to do with the non standardization of returned mail. Unless there is a standard (a uniform code) that I am unaware of. At the moment I am employing a work at home secretary to keep my databases of email addresses fined tuned. What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that are no longer useful ? If you discussed this already then I would appreciate somebody telling me what date so I can find the archive. Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." Regards, Ray Osborne "Habit #4, Think Win/Win, Win/Win is not a technique, it's a total philosophy of Human Interaction.." -Stephen Covey author of " The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.." From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 5 23:00:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA20465; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (kristeva.postmodern.com [198.102.244.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id WAA20445 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [198.102.244.52]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) with ESMTP id WAA04949; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <34387D71.942C64CB@postmodern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:56:40 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: Reed Gleason Subject: Re: Shouldn't recipient's address be in headers? References: <3.0.1.16.19971001055953.1e27d10c@mail.teleport.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Reed Gleason wrote: > > Occasionally a s*bscriber will be receiving my list at one address, but > will try to post or uns*bscribe from a different address, and they won't > know what their s*bscribe address is. I tell them to look at all the > headers and find out who the l*st messages are being sent to, but now I > notice that, for my lists, the recipient isn't shown, at least not if > you're using Eudora and click on "blah,blah,blah". Shouldn't lists be > configured so the address the messages are sent to is in the headers? > > Some lists do... Listmom does: > Return-Path: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net > Received: from relay4.smtp.psi.net (relay4.smtp.psi.net [38.9.52.2]) by > desiree.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA01271 for > ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:41:51 -0700 (PDT)..... > > But List-managers doesn't: > Return-Path: owner-list-managers-digest-outgoing@GreatCircle.COM > Received: from relay5.UU.NET (relay5.UU.NET [192.48.96.15]) by > portia.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA03871; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 > 01:33:59 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay5.UU.NET with ESMTP > > Seems most Majordomo lists don't, but some do. This is not a function of the list management software, but of the SMTP mail transport agent (i.e., sendmail). In fact, it is the SMTP server on the *recipient* host that should (if desired) add the "for " string to the Received line. It is not possible for list-managers (or other lists hosted at greatcircle.com) to do this on the sending end, because we batch up recipients and send them via a series of bulk SMTP transactions via our service provider. Thus each copy of the message does not have a single SMTP envelope (RCPT) recipient, it has many. > What should I tell my s*bscriber who gets the list, but can't post because > they're "not a s*bscriber"? Use the Majordomo "which" command to find out their address on the list and correct it if necessary. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 6 07:46:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA11114; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from revnet1.revnet.com (revnet1.revnet.com [198.51.35.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id HAA11101 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majestic.revnet.com (majestic.revnet.com [198.51.35.45]) by revnet1.revnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA01327; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:45:26 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:40:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCD23B.EC49E360.mmead@revnet.com> From: Marc Mead Reply-To: "mmead@revnet.com" To: "'tekjobs@themall.net'" , "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: RE: list mgmt tools (bounces) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:40:45 -0500 Organization: Revnet Systems X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Ray Osborne [SMTP:rko22@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 7:05 AM To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: RE: list mgmt tools (bounces) Thanks ! How does this software handle bounces ? Does it just delete the bounced receipt or does it actually remove the email address from a master list ? [Marc Mead] GroupMaster removes the bad address from the master list and puts it in a list of invalid addresses. Bounces are classified as hard or soft. Hard bounces are those that are simply undeliverable under any circumstance (bad domain, etc.), and soft bounces are those that can't be delivered temporarily due to a net hiccup. Hard ones are removed immediately, while soft ones are re-sent until the bounce threshold (you set) is breached, then removed. Once removed from the master list, they can ve viewed at your leisure, re-validated manually, or deleted completely. See my problem isn't with disposing of bounce receipts but rather taking out the email address. This is an issue because I get paid by my clients to advertise on my lists and they want to know how many people will actually read their announcements. It pays me to employ a work at home secretary to fine tune my mail lists. So I need to do accurate counts on my multiple lists. As a ethical list owner I think it is dishonest to say well I have 6,000 email addresses in that target group and neglect the fact that 35% of it is bounced email. I suppose I have to start counting the bounces eh ? But anybody notice that bounces come in packets and some bounces are replicated ? Beyond easy bounce-handling, GroupMaster keeps complete statistics on your list size, list growth (or reduction, hope not!), all in a week/month/year-to-date table (web gui). Also, it tracks the click-through rate for embedded URLs in your messages. You know exactly how many people (actual recipients, not bounces) are on each of your lists at any point in time, and to some degree, you can determine your read-rate for messages. Hope this helps. For a screen-shot tour of GroupMaster, visit http://www.revnet.com/walk_thru/main.html Marc Mead Revnet Systems mailto:mmead@revnet.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 7 16:42:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA14307; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA14266 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyberfam.cais.com.pop.cais.com (cyberfam.cais.com [207.176.65.70]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id TAA27287 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971007092324.006b9ba4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: cyberfam@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:23:24 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Allison & Rick Martin Subject: Legitimate address? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is this a legitimate address? I just got this subscription request and wondered if I should go ahead and add this person as requested. From: cconceps@aol.com Received: from default (190.jacksonville-04.fl.dial-access.att.net [12.70.35.190]) by bigbang.eznet.it (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA41162 Reply-To: user122@ybecker.net X-PMFLAGS: 20720340.50 X-UIDL: 20720340_201230.501 Comments: Authenticated Sender is Message-Id: 011297055501222@g_fantasm.com Allison Martin cyberfam@cais.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 7 17:31:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA17712; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (kristeva.postmodern.com [198.102.244.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA17629 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) id QAA06826; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710072353.QAA06826@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:53:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971007092324.006b9ba4@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Legitimate address? Cc: Allison & Rick Martin Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Allison Martin writes: > Is this a legitimate address? I just got this subscription request and > > From: cconceps@aol.com > Received: from default (190.jacksonville-04.fl.dial-access.att.net > [12.70.35.190]) by bigbang.eznet.it (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id IAA41162 > > Reply-To: user122@ybecker.net > X-PMFLAGS: 20720340.50 > X-UIDL: 20720340_201230.501 > Comments: Authenticated Sender is > Message-Id: 011297055501222@g_fantasm.com We have blocked all subscription requests sent via the domains dial-access.att.net nlights.net mom.hooked.net as they have been the source of repeated subscription forgeries. I have been in contact with the admins at Hooked, one of whom is a well-known anti-spam activist, and they have promised to bar SMTP relaying in the near future. Having said that, I would caution that list-managers is probably not a very good forum for asking "is _____ a legitimate address"; mostly we won't know, the questions will flood the list, and the presence of multiple domains in the Received lines ought to warn you that you should at least confirm with the recipient. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 9 09:36:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA15422; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.bsdi.com (austin.BSDI.COM [205.230.232.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA15382 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.bsdi.com ({zncNn3TNhgzUBFocGAg+u9hF8uBDYtGh}@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by austin.bsdi.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03501 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:47:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710091547.JAA03501@austin.bsdi.com> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:50:42 -0000. From: Tony Sanders Organization: earth.com Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:47:31 -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Ray Osborne" writes: > I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In > particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail ... > What do you all use to delete and edit out email addresses that > are no longer useful ? If you discussed this already then I would > appreciate somebody telling me what date so I can find the archive. ... From: "Ray Osborne" > I dunno it's not a big problem as I retire my oldest mail lists and > tell my subscribers to resubscribe. I do believe that the occasional clean sweap is a pretty good idea but for many lists that either isn't feasible or sufficient. For example, on a bad day I can get many thousands of bounces on the inet-access list (anybody else loath those UUCP relays that queue email for 30 days? :-) so I need to process the bounces more often than I would want to do a clean sweap (every coule of days). It's actually kind of frightening to see how many supposedly ISP's addresses go bad every day :-) My strategy for dealing with bounces was to write a little perl script: ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/postmaster/bouncer It currently handles 30 different bounce formats and it's only 380 lines long and it's *very* easy to add new formats (just cut and past a few lines and change the regexps). It processes incoming bounces and logs the addresses if it thinks it has figured it out, otherwise it logs the actual bounced email (which you can then process and add the new formats to the code or ignore or whatever). There are file size limits on each of the two output files so you can pretty much ignore it and nothing will break. I periodically run: sort < bouncers | uniq -c | sort -n And remove addresses that are over some threshold (you have to decide that for your list -- it depends on the amount of traffic). I would be *very* reluctant to let anything automatically process these and remove people from the list because I have seen too many cases where that would screw you (e.g., "hard" failures that really weren't that would have erroneously removed 20 people if it were automatically processed). One feature I would like to add to bouncer is to have it read in the actual mailing list and try to match addresses up using some fuzzy matching. Pretty trivial to add, just haven't gotten around to it yet (I already have the fuzzy matching code). I have another utility that can remove lines from a file (with locking) based on a perl5 pattern: ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/postmaster/eradicate So you might want to play around with that as well (I use it for removing addresses from the sendmail queue files that are undeliverable for N days and piling up). You could write a simple script to process the bouncers file and run eradicate to remove them from the list (eradicate could (and should be) greatly simplified using the appropriate perl5 interfaces -- but it works; it was originally written for perl4 but I switched it to use perl5 because of the improvments to the regexps). One strategy I've been testing out for those nasty sites like webtv, prodigy, HP 1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.4 (whatever the heck that is), IMA Internet Exchange, and Microsoft SMTP SVC, that have useless bounce formats is to resolve all the MX'es for every address on the list and then compare the Recieved lines against that. I saw that one other person has a similar project going but I think my solution might be more flexible (for some anyway) since it is standalone and doesn't care too much what MLM or MTA you have. If you add stuff to bouncer please send me back a copy and I'll make it available on the ftp site. If anyone is interested in making this production quality that would great. Right now it's kind of experimental. From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 9 11:08:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA03044; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id KAA03030 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA11898; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:15:31 -0500 (CDT) To: Tony Sanders Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) References: <199710091547.JAA03501@austin.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 09 Oct 1997 12:15:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: Tony Sanders's message of Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:47:31 -0600 Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "TS" == Tony Sanders writes: TS> One strategy I've been testing out for those nasty sites like webtv, TS> prodigy, HP 1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.4 (whatever the heck that is), IMA TS> Internet Exchange, and Microsoft SMTP SVC, that have useless bounce TS> formats is to resolve all the MX'es for every address on the list and TS> then compare the Recieved lines against that. Note that a tool (quick hack, really) to do this is at ftp.hpc.uh.edu:pub/majordomo/do_mx. It currently requires the 'host' command that comes with BIND, but could probably work with nslookup. - J< From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 10 07:28:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA09958; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webster.m-w.com ([206.98.43.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id HAA09938 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by m-w.com (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0) id AA27508; Fri, 10 Oct 97 10:18:08 EDT Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 10:18:08 EDT From: awest@webster.m-w.com (Amy West) Message-Id: <9710101418.AA27508@m-w.com> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: List-Managers-Digest's message of Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:35:21 -0700 (PDT) <199710090035.RAA19662@honor.greatcircle.com> Subject: TAN: Vandeman Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As a rec.bicycles reader, I was not surprised to read the complaint about Vandeman here. There's actually a rec.bicycles FAQ devoted to him and the havoc his abuse of net resources has caused. ---Amy West From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 10 09:28:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA19867; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id JAA19817 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User.wco.com (rock14.wco.com [199.4.109.114]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id JAA15980; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971010083558.009207e0@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:35:58 -0700 To: awest@webster.m-w.com (Amy West) From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Re: TAN: Vandeman Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9710101418.AA27508@m-w.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:18 AM 10/10/97 EDT, Amy West wrote: >As a rec.bicycles reader, I was not surprised to read the complaint >about Vandeman here. There's actually a rec.bicycles FAQ devoted >to him and the havoc his abuse of net resources has caused. Just to follow up, David O'Donnell sent me a note on Wednessday saying that he sut down Vandeman's dotmorriso account and acknowledged that Vandeman had been in trouble with AOL before. I will follow up with a note asking how complaints about the type of abuse exhibitted by Vandeman can be better brought to AOL's attention for a swifter response. If I get a reply to that, I'll share it. My apologies to those who did not appreciate my detailed account of the pattern of complaints and inaction at AOL. My thanks for those who added their support and effort to changing that. Todd -- ============================================================ "When the cyclist roams freely on his steely steed in the godly world of Nature . . . his heart rises and he bewonders the splendor of Creation." --Wilhelm Wolf (1890) ------------------------------------------------------------ Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California ============================================================ From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 10 19:07:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA10350; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from taz.hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id SAA09862 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1788 invoked from network); 11 Oct 1997 01:36:23 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 1997 01:36:23 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971010182050.00916920@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:20:50 -0700 To: Tony Sanders , List-Managers@greatcircle.com From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) In-Reply-To: <199710091547.JAA03501@austin.bsdi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 10/9/97 -0600, Tony Sanders wrote: >My strategy for dealing with bounces was to write a little perl script: > ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/postmaster/bouncer > >It currently handles 30 different bounce formats and it's only 380 lines >long and it's *very* easy to add new formats (just cut and past a few >lines and change the regexps). You could do away with guesswork completely by using VERPs. Up until Wednesday I was using a combination sendmail/qmail setup, where sendmail was my SMTP daemon and I was using qmail to deliver a couple hundred thousand list messages per day. VERP's can be used in this situation, if you train sendmail to handle variable addresses of the form list-owner-*@host.com (* being the recipient email address, with "@" replaced with "="). When a message bounces, you know programmatically who the recipient was, and can generate bounce reports in a few lines of perl; the brave could even automate it further and remove users after bouncing for >n days or something. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 10 19:37:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA11348; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id TAA11341 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA09852 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:24:46 -0400 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710091547.JAA03501@austin.bsdi.com> References: Your message of Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:50:42 -0000. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:15:36 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 11:47 -0400 10/9/97, Tony Sanders said: >"Ray Osborne" writes: >> I am interested in utitlity tools to help maintain my mail lists. In >> particular bounced mail. I don't use a listserv but rather the mail ::snip:: >My strategy for dealing with bounces was to write a little perl script: > ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/postmaster/bouncer > >It currently handles 30 different bounce formats and it's only 380 lines >long and it's *very* easy to add new formats (just cut and past a few >lines and change the regexps). ::snip:: SmartBounce recognizes nearly 200 formats currently, with more being added from time to time. Also, since it is in C, it's pretty fast. > sort < bouncers | uniq -c | sort -n >And remove addresses that are over some threshold (you have to >decide that for your list -- it depends on the amount of traffic). >I would be *very* reluctant to let anything automatically process >these and remove people from the list because I have seen too many >cases where that would screw you (e.g., "hard" failures that really >weren't that would have erroneously removed 20 people if it were >automatically processed). This is an excellent point, and is the reason that SmartBounce allows you to "track" both hard and soft bounces; you can select a threshold over which the bouncing addresses will be removed from the list. In the new version, you can track them (hard and soft) separately, and with separate thresholds. >One feature I would like to add to bouncer is to have it read in >the actual mailing list and try to match addresses up using some >fuzzy matching. Pretty trivial to add, just haven't gotten around >to it yet (I already have the fuzzy matching code). SmartBounce does this -- and I've found that it's a pretty important feature most of the time. (It depends on the server, by and large -- LISTSERV, for example, is very good at returned the actual list address. I don't know how it does it, but probably 99% of the time, the address that it returns is in the same format as the one in the subscribers file. For an MLM that basically eliminates bounced mail entirely, look into Lyris: . Note that Lyris's approach to the problem can be cause for discussion; I'm merely mentioning solutions here, not trying to reopen worm containers ... ;-) >I saw that one other person has a similar project going but I think >my solution might be more flexible (for some anyway) since it is >standalone and doesn't care too much what MLM or MTA you have. SmartBounce also supports a pretty wide range of MLMs, and it does not care at all what MTA you are using. Also, if an MLM is not supported, it can still process the bounces and generate an "unformatted" server file for you; in addition, I add MLMs as people request. SmartBounce comes in freeware and commercial flavors; for more info, see: . __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Segmentation Fault: Operating System Not Booted From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 12 23:04:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA21338; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id WAA21297 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pine.liii.com (pine.liii.com [198.207.193.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id EAA28324 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rowan.liii.com by pine.liii.com with ESMTP (8.8.6/8.8.5) id MAA05583; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:00:16 GMT Received: from localhost (denic@localhost) by rowan.liii.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA07496 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:00:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: rowan.liii.com: denic owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:00:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dennis N. Aruta" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Attacks on mailing lists In-Reply-To: <199710090115.SAA24814@honor.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have recently noticed by accident, when the subscriber to my mailing list mail was rejected (ISP was malfunctioning) that postings to the list were automatically forwarded to a host of enemies of the list. Is there anyway to prevent this other than unsubscribing?? Is there a probe which can identify those that do this? Dennis Aruta, Owner ShipFix (c) & International Commerce List (c), IC-L#0000 http://members.aol.com./denicny/trade.html (LIVE chat)---> e-mail for schedule/access info Mailing address: Denar Chartering Inc.(since 1971) Phone: 516-326-2300 P.O. Box 1147, Denar House Fax: 516-326-2519 New Hyde Park N.Y. 11040 Tlx: 4971419 U.S.A. email: Denic@liii.com Denic@denar.com Denar@denar.com DenicNY@aol.com From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 13 10:29:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA28622; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pine.liii.com (pine.liii.com [198.207.193.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id KAA28615 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rowan.liii.com by pine.liii.com with ESMTP (8.8.6/8.8.5) id RAA03236; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:21:49 GMT Received: from localhost (denic@localhost) by rowan.liii.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with SMTP id NAA13439; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:21:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: rowan.liii.com: denic owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dennis N. Aruta" To: Kynn Bartlett cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Attacks on mailing lists In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971013084523.00cb3c90@mail.idyllmtn.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > At 08:00 a.m. 10/09/97 -0400, Dennis N. Aruta wrote: > >I have recently noticed by accident, when the subscriber to my mailing > >list mail was rejected (ISP was malfunctioning) that postings to the > >list were automatically forwarded to a host of enemies of the list. > > "Enemies" of the list? > > >Is there anyway to prevent this other than unsubscribing?? > > Only way for you to prevent the "wrong people" from joining your > list is to make it a closed list, where you approve everyone > who joins -- and only let on the people you trust. IC-L is a closed list, with our committee approving members. Each subscriber must provide detailed info. > It's trivial these days to get an account or email address, and > autoforward stuff someplace else. I'd say that if you're saying > stuff on an open list, it should be something you wouldn't mind > _anyone_ hearing -- even your "enemies". It becomes open when members program automatic " receipiant surpressed" script hidden to forward each msg posted to the list to their private mega lists. > (What kind of a list do you run, that has "enemies"? I've > ne'er heard of such a thing.) IC-L and ShipFix lists are commercial in nature, therefore open to probing by competitors, clones, (hundreds have been established) since 1994 From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 04:01:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA12146; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PTSINT1.PTSI.NET ([207.50.0.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id BAA12114 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.50.2.71] ([207.50.2.71]) by PTSINT1.PTSI.NET (2.0 Build 2119 (Berkeley 8.8.4)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id DAA03702 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:59:07 -0500 X-Sender: holliste@ptsint1.ptsi.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710140800.BAA07791@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" x-no-archive: yes Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:58:27 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Lance Hollister Subject: De-Lurk and Question Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Greetings, I'm new to this list and also new to operating lists. I've recently started two closed lists for correctional officers. Due to the nature of topics being discussed each list subscriptions is handled manually. One list requires a questionaire the other physical documentation to join. The first list has been operating less than two weeks and have around twenty members the second isn't active yet. Two questions. What is the best way to get the word out about the list and what is the best way to keep participation up to keep the lists alive. Hopefully the questions aren't too general and that they are within the intended scope of this list. Lance Hollister From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 16:46:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA25116; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA25085 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA16706 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grev.idyllmtn.com (grev.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.108]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA12187; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971013084523.00cb3c90@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:45:23 -0700 To: "Dennis N. Aruta" From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: Attacks on mailing lists Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <199710090115.SAA24814@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:00 a.m. 10/09/97 -0400, Dennis N. Aruta wrote: >I have recently noticed by accident, when the subscriber to my mailing >list mail was rejected (ISP was malfunctioning) that postings to the >list were automatically forwarded to a host of enemies of the list. "Enemies" of the list? >Is there anyway to prevent this other than unsubscribing?? Only way for you to prevent the "wrong people" from joining your list is to make it a closed list, where you approve everyone who joins -- and only let on the people you trust. It's trivial these days to get an account or email address, and autoforward stuff someplace else. I'd say that if you're saying stuff on an open list, it should be something you wouldn't mind _anyone_ hearing -- even your "enemies". (What kind of a list do you run, that has "enemies"? I've ne'er heard of such a thing.) -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` Virtual Dog Show is open! www.dogshow.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 17:17:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA02473; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA24821 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NrgUp.Com (garbo.nrgup.com [208.150.70.114]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id FAA21199 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26192 invoked by uid 501); 13 Oct 1997 07:24:28 -0500 Message-ID: <19971013072428.14158@NrgUp.Com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:24:28 -0500 From: Jonathan Bradshaw To: List Managers Subject: Help, what Mickeysoft software does this? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.81 X-Mailer-Info: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/ X-Operating-System: Linux Garbo 2.0.30 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have some mailing list posters who appear to use some sort of Mickeysoft program/gateway to post with. The message ID of each message is: MAPI.Id.0016.00726f6c6c2020203030303530303035@MAPI.to.RFC822 Which is nasty but worse, its STATIC. It does not change for each message, so that means the list software drops any followup messages from them as duplicates. I'd like to identify this software so I can post a warning about it. Anyone seen it? -- Jonathan Bradshaw (Jonathan@NrgUp.Com) | Novell 4.x CNE | Ham Call N9OXE Client Systems Architect -- Boehringer Mannheim Corp., Indianapolis, IN. 1024 PGP Key fingerprint EA 16 1B 5D 5D 94 6B 06 58 FD E6 E9 52 F3 6E 11 Better drowned if duffers, if not duffers, won't drown | CPT/DPMA/PURDUE From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 17:17:15 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA02636; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) id QAA24689 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id CAA11672 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thales.math.ethz.ch (bollow@thales [129.132.146.160]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.6.12/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id LAA04139 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:47:28 +0200 Received: (bollow@localhost) by thales.math.ethz.ch (8.6.9/D-MATH-client) id LAA13145; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:47:28 +0200 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:47:28 +0200 Message-Id: <199710130947.LAA13145@thales.math.ethz.ch> From: Norbert Bollow To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Bug in "alpha test" version of Bouncefilter Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In case anyone is playing with version 2.1a2 of Bouncefilter about which I posted recently, I strongly recommend setting $DEBUG = 0; (this setting is near the top of the file named 'bouncefilter') because there's a bug which can (under unususal circumstances) become dangerous otherwise. I'm working on version 2.1a3 (another alpha version, nothing you could trust) which will have bug-fixes, improvements and probably also new bugs. If you're interested in being notified when it's ready, feel free to drop me a private e-mail, or join this mailing list (which is for discussion of work on automated bounce-handlers in general, not just Bouncefilter): > To subscribe to BH-WORKERS send email to and in > the body of the message write: > > subscribe bh-workers your@email.address.here > end Blessings from Switzerland! Norbert. P.S. Someone had difficulty to reach me via because of a silly anti-spam hack at pobox.com, for this reason I'm now advertising my e-mail address as which should work for everyone. From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 19:31:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA20447; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id SAA17961 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6782 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1997 01:59:45 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 1997 01:59:45 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971014185717.008ee100@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:57:17 -0700 To: Keith Moore From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <199710142323.TAA08223@spot.cs.utk.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:23 PM 10/14/97 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >> At 09:47 AM 10/9/97 -0600, Tony Sanders wrote: >> >My strategy for dealing with bounces was to write a little perl script: >> > ftp://ftp.earth.com/pub/postmaster/bouncer >> > >> >It currently handles 30 different bounce formats and it's only 380 lines >> >long and it's *very* easy to add new formats (just cut and past a few >> >lines and change the regexps). >> >> You could do away with guesswork completely by using VERPs. >> > >No you can't. > >Giving each subscriber a separate return address helps you find out >which subscriber returned the message, but it doesn't tell you why the >message came back. Messages get returned to the envelope return >address for a number of reasons that don't involve nondelivery - You can apply heuristics to the number and frequency of bouncing messages, particularly if your bounce handler also has a sense of what the list traffic looks like. The typical bounce handler algorithm might say that if a particular address is bouncing messages for more than 5 days, and is bouncing more than 25% of messages it is sent, it should be removed from the list. >vacation notices, If someone's vacation program is autoresponding to the list owner for every message, I'd want them removed. >"delay" notifications, If delay messages come through for more than 5 days, I'd want them removed. >positive delivery reports, I've run high-volume mailing lists for several years now, and can count the number of positive delivery reports I've gotten on one finger. >and broken UAs or gateways that reply to the wrong address. Those messages won't ever be seen by list-owner anyways (more likely they'll be seen by the original author of a given message), so it's kinda hard to fix that. >You don't want to treat all of these as if they were bounces. Given time, I think I might. Using Precendence: bulk, most "informational" messages are avoided, and only fatal or near-fatal errors are sent. >The qmail manual doesn't bother to mention that the "VERP" technique >can require a lot of extra bandwidth and processing time, due to >separate retransmission of every message to every recipient. >Perhaps that's because qmail is lazy and retransmits a separate >copy of the message to each recipient anyway. I used to be on the other side of the debate until I sat down and crunched some numbers. In terms of processor time, qmail's impact upon a machine with a given amount of memory and CPU power was far less than sendmail's impact, given a certain number of mail deliveries per day, simply because qmail's memory footprint was far smaller and thus far less swapping was taking place and startup time was much less, even though it does do a fork() per delivery. I also analyzed the addresses on my list and concluded that per-recipient delivery only resulted in a 20% increase in number of SMTP conversations, since fully 80% of the people were on machines by themselves. Since WWW access to my machine is far greater than email, this was noticeable but negligible. The fundamental question was, do I want to save myself an hour or two a day by having bounces handled automatically, or do I want to shave a small chunk of bandwidth? The answer was conclusive. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 22:01:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA02310; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wasatch.com (ns.wasatch.com [204.99.129.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id VAA02287 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LOCALNAME (209.63.78.51) by mail.wasatch.com with smtp (Linux Smail3.2.0.94 #1) id m0xLLP1-000SYYC; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:49:47 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <34445776.4C05@wasatch.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:41:10 -0700 From: "W. David Samuelsen" Reply-To: "W. David Samuelsen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Resource site on spammer info? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is there a website somewhere I can check out to find the listing of the spammer networks I can use to add to the blacklist? W. David Samuelsen From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 14 23:01:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA04819; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id WAA04802 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA27812; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA02684; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:03:05 -0700 To: "W. David Samuelsen" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:41:10 -0700. <34445776.4C05@wasatch.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:03:05 -0700 Message-ID: <2681.876895385@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <34445776.4C05@wasatch.com>, you wrote: >Is there a website somewhere I can check out to find the listing of the >spammer networks I can use to add to the blacklist? > >W. David Samuelsen Included below is the blacklist I'm using in conjunction with my own filtering tool lately. I have been tuning these filtering parameters quite a bit recently and them seem to be working quite well at the moment. Note that I blacklist certain specific headers, as well as certain specific domains and addresses. The blacklisted headers are included in the list below also. The following blacklist is also visible at: http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/blacklists.cgi Blacklist-User: DJT1313@aol.com Blacklist-User: rforte@netcom.com Blacklist-User: 93753_gynaecologist@hPnZ21.com Blacklist-User: BJHN63A@prodigy.com Blacklist-User: IntellegentSourceGroup@classic.msn.com Blacklist-User: d3j6a4@www.bewellnet.com Blacklist-User: qbert5@hotmail.com Blacklist-User: lucy2@ix.netcom.com Blacklist-User: Bill86@hotmail.com Blacklist-User: datasystem@rocketmail.com Blacklist-User: remi25@compuserve.com Blacklist-User: jnj@bear.iinet.com Blacklist-User: webbs@tds.net Blacklist-User: op@brokersys.com Blacklist-Domain: ambience.com Blacklist-Domain: hal9k.com Blacklist-Domain: savoynet.com Blacklist-Domain: BC.net Blacklist-Domain: ido.net Blacklist-Domain: senie.com Blacklist-Domain: iemmc.org Blacklist-Domain: spica.net Blacklist-Domain: quantcom.com Blacklist-Domain: csi.com Blacklist-Domain: hudson.co.jp Blacklist-Domain: mail-response.com Blacklist-Domain: FurnitureCare.Com Blacklist-Domain: keylink.net Blacklist-Domain: internetfci.net Blacklist-Domain: ms.uu.net Blacklist-Domain: da.uu.net Blacklist-Domain: we-deliver.net Blacklist-Domain: freeyellow.com Blacklist-Domain: answerme.com Blacklist-Domain: savetrees.com Blacklist-Domain: lostvegas.com Blacklist-Domain: nevwest.com Blacklist-Domain: llv.com Blacklist-Domain: enterprise.net Blacklist-Domain: t-1net.com Blacklist-Domain: rcorco.rco.qc.ca Blacklist-Domain: firstgear.com Blacklist-Domain: c-flash.net Blacklist-Domain: boulevards.com Blacklist-Domain: scscomm.com Blacklist-Domain: weavers.net Blacklist-Domain: tnlb.com Blacklist-Domain: 1-global.com Blacklist-Domain: 1stfamily.com Blacklist-Domain: stealthmail.com Blacklist-Domain: cydult.com Blacklist-Domain: usinternet.com Blacklist-Domain: usinter.net Blacklist-Domain: adram.org Blacklist-Domain: iainc.net Blacklist-Domain: naspa.net Blacklist-Domain: cow-net.com Blacklist-Domain: hometeam.com Blacklist-Domain: addurl.com Blacklist-Domain: globalpac.com Blacklist-Domain: parker.inter.net.il Blacklist-Domain: cableol.net Blacklist-Header: Received: -0600 (EST) Blacklist-Header: Received: -0700 (EST) Blacklist-Header: Received: -400 (EST) Blacklist-Header: Received: 6000 (EST) Blacklist-Header: Received: from --- unknown host --- Blacklist-Header: Received: Wakeup Blacklist-Header: Received: from --- CLOAKED! --- Blacklist-Header: To: Friend@public.com Blacklist-Header: To: Recipient list suppressed Blacklist-Header: To: Recipient List Suppressed Blacklist-Header: To: undisclosed-recipients: Blacklist-Header: To: WebSiteOwner@ Blacklist-Header: TO: .............................................. Blacklist-Header: To: @_ Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: RAF1 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: Mach10 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 19970237052 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 394810482832 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 505770395032 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 21504739004014 Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: <> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@ Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Avalanche Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Mailcast Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Platinum Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Extractor Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Group Mail Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: TURBO Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: WindoZ Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Floodgate Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Stalker Blacklist-Header: X-Mailer: Acme Blacklist-Header: X-Sender: Extractor Blacklist-Header: X-Sender: News Breaker Blacklist-Header: X-Sender: Yourdora Blacklist-Header: Organization: ####### Blacklist-Header: Organization: 1884EntertainmentGroupInc. Blacklist-Header: Organization: A.P.R.C. Blacklist-Header: Organization: AdMasters Blacklist-Header: Organization: Contact Data Systems Blacklist-Header: Organization: Cyber Sender Blacklist-Header: Organization: FrdBib Blacklist-Header: Organization: GanCot Enterprises Blacklist-Header: Organization: Internet Relay Blacklist-Header: Organization: NetPower Publishing Blacklist-Header: Organization: Socket(r) Internet Services Corporation INN Site Blacklist-Header: Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore Blacklist-Header: Organization: SuperCD Group Blacklist-Header: Organization: Tescom Ltd. Blacklist-Header: Organization: de Haas Lotteries Blacklist-Header: Organization: hryals1@combase.com Blacklist-Header: Apparently-From: Blacklist-Header: Bcc: Blacklist-Header: Comment: Authenticated sender is Blacklist-Header: Date-warning: Blacklist-Header: Mail-For: Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Non-Urgent Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Urgent Blacklist-Header: Precedence: special-delivery Blacklist-Header: Priority: Bulk Blacklist-Header: Priority: First-Class Blacklist-Header: Priority: Special-Delivery Blacklist-Header: Priority: high Blacklist-Header: Recieved: Blacklist-Header: Sent: Blacklist-Header: Status: MA Blacklist-Header: Warning: ActiveAgent Blacklist-Header: X-1: Blacklist-Header: X-: Blacklist-Header: X-Advertisement: Blacklist-Header: X-Advertisment: Blacklist-Header: X-AirNote: Blacklist-Header: X-Authenticated-Sender: Blacklist-Header: X-BlackMail: Blacklist-Header: X-Distribution: Blacklist-Header: X-EPUB-ID: Blacklist-Header: X-Flags: Blacklist-Header: X-ListServer: Blacklist-Header: X-Note: Blacklist-Header: X-PMFLAG-: Blacklist-Header: X-PMFLAGS: Blacklist-Header: X-Shocking-Site: Blacklist-Header: X-Tagname: Blacklist-Header: X-UIDL: Blacklist-Header: X-UltraMail: Blacklist-Header: X-Visit: Blacklist-Header: X10: -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 00:16:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA11535; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id AAA11524 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5688 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1997 07:19:05 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 1997 07:19:05 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971015000252.008a12d0@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:02:52 -0700 To: Eric Thomas , Keith Moore From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: list mgmt tools (bounces) Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:54 AM 10/15/97 +0200, Eric Thomas wrote: >On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:57:17 -0700 Brian Behlendorf >said: >>In terms of processor time, qmail's impact upon a machine with a given >>amount of memory and CPU power was far less than sendmail's impact, >>given a certain number of mail deliveries per day, > >Sure, but this is an implementation issue and is not related to the lack >of RCPT aggregation. True, but Keith just said "processor time", and didn't specify sender or recipient machine processor time. >>I also analyzed the addresses on my list and concluded that >>per-recipient delivery only resulted in a 20% increase in number of SMTP >>conversations, since fully 80% of the people were on machines by >>themselves. > >The problem is that these 20% mostly go to large ISP sites that already >have slowish mail servers, and it is a lot faster to send them a single >message with 100 recipients than 100 with 1 (I am thinking in particular >of AOL :-) ). This is just not the common case for the mailing lists I house. Only a few of my lists have more than a dozen AOL addresses. Besides, sendmail at most delivers to 20 addresses in the same SMTP conversation. In addition, there is an increased liklihood that a message to 100 recipients will fail (think about it - at least 206 TCP round trips before you even get to DATA), thus causing problems for delivery to ALL 100. Even if you discount the benefits of speed of parallel delivery (it's not important to me either, whether a message is delivered in 2 seconds or 10 seconds), the advantages of single-recipient messages seem clear. >And of course if everyone did that to them, their mail >servers would just collapse. Just as they do today :) No, if everyone did that to them, they'd invest a proper amount of money in hardware for mail handling, or better software, or in developing local expanders or newsgroups for high-volume lists. I guess I just can't justify giving myself two extra (volunteer) hours of work per day to alleviate a burden on AOL. >Anyway, my point is that you don't need to make EVERY message different >to collect on these benefits. It is enough to make some of the messages >carry an individual MAIL FROM: and let the rest go out normally. You make some good points. The only thing I can think of that the "occasional VERP" system doesn't allow is a feature Dan's "ezmlm" package has, which is that it can keep track of which messages you didn't get, and then let you know they are available and give you information on how to get them. In that situation not only the recipient but also a mailing list message number is inserted into the return path. My primary concern with, say, making one message per day a VERP message, is that it might not give me enough information to really make a decision about whether to remove someone. For example, there are some HotMail addresses which seem to bounce about 25% of the time. It's quite frustrating. Should I remove addresses if they bounce twice in a 5 day window? Hmm. It's much clearer to say I should remove a user who bounces 50 messages out of 200 in a 5-day window. Dan has other arguments in favor of the single-recipient message model, such as it simplifies qmail design and its robustness. *shrug*. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 10:51:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA20360; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [198.7.0.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id KAA20318 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.217.47.3] (internal.northsouth.com [38.217.47.3]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id NAA08573 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710150800.BAA16424@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:07:15 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: De-Lurk and Question Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:00 AM -0700 10/15/97, Lance Hollister wrote: > >Greetings, > >I'm new to this list and also new to operating lists. I've recently >started two closed lists for correctional officers. Due to the nature of >topics being discussed each list subscriptions is handled manually. One >list requires a questionaire the other physical documentation to join. The >first list has been operating less than two weeks and have around twenty >members the second isn't active yet. Two questions. What is the best way >to get the word out about the list and what is the best way to keep >participation up to keep the lists alive. Hopefully the questions aren't >too general and that they are within the intended scope of this list. > >Lance Hollister > You should consider joining the List-Promotion list and asking that question there. The following is from the list footer, and gives subscription info: ___________ List-Promotion Discussion List _____________ To Remove: Email---> mailto:remove-list-promotion@sparklist.com To Join: Email---> mailto:join-list-promotion@sparklist.com To Post: Email---> mailto:list-promotion@sparklist.com Kent S. "Kip" Larsen II; KLarsen@panix.com or KLarsen@NorthSouth.com (work). Pass the SPAM ban! Ask your Congressperson to support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 11:47:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA20407; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [198.7.0.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id KAA20337 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.217.47.3] (internal.northsouth.com [38.217.47.3]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id NAA08581 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710150800.BAA16424@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:26:36 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #203 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Great help, Ron. I just want to comment on couple of things about some of the individual lines which may be a problem in certain situations or may be confusing: At 1:00 AM -0700 10/15/97, "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > >The following blacklist is also visible at: > > http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/blacklists.cgi > >Blacklist-Domain: ms.uu.net >Blacklist-Domain: da.uu.net The point here is that these domains do not exists at uu.net, not that they are actual domains used by spammers. I assume that is true with a number of the domains listed. >Blacklist-Header: Received: -0600 (EST) >Blacklist-Header: Received: -0700 (EST) >Blacklist-Header: Received: -400 (EST) >Blacklist-Header: Received: 6000 (EST) These are great. It shows you the lack of attention to detail that is common among spammers - spam is an easy (and unethical) way to advertise, so those that want to spam are going to take the easy way out. Its just slopply to have -0600 and (EST) when the EST time zone will never be 6 hours off of greenwich time. >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: RAF1 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: Mach10 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 19970237052 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 394810482832 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 505770395032 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 21504739004014 >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: <> >Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@ Is it possible that some of these are valid? Are these valid Message-Id:s that are used repeatedly in certain spams or are these invalid Message-Id:s? I must admit, I don't know much about this header! Some of the header items you have, however, may cause problems. Are many of them there simply because they should not be blank if they are present? Are some here because they are not legal headers? >Blacklist-Header: Apparently-From: >Blacklist-Header: Bcc: >Blacklist-Header: Comment: Authenticated sender is >Blacklist-Header: Date-warning: >Blacklist-Header: Mail-For: >Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Non-Urgent >Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Urgent >Blacklist-Header: Precedence: special-delivery >Blacklist-Header: Priority: Bulk >Blacklist-Header: Priority: First-Class >Blacklist-Header: Priority: Special-Delivery >Blacklist-Header: Priority: high >Blacklist-Header: Recieved: >Blacklist-Header: Sent: >Blacklist-Header: Status: MA >Blacklist-Header: Warning: ActiveAgent >Blacklist-Header: X-1: >Blacklist-Header: X-: >Blacklist-Header: X-Advertisement: >Blacklist-Header: X-Advertisment: >Blacklist-Header: X-AirNote: >Blacklist-Header: X-Authenticated-Sender: >Blacklist-Header: X-BlackMail: >Blacklist-Header: X-Distribution: >Blacklist-Header: X-EPUB-ID: >Blacklist-Header: X-Flags: >Blacklist-Header: X-ListServer: This could be a valid header, unless blank. The List-Header group (which seeks to standardize list-related email headers) has talked about using ListServer: and it may be used as X-ListServer: in some list mail. Of course, if you are not subscribed to an email list that uses it, then this is a good check to make. >Blacklist-Header: X-Note: >Blacklist-Header: X-PMFLAG-: >Blacklist-Header: X-PMFLAGS: >Blacklist-Header: X-Shocking-Site: >Blacklist-Header: X-Tagname: >Blacklist-Header: X-UIDL: The X-UIDL: is used by some email programs that use a pop-server. In particular, Eudora uses this as a way of determining what messages to leave on the server and what to delete. I have this header in _every_ message I recieve! However, if the mail program you use doesn't use UIDL or if you are checking incoming mail before it gets the mail reader, this is probably a good check. >Blacklist-Header: X-UltraMail: >Blacklist-Header: X-Visit: >Blacklist-Header: X10: > >- -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, >Inc. >- -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: >http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ >- -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ > Ron, Can you tell us something about how many false positives you get? How many messages you get are picked up by these filters that are not spam? Kent From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 13:00:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA13149; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id MAA13112 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: validity of Message-Id's To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:49:54 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Kent S. Larsen II" at Oct 15, 97 01:26:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kent Larsen asked about Ronald Guilmette's list of spam markers: G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: RAF1 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: Mach10 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 19970237052 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 394810482832 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 505770395032 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 21504739004014 G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: <> G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@ L> Is it possible that some of these are valid? Are these valid Message-Id:s L> that are used repeatedly in certain spams or are these invalid Message-Id:s? L> I must admit, I don't know much about this header! They're all invalid. The contents of Message-Id: are (polite corrections will be appreciated) supposed to be a left-side-angle bracket a non-empty string with no at signs, angle brackets, nor whitespace an at sign a site name, not necessarily an FQDN but an FQDN is a good idea a right-side angle bracket If the ID does not start with an "<" or if it has any more "<"'s; if it does not end with ">" or if it has any more ">"'s; character; if it does not contain exactly one "@" or the "@" is second or second-to-last; or if it is interrupted by any spaces, tabs, or line breaks, it is invalid. There may be other requirements, but those are enough to exclude all of Ronald's examples (or, since they're examples of bad ID's, perhaps I should say that those rules include all of his examples). From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 16:33:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA01750; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA01665 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA12186; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA20362; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:43:10 -0700 To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:49:54 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:43:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20359.876955390@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >Kent Larsen asked about Ronald Guilmette's list of spam markers: > >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: RAF1 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: Mach10 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 19970237052 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 394810482832 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 505770395032 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 21504739004014 >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: <> >G> Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@ > >L> Is it possible that some of these are valid? Are these valid Message-Id:s >L> that are used repeatedly in certain spams or are these invalid Message-Id:s >? >L> I must admit, I don't know much about this header! > >They're all invalid. The contents of Message-Id: are (polite corrections >will be appreciated) supposed to be > > a left-side-angle bracket > a non-empty string with no at signs, angle brackets, nor whitespace > an at sign > a site name, not necessarily an FQDN but an FQDN is a good idea > a right-side angle bracket PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the online help pages for Deadbolt before you try to interpret the meaning of any of the blacklist directives I have posted. You are seriously misinterpreting their meaning. In the above `Blacklist-Header:' directives, the stuff to the right of the second colon on each line is used in a SUBSTRING MATCH operation. Thus, the line: Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d will cause *all* of the following actual header lines to be blacklisted by my filter: Message-Id: <8a4d5eb172ca6d@netcom.com> Message-Id: <8a4d5eb172ca6d@> Message-Id: << 8a4d5eb172ca6d Message-Id: Your mother wears 8a4d5eb172ca6d army boots! In short, the `Blacklist-Header: directive DOES NOT check syntax of the relevant header in any way. I have a whole separate parser in Deadbolt that does that! But my experience clearly indicates that you CANNOT blacklist mail messages simply on the basis of their being syntactically invalid accounding to RFC 822. Why? Quite simply because you would lose a LOT of otherwise valid mail that way. In practice, there is a HUGE amount of non-conformance to RFC 822 (and its successor RFC... I forget the number now) out there these days. There is so much non-conformance that if you tried to *strictly* accept only mail messages that conformed completely to the required syntax rules, I estimate that you would immediately lose about 25% or more of your incoming mail. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 16:38:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03107; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA25570 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11401; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19392; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:27:53 -0700 To: Daniel Reed cc: "W. David Samuelsen" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:00:49 -0400. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:27:53 -0700 Message-ID: <19389.876954473@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Daniel Reed wrote: >) The following blacklist is also visible at: >) >) http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/blacklists.cgi >) >) >/* snip */ >) Blacklist-Header: To: Recipient list suppressed >) Blacklist-Header: To: Recipient List Suppressed >) Blacklist-Header: To: undisclosed-recipients: >/* snip */ >) Blacklist-Header: Comment: Authenticated sender is >/* snip */ >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Non-Urgent >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Urgent >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: special-delivery >) Blacklist-Header: Priority: Bulk >) Blacklist-Header: Priority: First-Class >) Blacklist-Header: Priority: Special-Delivery >) Blacklist-Header: Priority: high >/* snip */ >) Blacklist-Header: X-Authenticated-Sender: >/* snip */ >) Blacklist-Header: X-UIDL: >/* snip */ > >I have strong objections against the inclusion of all of these headers, >especially the first 7, in any sort of blacklist, especially one that is >hoped to be distributed. >I'm not sure which one pine uses, which one qmail inserts, etc., but those >first three are all very valid To: addresses that I myself use very >frequently when sending massmail to everyone on >narnia.n.ml.org/narnia.mhv.net, such as for scheduled system downtime, Well, it is Good (with a capital `G') that I posted my blacklist here, I guess because this allows me to get more such feedback... and I _do_ welcome feedback on my blacklist from the subscribers of this mailing list in particular. I may not always agree withthe changes that are suggested to me, but I promise to consider them all carefully. With regards to lines like: To: (Recipient list suppressed) unless I am mistaken, I believe that those are in violation of the syntax specified in RFC 822, which demands at least one actual address in the To: header. But by all means, please do double chek me on that. I might be wrong about that. In any case, my own experience is that such headers appear rarely in non- spam E-mail, but do appear with some significant frequency in spam E-Mail... and the reality of the situation is that what I am trying to do (i.e. separate spam from non-spam) absolutely requires me to *only* consider the pragmatic and empirical data that I have and nothing else. If I found that the To: header itself appeared with a much greater frequency in spam messages than in non spam message, then I would even add that to my blacklists, provided of course that doing so did not product an undue amount of false positives. >The fourth is something some mail clients (I believe Eudora is among them) >insert after the first time it has successfully authenticated itself to >the POP server it has defined. My filter operates on E-Mail *before* it is downloaded to a desktop system by an end-user E-Mail client, so this is not an issue. >The Precedence: headers themselves are self-explanatory. Don't filter out >incoming mail based on its Precedence:, it's just a Bad Thing(tMS). Sorry. I disagree. My sample set indicates quite clearly that the SPECIFIC FORMS of the Precedence: header that I have listed occur frequently in spam and hardly ever (if ever) in non-spam messages. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 16:43:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA23385; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id PAA23163 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA10868 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18906 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:18:57 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #203 In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:26:36 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:18:57 -0700 Message-ID: <18903.876953937@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kent Larsen posed a number of very good questions about my spam blacklist, the most important of which (which he saved for the end) was ``What is the false positive rate?'' I will answer all of these questions (below) in as much detail as I can, but I really *do* want to stress that the false positive rate is perhaps *the* most critical yardstick against which any spam filter such be, and must be measured. Any dolt can filter out all spam simply by discarding all incoming messages, but doing so has a pretty high false positive rate. :-) I mention this because there are a _lot_ of spam filters of various stripes out there being hawked these days. Few if any of these make any attempt to even comment on the false positive rates that they produce. I however have an iron clad commitment to achieving a false positive rate which is as near to zero as possible (and definitely less than .1%) while still achieving a 90% or better spamkill rate. (As of now, I can actually get much higher that that, if the blind-carbon-copies part of the filter is enabled, but I digress.) ====================================================== In message , "Kent S. Larsen II" wrote: >>Blacklist-Domain: ms.uu.net >>Blacklist-Domain: da.uu.net > >The point here is that these domains do not exists at uu.net, not that they >are actual domains used by spammers. I assume that is true with a number of >the domains listed. Well, no, actually... that's not the point. The only ``point'' to the list of blacklisted domain names is that these are all domain names which, if properly searched for in E-Mail headers (and *ONLY* in certain sender-related contexts within those headers) will enable you to find vastly more spam than non-spam. The domain names in question may or may not exist, but that doesn't even matter. The only important thing is that these domain names _do_ frequently show up in the headers of spam messages. The domains ms.uu.net *do* in fact exist and both are (as far as I can tell) highly geographically distributed. Node names within these two domains are commonly associated with UUNET's worldwide network of dial-up POPs. These POPs are used (shared actually) by several ISPs, the biggest of which is Earthlink. It turns out that of all of the blacklisted domains I have on my list, these two are the most problematic for the simple reason that these two _do_ generate an unfortunately high false positive rate (although it is still quite low, even with these domain names in the blacklist). But the fact that these specific domains generate an unfortunate number of false positives is outweighed by the fact that an enormous amount of E-Mail spam has, over time, been seen to come from these dial-up POPs... and UUNET has been rather entirely unhelpful to all parties concerned when it comes to the subject of stemming this ongoing flow of spam, and indeed there have even gone to some lengths to void providing any assistance whatsoever to anyone who is trying to track down the spammers who are abusing these dial-up POPs to spam. On that basis, I feel I have no choice but to include both ms.uu.net and da.uu.net in my blacklists. Doing so stops a LOT of E-Mail spam. >>Blacklist-Header: Received: -0600 (EST) >>Blacklist-Header: Received: -0700 (EST) >>Blacklist-Header: Received: -400 (EST) >>Blacklist-Header: Received: 6000 (EST) > >These are great. It shows you the lack of attention to detail that is >common among spammers - spam is an easy (and unethical) way to advertise, >so those that want to spam are going to take the easy way out. Its just >slopply to have -0600 and (EST) when the EST time zone will never be 6 >hours off of greenwich time. These all come from different incarnations of one particularly sloppily- written mass spamming program. >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: RAF1 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: Mach10 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 19970237052 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 394810482832 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 505770395032 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 21504739004014 >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: <> >>Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@ > >Is it possible that some of these are valid? Is it possible that there is life on other planets? Yep, but I haven't seen any signs of it myself, ever. >Are these valid Message-Id:s that are used repeatedly in certain spams... Bingo! >... or are these invalid Message-Id:s? Some are. Some aren't. >Some of the header items you have, however, may cause problems. Agreed, but in practices they do not seem to. I have now tested the blacklist against over 60,000 actual mail messages from thosands of people all around the wrold. >Are many of >them there simply because they should not be blank if they are present? Nope. If you see the name of a head in my list (in a Blacklist-Header: directive) and if it is not followed by any other text, then *whenever* my filter sees that header, REGARDLESS of what (if any) text appears in the body portion of the header, the filter will exclude the message that contains it. >Are some here because they are not legal headers? Most _are_ legal, however some probably are not. I don't care. That is not even a consideration. The elements of my blacklist are all in the blacklist for the simple reason that the appear in spam messages (perhaps frequently) but they never (or almost never) appear in non-spam messages. >>Blacklist-Header: X-ListServer: > >This could be a valid header, unless blank. Yes. So what's your point? The fact that this is on my list means that I have *never* seen this header inb my test data base of over 60,000 actual E-Mail messages *execpt* in one or more spam messages. >>Blacklist-Header: X-UIDL: > >The X-UIDL: is used by some email programs that use a pop-server. Yes, but my filter operates on incoming E-Mail *before* it is ``popped'' from the central mail server, so this is not an issue for me. In fact it turns out that when you do filtering at this early stage, the X-UIDL header in particular is a *terrific* predictor of spam. More than 50% of all spam I'm getting these days already has an X-UIDL: header in it *before* it even reaches my sendmail daemon. >In >particular, Eudora uses this as a way of determining what messages to leave >on the server and what to delete. I have this header in _every_ message I >recieve! Right... but only *after* you download it from your ISP's mail server to your personal desktop machine. Before that time, the *only* messages that already have this header are 100% spam. I guarrantee it. >However, if the mail program you use doesn't use UIDL or if you are >checking incoming mail before it gets the mail reader... Bingo! >... this is probably a good check. You can say that again! X-UIDL is one of the most effective blacklist items in my whole list, and so far, out of more than 60,000 messages, I have only seen it yield *one* false positive... that that was for a message which came to me about 5 years ago from what I believe was a misconfigured mailing list. >Can you tell us something about how many false positives you get? How many >messages you get are picked up by these filters that are not spam? I will be more than happy to tell you that, however please do keep in mind that the numbers I give you only reflect *my* statistics for *my* sample set. Just as importantly, the numbers I give you are almost meaningless UNLESS they are understood to only have relevance to the COMBINATION of my blacklists together with my proprietary filtering package (which has quite a few unique features, not the least of which is that it performs a full but fast and complete/detailed parse on all E-Mail headers). (My sample set consists of around 15,000 messages that I myself have saved from various correspondants around the world over the past 7-10 years or so, together with recent parts of the archives of two mailing lists... i.e. this list (the list-managers list from which I am using about 8,000 messages) and also the inet-access mailing list (from which I have about 38,000 messages). The total number of messages scanned was 58,249. The total number of blacklisted messages from this set was 1,625. The total number of _actual_ spam messages which were detected by the filter in the sample set (mostly from my own spam folders, but also, in some cases, from the mailing list archives) was 1,513 (This number will increase soon, as I add more domain and E-mail address blacklist entries.) The total number of false positives was 112 messages (from 36 individuals) of which 96 were false positives from the mm.uu.net or da.uu.net domain, leaving only 16 false positives from all other sources out of a total of 58,249 messages scanned, i.e. approximately .0275% false positive rate, not counting the uu.net false positves. (Some of the explanations for some of these remaing false positives turned out to be quite humorous, like for instance the fellow in Pakistan who was unable to spell ``Recieved'' any better than a spammer could do. I have since written to him and he has correct that mistake in his local mail software.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 17:03:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA08070; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id PAA08035 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:02:03 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <20359.876955390@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Oct 15, 97 03:43:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ron Guilmette warned in response to my last post here, | PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the online help pages for Deadbolt before you | try to interpret the meaning of any of the blacklist directives I have | posted. You are seriously misinterpreting their meaning. "Misinterpreting," yes, and thank you for clearing it up; but "seriously," no; it would be serious only if I were trying to use DeadBolt. I've never heard of it before this thread. | In the above `Blacklist-Header:' directives, the stuff to the right of | the second colon on each line is used in a SUBSTRING MATCH operation. | Thus, the line: | | Blacklist-Header: Message-Id: 8a4d5eb172ca6d ... means that anything fitting the grep pattern Message-Id:.*8a4d5eb172ca6d will be blacklisted, even if it is a syntactically correct ID. OK; now that you've explained it, we all know about the implicit ".*". Thank you again for explaining, Ron. From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 17:33:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA25949; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA12369 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA14225 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA21930 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:21:25 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Spam blacklist... IMPORTANT NOTICE! X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:21:25 -0700 Message-ID: <21927.876957685@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Before any of you rush out and start using any of the data in the spam blacklist last night, please be advised that that list contained one very very serious error. The domain name `senie.com' should *NOT* have been listed. That was a BIG mistake on my part. The guy who runs that domain is seriously anti-spam, and he is actually helping me by forwarding the spams that he gets at his site to my location. I forgot that his site was one of the sites that are helping me in this way, and I thus mistook some of the messages that he has kindly auto-forwarded to me recently as being spams of my domain from his. That was obviously a BIG-TIME BOO-BOO on my part. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 17:39:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA25899; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id QAA11434 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA13986; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA21898; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:16:30 -0700 To: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:02:03 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: <21895.876957389@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >... means that anything fitting the grep pattern > >Message-Id:.*8a4d5eb172ca6d Yes, exactly... well... almost. The header name itself is matched in a CASE-INSENSITIVE way, while the rest of the stuff (i.e. the header body text) is matched in a case sensitive way. >will be blacklisted, even if it is a syntactically correct ID. Yes. Syntactically correct or syntactically incorrect. It doesn't matter. >OK; now that >you've explained it, we all know about the implicit ".*". Thank you again >for explaining, Ron. Only too happy to oblige. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 15 17:48:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA03609; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id RAA03307 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19970 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA26453 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:45:29 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:49:44 -0400. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:45:28 -0700 Message-ID: <26450.876962728@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Daniel Reed wrote: >I'm sure that somewhere it defines what is considered valid and what >isn't, and that "Undisclosed.recipients:;" is considered legal. heh. Sounds OK to me... and if you start using *that* instead of: To: (Recipient list suppressed) then my current blacklist will *not* block your mail, so then everybody wins! You get to be in conformance with RFC 822 *and* all of yoyr mail will psass through my filtere unhindered *and* I get to claim a smaller false positive rate. >This RFC confuses me... You are not alone. > I guess the end result is: do you want to receive email from >people who, like me (am I the only one?), send messages (valid ones, ones >that you *want* to receive) without a To:/Cc: field... Well... I dunno. Are you a spammer? :-) Just kidding. Just kidding. You seem like a nice enough fellow, so yes, I *do* want to receive E-mail from you, and it I were on your system I *would* like to be able to con- tinue to receive those downtime reports from you. However I would *not* want to do so if the cost of doing so was that I had to also allow more spam into my inbox. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO! It will be quite easy for you to start using something in your To: lines for your general announcement messages which *is* valid according to the relevant E-mail RFCs, and if you just will do that then you probably won't have any problems with my filter, and then we can both be happy capmers. >... and thus have Undisclosed.recipients:; as the To:? Like I say... if you switch to that, then that will not match *anything* that is in my current blacklists, so you will be ok then. >) My filter operates on E-Mail *before* it is downloaded to a desktop system >) by an end-user E-Mail client, so this is not an issue. >Well, I meant when they are *sending* the messages they add them, not upon >receipt... Nope. That doesn't happen. Neither Eudora nor any other E-mail client that I am aware of puts in an X-UIDL: header before or as the message is being sent. That just doesn't happen, ever. The only time that header is added is (a) when a normal user actually uses a POP2/POP3/IMAP client to download a messge to his/her desktop or (b) when a spammer explicitly puts that header in to his outgoing spam. >But, while perusing through >ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/rfc822.txt, I noticed that the Comment: field >*is* defined, and defined as a plaintext, free form field, and hence should >never be used in any sort of automated processing... In practice, I have seen many many instances of a ``Comments:'' (plural) header in legitimate non-spam mail messages, however the *only* instances of a ``Comment:'' (singular) header with a body which contains the string "Authenticated sender is" that I have ever seen have been in messages that were generated by one particularly notorious and annoying spammer known as the BlueLister. >) >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Non-Urgent >) >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: Urgent >) >) Blacklist-Header: Precedence: special-delivery >) >The Precedence: headers themselves are self-explanatory. Don't filter out >) >incoming mail based on its Precedence:, it's just a Bad Thing(tMS). >) >) Sorry. I disagree. >) >) My sample set indicates quite clearly that the SPECIFIC FORMS of the >) Precedence: header that I have listed occur frequently in spam and hardly >) ever (if ever) in non-spam messages. >Well, "just for kicks," I set up a Precedence: header in my .pinerc many a >moon ago, and while it is first-class, not one of the ones you listed, it >could easily have been... It could have been, but it wasn't. So it's a non-issue, right? > I just think that blacklisting headers simply because on average >SPAMmers include them in their emails (so you say), and "usually" no >"real" correspondence uses them is just bad. Well, what can I say? Sorry. The reality is that I am doing my best at a very difficult job... trying to programatically separate the wheat from the chaff... and I am trying to do so as accurately as possible, even though the spammers are working hard to achieve the opposite objective, i.e. trying to make their spams look indistinguishable from ordinary legitimate mail. My job is a very very difficult job, and nothing I do will ever be guarran- teed to be 100% flawless and 100% correct in all conceivable cases that are theoretically possible. I do not deal with what is theoretically possible. I only deal with the facts as they actually exist, and with the real-world statistics (on header usage) that come from my large sample set of test E-Mail messages. (That sample set will of course be expanded later on... probably by a factor of ten or more.) You can argue based upon general principals that what I am doing is wrong, or that it can never be absolutely flawless down to the seventh decimal place, but what I have *does* in fact work pretty well out here in the real world... It kills TONS of spam and yet leaves better than 99.97% of all legitimate non-spam mail alone. I happen to think that that is good enough to make this stuff acceptable for general everyday use for most people, but of course, if you are a heart surgeon and you are waiting patiently near your terminal for that E-mail message you have been ex- pecting, telling you about the current availability of that donor heart you and your patient have been anxiously waiting for, then even a 99.97% pass thru rate on non-spam may not be acceptable to you. In that case, please DO NOT use my filter. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 12:33:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA14562; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [198.7.0.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id MAA14480 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [38.217.47.3] (internal.northsouth.com [38.217.47.3]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id PAA06669 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710160800.BAA11489@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:19:10 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just want to thank Ron again for posting his blacklist. I will definitely include many of the items he has on his list in my own (Eudora based) filter (personal use only) I hope you understand Ron that my reason for questioning those filters that I did was maily to understand how you were using them, to test their applicability in my case, and point out where they may not apply to some others. You have obviously put a lot of effort into your filters, and I believe your claim to a phenomenally good false positive rate. I think this discussion has pointed out a few things about using filters. I've learned: 1. Filters should not try to enforce RFC mail standards. Too many email programs violate this standard and insisting on strict compliance will lead to many false positives. However, mail standards can help in understanding possible ways to build filters. 2. Filters have to be fine-tuned for a particular user and for the type of mail that user gets to gain maximum effectiveness. While I think lists like Ron's are very helpful, and in most situations will be highly effective on their own, there are too many exceptions and qualifications that can cause problems. An example is the X-UIDL header and the X-LISTSERVER header which could cause problems if you are using them in Eudora or if the list you are subscribed to uses X-LISTSERVER. 3. Remember you won't catch everything! Thanks again, Ron. Kent Larsen From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 14:11:15 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA26710; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tardis.Tymnet.COM (tardis.tymnet.com [131.146.3.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id NAA26578 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jms@localhost) by tardis.Tymnet.COM (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA12800 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Smith Message-Id: <199710162046.NAA12800@tardis.Tymnet.COM> To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > With regards to lines like: > > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > > unless I am mistaken, I believe that those are in violation of the syntax > specified in RFC 822, which demands at least one actual address in the To: > header. I was going to say that all of the employee e-mail I get is in that form, but then I looked closer and noticed To: Mulitple recipients of list XXXXXX and To: Distribution@company.com Does any legitamate e-mail package use "To: (Recipient list suppresses)" ? -Joe From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 15:03:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA06232; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcmail.liv.ac.uk (pcmail.liv.ac.uk [138.253.252.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id OAA06223 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.84] by pcmail.liv.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.61 #3) id 0xLxrG-0000c3-00; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:53:30 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:53:21 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Thew X-Sender: qq11@mail.liv.ac.uk To: Joe Smith cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-Reply-To: <199710162046.NAA12800@tardis.Tymnet.COM> Message-ID: Organization: The University of Liverpool X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I used to get mail from the Internet Society like this and have seen examples from people who certainly are not spammers. There will always be some false positives in any spam block if it's fairly agressive. Ideally, you file them somewhere if you have time and disk space... which most don't. -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442 On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Joe Smith wrote: > > With regards to lines like: > > > > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > > > > unless I am mistaken, I believe that those are in violation of the syntax > > specified in RFC 822, which demands at least one actual address in the To: > > header. > > I was going to say that all of the employee e-mail I get is in that form, > but then I looked closer and noticed > To: Mulitple recipients of list XXXXXX > and > To: Distribution@company.com > > Does any legitamate e-mail package use "To: (Recipient list suppresses)" ? > -Joe > From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 17:39:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA01910; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id RAA01893 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27884 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28964 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:14 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:31 -0700. <199710162046.NAA12800@tardis.Tymnet.COM> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:14 -0700 Message-ID: <28961.877047554@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199710162046.NAA12800@tardis.Tymnet.COM>, Joe Smith wrote: >Does any legitamate e-mail package use "To: (Recipient list suppresses)" ? It depends upon how you define ``legitimate''. As far as I am concerned, if it isn't able to adhere the the relevant RFCs, then it is not ``legitimate''. But I will readily admit that this view may perhaps be considered ``extremist'' in some quarters. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 18:03:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA29678; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id RAA29645 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27212; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28651; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:09:04 -0700 To: "Kent S. Larsen II" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:19:10 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:09:04 -0700 Message-ID: <28648.877046944@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >I hope you understand Ron that my reason for questioning those filters that >I did was maily to understand how you were using them, to test their >applicability in my case, and point out where they may not apply to some >others. Yes. Certainly. I'm glda to have other people double checking my work. I'm not perfect (much as I would like to believe that sometimes) and I _do_ make mistakes, so it is quite helpful to have people... especially _knowledgable_ people like the ones on this list... double checking my work. >You have obviously put a lot of effort into your filters, and I believe >your claim to a phenomenally good false positive rate. Yea. It is kinda surprising how easy most spammers are making it to filter them out. >I think this discussion has pointed out a few things about using filters. >I've learned: > > >1. Filters should not try to enforce RFC mail standards. Too many email >programs violate this standard and insisting on strict compliance will lead >to many false positives. However, mail standards can help in understanding >possible ways to build filters. Yowza. well said. >2. Filters have to be fine-tuned for a particular user and for the type of >mail that user gets to gain maximum effectiveness. Ideally, yes. That's one reason why my own filter is very end-user-centric in its design. That plus that fact that I don't really like (or approve of) being in the position of making decisions for other people without their consent. >While I think lists like >Ron's are very helpful, and in most situations will be highly effective on >their own, there are too many exceptions and qualifications that can cause >problems. An example is the X-UIDL header and the X-LISTSERVER header which >could cause problems if you are using them in Eudora or if the list you are >subscribed to uses X-LISTSERVER. I do agree with the general thrust of your comments here, i.e. that everyone should look closely at what they are using in the way of filtering patterns and make sure that those patterns are right for them before using them. I still do disagree on the specifics however, and I can only repeat what I have already said with regards to X-UIDL in particular, i.e. that my own experience and statistics when using that as a filter pattern (at the level at which *I* do filtering... i.e. _before_ E-mail gets POP'ed down to a desktop machine) indicates clearly that blacklisting this particular header gives essentially ZERO false positives but it kills LOTS of actual spam. >3. Remember you won't catch everything! Sadly, yes. >Thanks again, Ron. You are all most welcome. I am very keen to try to help mailing list admins in particular to filter out spam e-mail. There is nothing more destructive or more annoying than e-mail spam which gets forwarded out to zillions of people via mailing lists, and I for one would like to do horrible and nasty things to the spammers who misuse legitimate lists by spamming them. (Fortunately, the most notorious offender in this category... ``Krazy Kevin'' aka Tempting Tear-Outs... is already having nasty things done to him by the court system in New York State.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 16 18:33:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA09709; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id SAA09684 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA01143 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA30333 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:22 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Resource site on spammer info? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:53:21 +0100. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:22 -0700 Message-ID: <30330.877050502@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Alan Thew wrote: >I used to get mail from the Internet Society like this... Gee. With a name like ``The Internet Society'', you would think that they would know how to stay within the relevant RFCs, now wouldn't you? (1/2 :-) >... and have seen >examples from people who certainly are not spammers. There will always be >some false positives in any spam block if it's fairly agressive. My filtering patterns are _not_ really all that agressive. I already took out a LOT of stuff that I wanted to leave in, because those other things gave too many false positives. >Ideally, >you file them somewhere if you have time and disk space... which most >don't. Each to his own, I guess. I prefer to just dump the spam and if I lose .01% of real E-mail I can live with that. If someobody sends me a message about something REALLY important and if I don't respond, they will probably call me. If we lived in a world with _only_ E-mail and no phones we would _all_ be in big trouble I think. Thankfully, we don't. P.S. My comments here relate to my _personal_ E-mail inflow. I would agree 100% with the assertion that **mailing list administrators** should not just dump spamish-looking messages that are submitted for distribution to the mailing lists that they administer. That is an entirely different situation. In that case, you, the list admin, have a public responsibility to fulfill, and in that case, it indeed would be wise to just siphon off all spamish-looking messages to a separate folder and manually review them before you actually let any of them go out onto the mailing list. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 17 16:19:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA01039; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from light.pomona.edu (light.pomona.edu [134.173.72.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id MAA11379 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jadeite@localhost) by light.pomona.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA11400 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) From: jadeite Message-Id: <199710171938.MAA11400@light.pomona.edu> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: outgoing not going Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I just setup majordomo on my machine. We have a list called insoc. The problem is that when mail is sent from a non-localhost, sendmail returns an error saying that the user insoc does not exist. However, when mail is sent from the localhost, things are ok. Please respond ASAP From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 18 02:34:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA14081; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id CAA14056 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA12422; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 05:02:29 -0400 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 05:09:57 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, ListMom-Talk Discussion List From: Vince Sabio Subject: Rhapsody Discussion List Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi folks, Since there is a good number of both Unix and Mac types between these two lists (and at least one NeXTStepper that I know of), I figured many of you might be interested in the formation of a discussion list for the Rhapsody operating system from Apple, currently in its first developer release (the OS, not the company -- the company is in beta, but is severely bug ridden ;-). To subscribe, pick one: 1. Web interface: 2. The olde fashioned way: In subject -or- body: subscribe rhapsody Dennis Ritchie (You might want to use your own name in place of Dennis Ritchie's. ) Either way, your sub request will have to be confirmed via e-mail. I'd like to thank John Buckman & Company(sm) for providing the resources of their Lyris(tm) list server. (Unfortunately, you guys only get to experience the thing from the user side (which is still very nice); the list-administrator side of this server is pretty darned awesome. :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Segmentation Fault: Operating System Not Booted From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 18 08:51:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA07557; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id IAA07523 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.86.53.45] (user-38lcd9d.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.53.45]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12235 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:40:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: met@pop.mindspring.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:42:15 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Mark E. Taylor" Subject: Nondeliverable mail Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I know that we all have seen some weird bounces in our times. But for your amusement this came in today: << start of forwarded material >> >From: Postmaster >To: fxxxxxx.xxxxx >Date: 18 Oct 1997 11:02:09 -0400 >Subject: Nondeliverable mail >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >------Transcript of session follows ------- >xxxxxx@acd.net >The process cannot access the file because >it is being used by another process. And I thought the character of Sir Humphrey on Yes, Minister was the master of doublespeak! mark From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 18 20:19:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA27115; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wordsmith.org (lrdc5.lrdc.pitt.edu [136.142.93.166]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id UAA27106 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from anu@localhost) by wordsmith.org (8.8.7/1.2) id WAA18383; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:54:53 -0400 From: Anu Garg Message-Id: <199710190254.WAA18383@wordsmith.org> Subject: Re: Spam blacklist... IMPORTANT NOTICE! To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:54:52 -0400 (EDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <21927.876957685@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Oct 15, 97 04:21:25 pm Restrict: no-external-archive X-No-Archive: yes X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. > -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ > -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ I looked at Wpoison. It is a clever idea. My suggestion would be that on your wpoison page you suggest people to rename the program to something random before installing. You see, it'll be easy for the spammers to program their crawlers to avoid any link that contains the word 'wpoison'. -- Anu Garg anu@wordsmith.org http://www.wordsmith.org/anu From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 18 22:03:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA07571; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wasatch.com (ns.wasatch.com [204.99.129.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id VAA07564 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LOCALNAME (209.63.78.47) by mail.wasatch.com with smtp (Linux Smail3.2.0.94 #1) id m0xMnMo-000Sb7C; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:53:30 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <34499E31.61A1@wasatch.com> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:44:17 -0700 From: "W. David Samuelsen" Reply-To: "W. David Samuelsen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam blacklist... IMPORTANT NOTICE! References: <199710190254.WAA18383@wordsmith.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Can it be done? Several of my friends are asking me about this software to poison the websites. W. David Samuelsen Anu Garg wrote: > > > -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. > > -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ > > -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ > > I looked at Wpoison. It is a clever idea. My suggestion would be that > on your wpoison page you suggest people to rename the program to something > random before installing. You see, it'll be easy for the spammers to program > their crawlers to avoid any link that contains the word 'wpoison'. > > -- > Anu Garg anu@wordsmith.org http://www.wordsmith.org/anu From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 20 05:48:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA05668; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 05:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with SMTP id FAA05661 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 05:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 8:39:39 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: 99 Bottles of Beer On the Wall - Glutton Q Message-ID: <9710200839.aa05088@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach: >Mark Rauterkus wrote: >> The problem: >> I want to send one message to every subscriber who is on any of my MJ >> listz. I don't want to send one-message to every list -- as that badgers >> those who hold multiple subscriptions. > >I tried this one. I figured I'd do users a favor and send out one >message per user instead of one per subscription, by creating a magic >admin non-list and merging all of the addresses in. > >It was a total, unmitigated disaster. I spent an amazing amount of time >being yelled at by users who wanted off the list, and who got hostile >when I told them it wasn't possible. Heh heh. I do exactly the same thing. Twice a month. 2200 subscribers total (rough number) And the third paragraph of the msg pretty much squashes any complaints. Feel free to steal it: =============================================================================== The Internet BMW Riders - Periodic Admin Reminder Automatically posted on the 1st and 15th of each month to all subscribers to mailing lists run by IBMWR: BMWMC, BMWMC-DIGEST, BMW-TECH, BMW-TECH-DIGEST, BMWMOA If you do not wish to receive these msgs, simply unsubscribe yourself from all of the above lists. =============================================================================== Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 14:22:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA05691; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA18140 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA32360 ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:45:18 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:41:49 -0700 To: listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: A bit of a rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Excuse me, but I've got a bit of a rant here. It's called "obnoxious admins". So I'm working on my mail list bounces yesterday, and I come across e-mail from an abuse account, which sent back a copy of a list digest and attached: -- You will be charged storage fees and a complaint will be filed against you in Federal Court for violation of 47USC5.227. -- So I look, and yes, the user on that list from the site had never sent an unsub request, never did anything. And here I am getting honked off mail from an abuse account. This irritates me (and not the least that their rationale and their accusation are at best legally squirrely). So I reply to the message with: >>You know, if they want off the list, all they need to do is unsubscribe. >>The instructions are in every digest. And I find it really ludicrous to be >>getting "abuse" histrionics like this when nobody has EVER contacted us to >>try to fix the problem in a rational manner. Every think of ASKING first? >>Because according to my records, nobody ever has. >> >>This kind of garbage is what gives anti-spamming stuff bad names. Save this >>for when following protocol, directions and asking nicely don't work. This >>is a last-resort thing, not a first resort thing. Get your act together, >>folks. >> >>chuq >> And -- it bounces. The return address on the abuse mail was bogus (it was abuse@@xroads.com. Yes, I have no problems naming names here). So I get the bounce back, clean it up. Send it back to the corrected abuse@xroads.com. It bounces -- abuse@xroads.com doesn't exist. No such user. Now, I'm honked. Royally. So I package it up again, and add one more little note to it: >You send mail like this from an account that doesn't exist, and then dare >to judge how others run their mail lists? Sheesh. What a joke. And send THAT off to their root and postmaster address. About ten minutes later, I get it back, with You will be charged storage fees and a complaint will be filed against you in Federal Court for violation of 47USC5.227. attached. Now, the word "honked" no longer remotely applies. In fact, any words that might apply, I can't use on a public mailing list. My first reaction, actually, was "find. Up yours. Have your lawyer write a letter to my laywer. Apple's lawyers love this kind of game". hey, if they TRY to charge for this, bluntly, there's a damn good case for fraud here, folks. But I settled down, nuked all of the accounts off of that site, and greyholed it. And if any of the former subscribers ask me why, I'll tell them. The absolute, unremittent arrogance of that site just astounds me. Part of me would just love goading them into a fight, but that's not my job. Fortunately, I can simply refuse to offer them services, and that way, I don't have to deal with them. Which is what I'll do. And I'll suggest their users go elsewhere if they want my lists. (and when the list is EvangeList, it's funny how quickly a site changes its tune when it sees a chunk of users walking... It's happened twice so far. One site lost 200 subscribers in a week, and suddenly discovered RFC822 after weeks of stonewalling me....) Anyway, a bit of a heads-up if you have these jokers on your list. But also, a bit of a question: do people see this happen much? Once every so often, I'll get email from someone following up an abuse request -- half the time it's a clueless user, half the time it's someone who's e-mail address changed out from under them. All of the time, it gets resolved and the folks on the other side generally sit down with the user and walk them through things. But man, first time I've run into an administrator quite this twitty. Iw as willing to cut them slack until my COMPLAINT sent to their ADMIN account came back with the same GET HOSED response. After that, well, the hell with them.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 19:20:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA07690; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA11664 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id RAA03928; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA44616 ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:21:35 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710220001.RAA10940@server.postmodern.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:20:55 -0700 To: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:01 AM -0700 10/21/97, Michael C. Berch wrote: > I got an explanation from the postmaster at xroads.com yesterday; > yeah, it was a spam filter that got away. Very annoying. Boy, I'm glad you got an answer. I still haven't. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 19:50:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA08370; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA08207 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id SAA04809; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id SAA03243; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710220136.SAA03243@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: chuqui@plaidworks.com CC: listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:41:49 -0700) Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hmmmm...I know the person who runs xroads and he's a pretty decent guy. This kind of BS doesn't sound like him at all. Either something is seriously off or he's the victim of a hack or his user gave him "evidence" that is making him react this way. Or I've misjudged him... I don't blame you for being pissed off (I would be too if I got a letter like that) but maybe you'll get a reasonable response if you write Chris and ask him nicely just what the heck is going on. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 19:58:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA07722; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (kristeva.postmodern.com [198.102.244.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA06697 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) id RAA10940; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710220001.RAA10940@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:01:18 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Cc: Chuq Von Rospach Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I got an explanation from the postmaster at xroads.com yesterday; yeah, it was a spam filter that got away. Very annoying. I agree with Chuq's rant -- I've gotten no less than *4* different sites screwing up spam/content filters and barfing list messages back at me. The funniest was from snds.com, which ran something called "MIMEsweeper" on a Firewalls-Digest message... Well, one of the current threads on Firewalls has the subject line, "sex, lies, and firewall code"; the filter counted 14 occurrences of this line, and, well, any message that mentions "sex" 14 times must be spam or porn, right? So it bounced it to the list owner mailbox. !@#$%&. I'm writing a form letter that will tell people to turn off their content filters for list messages or they're history. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 21:35:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA01251; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (elycion.geology.ualberta.ca [129.128.54.168]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id UAA24243 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA00453 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:42:47 -0600 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710220001.RAA10940@server.postmodern.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:24:22 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 13:01 -0400 10/21/97, Michael C. Berch said: >I agree with Chuq's rant -- I've gotten no less than *4* different >sites screwing up spam/content filters and barfing list messages Yup, ditto and ditto. >I'm writing a form letter that will tell people to turn off their >content filters for list messages or they're history. If the screw-up is under the user's direct control, I just nix him. No message. Let him figure out that he's gone and come back and ask me what happened; I'll be more than happy to tell him. OTOH, if it's the site admin, well, that's a different story. I do warn those folks before toasting them. __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Segmentation Fault: Operating System Not Booted From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 21:44:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA29851; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net ([204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA29767 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04195 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA32539 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:07:16 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:01:18 -0000. <199710220001.RAA10940@server.postmodern.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:07:16 -0700 Message-ID: <32536.877493236@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199710220001.RAA10940@server.postmodern.com>, mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) wrote: >I'm writing a form letter that will tell people to turn off their >content filters for list messages or they're history. When you do, please refer them to: http://www.e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/blacklists.cgi where they can get a very nice set of patterns which they can use to do anti-spam filtering based only upon E-Mail headers, and not upon body text. It has _always_ been quite evident to me that content filters would always be too unreliable to use in practice, and that's why I have never used them and will never use them. My own filtering system relies 100% on analysis of JUST the mail headers for doing E-Mail anti-spam filtering. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 21 23:06:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA14830; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA04161 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA22330 ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:25:11 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710220136.SAA03243@shell7.ba.best.com> References: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:41:49 -0700) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:59:00 -0700 To: cnorman@best.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Cc: listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:36 PM -0700 10/21/97, Cyndi Norman wrote: > I don't blame > you for being pissed off (I would be too if I got a letter like that) but > maybe you'll get a reasonable response if you write Chris and ask him > nicely just what the heck is going on. Um, remember that I *did* send mail to postmaster, and got another flipped-off response. I'm not sure I see any purpose to going and getting flipped off again, just to see if he made a mistake flipping me off the first couple of times... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 22 16:37:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA21073; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA21034 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA30898 ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:35:31 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:35:25 -0700 To: listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com, procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Warning -- new, noxious spam message. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ran into a new Spam today, adn this one has some really dangerous aspects, so I thought I'd send out a warning on it. The Spam was titled something like "you're a winner!", letting you know that you've won some contest. To find out the details, they enclose a Gzipped binary that you need to unpack and execute. It's a PC binary, so us Mac users are relatively safe from this specific one, but... Think about the implications of this one. What's in the executable? You have no clue where it came from, since it's bulk-mailed through forged everything. And do you really want it on your hard disk? Needless, if you're even TEMPTED to find out what's in that gzipped file, do so on a machine that you don't mind being destroyed. God knows what trojan horse, disk-eater or whatever might be lurking in there. And if you have users who might open it up and run it without thinking, better pass the word FAST. This has the potential to really create mayhem among the naive users who don't know any better. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 22 17:10:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA23991; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA00513 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.vnet.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id PAA13757; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA00377; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA06950; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:07:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE Subject: Re: Warning -- new, noxious spam message. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > The Spam was titled something like "you're a winner!", letting you > know that you've won some contest. To find out the details, they > enclose a Gzipped binary that you need to unpack and execute... There's a switch. Potentially, this is an email virus which could actually do naughty things to your system. My guess is that most users who are sophisticated enough to unpack and execute the file are bright enough to not run executables from very suspicious sources. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 22 19:36:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA24160; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub1.liv.ac.uk (mailhub1.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.94]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id TAA23988 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.84] by mailhub1.liv.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.73 #2) id 0xOCyq-0004uW-00; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:26:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:26:26 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Thew X-Sender: qq11@mail.liv.ac.uk To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Warning -- new, noxious spam message. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: The University of Liverpool X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Any chance of some more information, like headers and anything that makes this recognisable? Thanks -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442 On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > Ran into a new Spam today, adn this one has some really dangerous > aspects, so I thought I'd send out a warning on it. > > The Spam was titled something like "you're a winner!", letting you know > that you've won some contest. To find out the details, they enclose a > Gzipped binary that you need to unpack and execute. It's a PC binary, > so us Mac users are relatively safe from this specific one, but... > > Think about the implications of this one. What's in the executable? You > have no clue where it came from, since it's bulk-mailed through forged > everything. And do you really want it on your hard disk? > > Needless, if you're even TEMPTED to find out what's in that gzipped > file, do so on a machine that you don't mind being destroyed. God knows > what trojan horse, disk-eater or whatever might be lurking in there. > And if you have users who might open it up and run it without thinking, > better pass the word FAST. This has the potential to really create > mayhem among the naive users who don't know any better. > > chuq > > -- > Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome > > > Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) > ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) > > > > From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 05:37:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA03563; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp14.netcom.com [163.179.3.18]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id FAA03540 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.01)) id FAA26704; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:25:28 -0700 (PDT) >Return-Path: Received: from sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:25 PDT Received: by chomolongma (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xOMDw-0001gOC; Thu, 23 Oct 97 05:18 PDT Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: If I may have my own rant... To: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:18:48 -0800 (PDT) Reply-To: james@sagarmatha.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This one is aimed specifically at administrators who don't provide meaningful bounce messages. This one is from netcom: System Administration is alleged to have written: -> -> Last Updated: 06/13/96 -> -> ************************************************* -> * This is a computer-generated response message * -> ************************************************* -> -> This mail box no longer exists. Please use one of the following email -> addresses for quicker assistance: -> -> NetCruiser Technical Support support@ix.netcom.com -> (or any account with an @ix.netcom.com address) -> -> Shell and UNIX support support@netcom.com -> Accounting and Billing accounting@netcom.com -> Cancellation Requests cancel@netcom.com -> Generic Information info@netcom.com (auto-response) -> Local Access Problems pop-problems@netcom.com -> Suggestions for Software wishlist@ix.netcom.com No indication of which of the 9 addresses subscribed to this mailing list caused the bounce... -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | Pathetic Gaps in Electricity: james@sagarmatha.com | Twelve power failures in 1997 (as of 9/28) From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 09:52:10 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA14033; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA13894 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA36322 ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:21:02 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:07:21 -0700 To: james@sagarmatha.com, ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:18 AM -0700 10/23/97, James C. Armstrong wrote: > This one is aimed specifically at administrators who don't > provide meaningful bounce messages. This one is from netcom: Gads. I've been meaning to start a web site on this stuff. One of my favorites is ican.net, which, as far as I can tell, bounces the mail to EVERY person in the email if ANY person on the site has a quota violation. MCImail used to be on my hate list, because their errors gave return addresses that were completely irrelevant to anything a user might have signed up for, but I've found they fixed that. And then there's (shudder. gasp) CCmail. Spawn of satan. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 14:08:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA14010; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id LAA13993 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22536 invoked from network); 23 Oct 1997 19:00:33 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 1997 19:00:33 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971023115612.009977b0@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:56:12 -0700 To: murr rhame , Chuq Von Rospach From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: Warning -- new, noxious spam message. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:07 PM 10/22/97 -0400, murr rhame wrote: >On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >> The Spam was titled something like "you're a winner!", letting you >> know that you've won some contest. To find out the details, they >> enclose a Gzipped binary that you need to unpack and execute... > >There's a switch. Potentially, this is an email virus which could >actually do naughty things to your system. My guess is that most >users who are sophisticated enough to unpack and execute the file are >bright enough to not run executables from very suspicious sources. Guess again! PC mailers like Eudora or OutSpook or NetScrape allow you to open and execute a MIME attached file with a single click. Chuq, headers (including Received:) would be most appreciated. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 14:26:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA07280; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA07066 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA46564 ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:46:47 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:26:52 -0700 To: Brian Behlendorf , list-managers@greatcircle.com, listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Warning -- new, noxious spam message. Cc: postmaster@netcom.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Iv'e gotten about a dozen requests for the headers, so here they are. I'm not including the enclosure, since it's 480K. If you want it for examination, e-mail me privately. I'm also ccing this to the netcom postmaster, since it's pretty clear it originated there. >Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:22:56 -0700 >From: root >To: chuqui > >>From rome0@ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 22 13:57:59 1997 >Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) > by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27430 > ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:55:59 -0700 >Received: (from smap@localhost) > by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) > id PAA15230; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:29:30 -0500 (CDT) >Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:29:30 -0500 (CDT) >Message-Id: <199710222029.PAA15230@dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com> >Received: from dsm-ia4-20.ix.netcom.com(205.184.166.148) by >dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) > id rma014244; Wed Oct 22 15:25:06 1997 >X-Sender: rome0@popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified) >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_877559169==_" >To: leromem@aol.com >From: Mendheim Enterprises >Subject: You're A Winner!!!!! >X-Attachments: C:\WINCASH.ZIP; > Message body (minus enclosure) is: >--=====================_877559169==_ >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Download and Unzip attached file for the details. >Good Luck!!!!!!!! > >--=====================_877559169==_ >Content-Type: application/zip; name="WINCASH.ZIP"; > x-mac-type="705A4950"; x-mac-creator="705A4950" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="WINCASH.ZIP" -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 14:36:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA13137; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA13090 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA24781 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11205 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:30:49 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers mailing list archives now available via the web In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:34:06 -0700. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:30:49 -0700 Message-ID: <11202.877642249@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Brent Chapman wrote: >The List-Managers mailing list archives are now available via the web:... Speaking of mailing list archives, I have been tuning up and testing my junk E-mail filtering patterns on three large chunks of mail message collections, i.e.: a) my own saved messages for recent years, b) recent archives of the list-managers mailing list, c) recent (1997) archives of the inet-access mailing list I am now seeking additional recent (i.e. post 1993) archives from additional mailing lists in order to test my junk/spam filter further and to assure that it has the highest possible correct spam detection rate and the lowest possible false positive rate. If any of you out there have been archiving your mailing lists and have those archives available for FTP, please write to me and tell me where I can fetch them. For my purposes, I _cannot_ really make use of archives where each message is stored on the FTP site in a separate file _unless_ your FTP server is able to tar them together for me on your end (_and_ also compress or gzip them on your end) upon my request for a download. Ideally, what I need is archive files where (for example) each month's worth of traffic is already packed together into one big compressed (.Z) or gzipped (.gz) tarfile. Also, for my purposes, the ideal test bed will be drawn from the archives of mailing lists whose subscriber bases cut across all possible lines which might have relevance to headers... e.g. geographical lines and also hardware lines. In other words, lists which are (for example) frequented only/mostly by people in the UK, or only/mostly by Mac enthusiasts are of less use to me than lists which have a more global and platform-diverse membership. (Someone posted recently about some motorcycle mailing list. That kind of thing would be ideal, I think. Or a mailing list dedicated to violin enthusiasts. That kind of thing.) So anyway, if any of you have such FTP-able archives already available for the kinds of diverse-membership lists that I'm most interested in, please do write and tell me where I can fetch them. Thanks. P.S. An as added attraction, if you ask, I'll send you copies of any spams that my filter happens to detect in any archives that are offered to me that I actually end up adding to my test bed. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 23 14:39:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA04493; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA04435 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.102.244.46] by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id NAA21108; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:31:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: brent@honor.greatcircle.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:34:06 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Brent Chapman Subject: List-Managers mailing list archives now available via the web Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The List-Managers mailing list archives are now available via the web: http://www.greatcircle.com/list-managers/archive.html The web versions are updated nightly using MHonArc, and are broken down by month. For each month, there is an index by date, and an index by discussion thread. The main List-Managers web page has also been updated and revised: http://www.greatcircle.com/list-managers/ I intend to add archive search capabilities as soon as I find and install a suitable search engine. I've already considered and rejected Excite for WorkStations because I'm nervous about its security; it's a slick system, and appears quite functional, but it wants to install all sorts of stuff world-writable, and there appears to be no good way to restrict administrative functions separately from the search functions available to the general public. If anybody has any other suggestions for search engines, I'd love to hear about it. -Brent -- Brent Chapman Internet/intranet training and consulting, Brent@GreatCircle.COM specializing in network design and security. Great Circle Associates,Inc. Visit us at http://www.greatcircle.com/ From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 24 01:40:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA24627; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA24620 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.197.48.89] (user-36sacai.dialup.mindspring.com [205.197.49.82]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA06259 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:42:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: met@pop.mindspring.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:39:43 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Mark E. Taylor" Subject: Compuserve problem Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On the Titanic list that I run, I have one list member on Compuserve that keeps having an interesting problem. This person is on the digest version of the list so he looks forward to the daily digest. But, for some unknown reason, the digests will not get through. No error message is received. Now in the past this person has complained and then, without any explanation, the missing digests magically appear in his mailbox. I have sent messages to CIS on his behalf and never got any explanation as to why the digests were not delivered. Now once again this is happening and this poor chap is naturally not happy. Of course I am trying to counsel him to switch to a better provider but he is reluctant to do so. He is a very low tech person so he is very nervous about moving to another provider. Does anyone have any suggestions or similar experiences with CIS on this issue? Or in the alternative is there anyone I can contact directly about it at CIS about this situation? It is odd that whenever we complain the missing e-mail suddenly reappears. But there is never any response, no apologies, no explanations. Almost like talking to an intellegence agency which never comments on anything. Regards, Mark From owner-list-managers-list Fri Oct 24 03:37:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id DAA11773; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (cvobku.cvo.mp.usbr.gov [140.214.189.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id DAA11624 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (MX H5.0) id 9; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:24:02 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:24:02 -0700 From: "Henry W. Miller" To: met@mindspring.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009BC3B4.BD362933.9@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: RE: Compuserve problem Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: MX%"met@mindspring.com" "Mark E. Taylor" 24-OCT-1997 01:43:52.95 > To: MX%"list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" > CC: > Subj: Compuserve problem > On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:39:43 -0700, "Mark E. Taylor" said: "Mark E. Taylor" writes: > On the Titanic list that I run, I have one list member on Compuserve > that keeps having an interesting problem. This person is on the > digest version of the list so he looks forward to the daily digest. > But, for some unknown reason, the digests will not get through. No > error message is received. Now in the past this person has > complained and then, without any explanation, the missing digests > magically appear in his mailbox. I have sent messages to CIS on his > behalf and never got any explanation as to why the digests were not > delivered. Now once again this is happening and this poor chap is > naturally not happy. Of course I am trying to counsel him to switch > to a better provider but he is reluctant to do so. He is a very low > tech person so he is very nervous about moving to another provider. > > Does anyone have any suggestions or similar experiences with CIS on > this issue? Or in the alternative is there anyone I can contact > directly about it at CIS about this situation? It is odd that > whenever we complain the missing e-mail suddenly reappears. But there > is never any response, no apologies, no explanations. Almost like > talking to an intellegence agency which never comments on anything. > > Regards, > Mark > > Mark, I take it that individual email messages are getting through to him? What is the normal size of a digest, in KB? I'd run a test by sending him junk messages starting at 10K, and increasing by 10K until it's obvious that the email is being dropped. That should allow you to make a rough estimate of how big of a message can get through, and allow you to adjust your digest size accordingly. Good luck, -HWM From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 15:23:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA13635; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA13448 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id PAA16047; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26019; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:13:36 -0600 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:18:43 -0400 To: Chuq Von Rospach , ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 12:07 -0400 10/23/97, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone: >At 6:18 AM -0700 10/23/97, James C. Armstrong wrote: >> This one is aimed specifically at administrators who don't >> provide meaningful bounce messages. This one is from netcom: > >Gads. I've been meaning to start a web site on this stuff. I can provide you with a good deal of information for that, if you're serious, Chuq. >MCImail used to be on my hate list, because their errors gave return >addresses that were completely irrelevant to anything a user might have >signed up for, but I've found they fixed that. WebTV (among others) has tried to fill the gap. >And then there's (shudder. gasp) CCmail. Spawn of satan. Close. "And there there are the Lotus products. Spawn of Satan." *My* beef (of course I have one) is all the postmasters who have to invent new bounce formats. Pain in my butt. There ain't nothing wrong with the sendmail default; I've never had anyone write to me and ask "What does '550 User Unknown' mean?" I recently saw one that said something like "Your message could not be delivered because the target was ineffective." Huh? __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man is a woman who enjoys expensive vacations. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 15:53:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA20240; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.112]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id PAA20230 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710252247.PAA20230@honor.greatcircle.com> To: vince@humournet.com cc: chuqui@plaidworks.com, ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:47:42 EDT Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > *My* beef (of course I have one) is all the postmasters who have to > invent new bounce formats. Pain in my butt. There ain't nothing wrong > with the sendmail default; I've never had anyone write to me and ask > "What does '550 User Unknown' mean?" There's a standard now: Delivery Status Notifications, described in RFCs 1891-4. Recent sendmails conform. Let's try to get the rest of the world to do it too. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:22:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA23903; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.111]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id QAA23876 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710252308.QAA23876@honor.greatcircle.com> To: vince@humournet.com cc: chuqui@plaidworks.com, ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:07:52 EDT Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Point is, you're preaching to the choir. Go preach to Lotus. ;-) I'm not a Lotus Notes customer, so they won't listen much to me. Requests from their cusomers will likely have more effect. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:32:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA00480; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id QAA00420 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from loiosh.kei.com (loiosh.kei.com [192.88.144.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-970824-1) with ESMTP id HAA13427 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 07:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ckd@localhost) by loiosh.kei.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA12227; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:42:47 -0400 (EDT) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's References: <28648.877046944@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Christopher Davis Date: 17 Oct 1997 10:42:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of "Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:09:04 -0700" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 19.16 - "Lille" X-Face: I8Alb*-ZdjN\/8k_QR,^l^m6GQB'S-B:}DVP].1HOw#tx:TX$k;Wl;4zqjWR|-jheM#? &beRf(!|0b0m=M~=%.Am>"QEY.(#Ys.%"s?z,hmwp&y0%p>9+T X-Attribution: ckd Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk RFG> == Ronald F Guilmette RFG> blacklisting this particular header gives essentially ZERO false RFG> positives but it kills LOTS of actual spam. A very good way to cut down on false positives, in my experience, is to use a score-based system. X-UIDL is a strong but not certain indicator; so are lots of exclamation points (note: BinHexed files often contain long runs of exclamation points). However, a message containing an X-UIDL header *and* many exclamation points is extremely likely to be unsolicited bulk email. procmail, among others, has a very flexible scoring system. A snippet: *175^0 H ?? ^Received:.*\(may be forged\) *300^0 H ?? ^Received:.*\<(CLOAKED|unknown host)\> *100^1 H ?? ^Received:.*--- If a sendmail along the way notes 'may be forged' (meaning that the in-addr and forward lookups don't match) that's a likely sign; if there's a bogus Received: header, that's a certain sign; for each set of three hyphens in a Received header, add 100 points. Tweaking the scoring system to have a 'whitelist' effect where messages that might otherwise look like UBE (such as order confirmations from online stores which may have prices in the body) get "bonus points" to offset the UBE indications helps lower the false positive rate. Since most UBE will have at least one "strong" indicator and two or more "weak" indicators (body text containing "money" or the like), a scoring system can distinguish those from non-UBE containing only one "strong" indicator (such as X-UIDL) without a false positive hit. "Absolutely certain" indicators (such as the IEMMC X- headers) are given scores high enough to send their messages to the junk bucket without further ado. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:53:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA13399; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (elycion.geology.ualberta.ca [129.128.54.168]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA22938 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA26274; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:07:09 -0600 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710252251.QAA26212@elycion.geology.ualberta.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:12:13 -0400 To: "Roger Fajman" From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Cc: chuqui@plaidworks.com, ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 18:47 -0400 10/25/97, Roger Fajman sent everyone: >> *My* beef (of course I have one) is all the postmasters who have to >> invent new bounce formats. Pain in my butt. There ain't nothing wrong >> with the sendmail default; I've never had anyone write to me and ask >> "What does '550 User Unknown' mean?" > >There's a standard now: Delivery Status Notifications, described >in RFCs 1891-4. Recent sendmails conform. Let's try to get the >rest of the world to do it too. Yup, know all about those; I even reference them in my sample "bitc^H^H^H^Hcomplaints to postmasters" message in the SmartBounce documentation. And they would work just as nicely as the time-tested "550 User Uknown," though I'd gladly take either form. Point is, you're preaching to the choir. Go preach to Lotus. ;-) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man is a woman who enjoys expensive vacations. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:54:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA11482; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA11463 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA11818 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.1.20.167] ([165.1.20.167]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA03402; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710231846.OAA03402@u3.farm.idt.net> Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 14:47:37 -0400 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: William Cox To: "ListMom-Talk Discussion List" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq wrote: >Gads. I've been meaning to start a web site on this stuff. [snip] >And then there's (shudder. gasp) CCmail. Spawn of satan. Vince Sabio is collecting samples of these so SmartBounce can be real smart. I gave him some from Notes, Amadeus MBLink (a gateway), DEC Message Router, DEC VMSMail Gateway (MRGATE), and more things on our network. I understand Novell GroupWise and Microsoft Exchange are none too swift either. I'm sure the folks in the NOTARY working group might appreciate the humor. /cwc -- "We have no intention of shipping another bloated operating system and forcing that down the throats of our Windows customers." --Microsoft Group Vice President, Paul Maritz _ComputerWorld_, 28 July 1997 From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:54:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA10601; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA10572 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mrin41.mail.aol.com (mrin41.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA27131 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:18:56 -0700 (PDT) From: LJKpublish@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin41.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA09113; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971023011949_-1610454098@mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: ListMom-Talk@skylist.net, listmom-talk@skyweyr.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: A bit of a rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net wrote: >Excuse me, but I've got a bit of a rant here. It's called "obnoxious admins". Although you are free to use your own terms, from the description I might categorize it as "incompetent admins". I can envision someone setting up an automatic batch job to produce the output you got, and not thinking the possibilities through (like the user had _requested_ the mailings). I think there are a lot more incompetent people than obnoxious people in computerdom. So what is the difference ? You get the same reaction in either case, but unlike your thesis of "obnoxious", with "incompetent" there is absolutely no hope of getting them to behave differently by persuasion. No matter if their users demand it, they will not magically become competent. I believe your only recourse is what you did, so at that point then it is necessary to step back and view the interchange dispassionately as just a part of life. Don't get personally upset by the incompetents of the world, they have you and yours grossly outnumbered. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 17:55:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA10998; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id RAA10968 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sky.net (solar.sky.net [198.70.175.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA11207 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sky.net.sky.net (ip46.kc.sky.net [206.230.165.46]) by sky.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18664 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:28:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971023082857.006c6820@sky.net> X-Sender: price@sky.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:28:57 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Allen Rice Subject: While we are ranting.... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Coming out of lurk mode... What do you guys do about subscribe attempts that bounce to you because they went to the wrong address? I use Eudora and filter them to automatically reply with a generic script "Your message was sent to the wrong address. To subscribe, send a message to.... blah blah blah." It's very simplistic, and very direct. So here's the source of my rant. One particular luser sent (improperly formatted) sub commands to every address possible with the exception of the right one. The list posting address, the owner address, even my own damn PERSONAL address, but never the subscription address. This continued daily for a week, and finally at the end of the week I got a note from the sysadmin of his ISP stating that "Your autoresponder is broken or configured incorrectly." What a bunch of crap. The sysadmin apparantly never asked for the messages this guy was sending and getting back or anything. If you are a sysadmin, and a customer complains about something, PLEASE follow through to see what it is and don't assume the luser is right (he rarely is... I know, I do tech support for a living.) Well, it felt good to unload. It's the little things, y'know? Paul ------------------------------------------------------------ (o)(o) Paul Allen Rice > Listowner: CircleJoke and Underground Mailing Lists \/ Homepage: ------------------------------------------------------------ "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky, University of California ------------------------------------------------------------ Support the anti-Spam amendment, go to http://www.cauce.org ------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 18:23:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA18371; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id SAA18298 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA00566 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 08:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA10894 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA00746 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:31 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA30878 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:26 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199710241536.KAA30878@celery.tssi.com> Subject: sunyjefferson.edu To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:25 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One of my lists had 10 addresses from stumail.sunyjefferson.edu added to it this week, 7 of them within a few minutes of each other. It looks like they all came through a CCmail gateway within that domain. I've taken them all off my lists on the theory that this was either a malicious act on someone's part or some kind of class exercise. One of them returned numerous encoded posts back to my list with the word 'UNSCRIBE' as the subject, I took that to be a somewhat clueless attempt to unsubscribe. -- Mike Nolan nolan@tssi.com From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 18:25:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA15417; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA15154 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA10414 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA00675 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:03:39 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Oct 1997 10:42:47 -0400. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:03:39 -0700 Message-ID: <672.877827819@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Christopher Davis wrote: >RFG> == Ronald F Guilmette > > RFG> blacklisting this particular header gives essentially ZERO false > RFG> positives but it kills LOTS of actual spam. > >A very good way to cut down on false positives, in my experience, is to >use a score-based system. Forgive me, but I already built and tested a scrore-based system previously, and it did not work well at all. Is it really necessary to compute a complicated (and potentially ambiguous) score value from some piece of mail from Cyberpromo or nevwest? My own experience is that attempting to do so is overkill and that it in fact tend to lead to more errors (both false positives and false negatives) being made. >X-UIDL is a strong but not certain indicator; Having myself checked on the order of 60,000 messages, I can say with some certainty that it is in fact a certain indicator of spam. I have gotten zero false positives checking for this. (Previously I reported having one false positive on X-UIDL, but a review of my log files indicates that I was wrgong about that, and the false positive in question was in fact due to a different header altogether.) >so are lots of exclamation points I agree that body text is _always_ ambiguous, and that is why my own filter does not perform any examination or checking on either body text or on Subject: line text. It is far too easy to get false positives by doing that. >procmail, among others, has a very flexible scoring system. A snippet: > >*175^0 H ?? ^Received:.*\(may be forged\) >*300^0 H ?? ^Received:.*\<(CLOAKED|unknown host)\> >*100^1 H ?? ^Received:.*--- I must again emphasize that scoring is not generally necessary in order to do good spam detection. In fact your own example illustrates this. If you see the word `CLOAKED' in a Received: header, do you really believe that there is _any_ chance whatsoever that the message in question is anything other than spam? >"Absolutely >certain" indicators (such as the IEMMC X- headers) are given scores high >enough to send their messages to the junk bucket without further ado. Right, and as it turns out, there are more than enough ``absolutely certain'' indicators in the vast majority of all spam, that scoring is not even necessary, and in fact may be counterproductive. X-UIDL: is one such unambiguous indicator of spam. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 19:38:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA06800; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.wasatch.com (ns.wasatch.com [204.99.129.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA06754 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LOCALNAME (209.63.78.49) by mail.wasatch.com with smtp (Linux Smail3.2.0.94 #1) id m0xPIaF-000Sb9C; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:37:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3452B8C5.224D@wasatch.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:28:05 -0700 From: "W. David Samuelsen" Reply-To: "W. David Samuelsen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: New Spammer address hard to block, etc! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Any idea how to bust the new spammer domain address. nevwest.com (it is showed to be a member of iemmc.org) I already blacklisted nevwest.com in all forms: @nevwest.com nevwest.com nevwest.nevwest.com @nevwest.nevwest.com cybertize-email.com @cybertize-email.com I will be very glad to forward the headers to anyone asking for it to figure it out. nevwest.com started Oct 17th after Cyberpromtions was kicked off the AGIS servers. To date I received about 15 of them! Covered many different subjects - even dirty ones. W. David Samuelsen From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 21:23:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA25625; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA25560 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18226 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA05977 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:23:51 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:25 -0500. <199710241536.KAA30878@celery.tssi.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:23:50 -0700 Message-ID: <5974.877839830@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199710241536.KAA30878@celery.tssi.com>, nolan@tssi.com wrote: >One of my lists had 10 addresses from stumail.sunyjefferson.edu added to it >this week, 7 of them within a few minutes of each other. > >It looks like they all came through a CCmail gateway within that domain. > >I've taken them all off my lists on the theory that this was either a >malicious act on someone's part or some kind of class exercise. One >of them returned numerous encoded posts back to my list with the word >'UNSCRIBE' as the subject, I took that to be a somewhat clueless attempt >to unsubscribe. Well, now that the topic has been braoched (at least indirectly) there is something... and issue... that I have been meaning to raise specifically with the people on this list for awhile now... like ever since I got onto the list. I came here in part to chat about spam filtering (a subject which is obviously as near and dear to the hearts of many on this list as it is to me) but primarily, I can here to raise one much bigger issue, which has had me absolutely fuming on two separate occasions in the past two weeks. I have not discussed this widely (yet) but two addresses on my company server system, and also have been subjected to two separate subscription bombing attacks within the past two week. Each one involved 84 different mailing lists, essentially none of which employ a standard subscription confirmation protocol (i.e. requesting an affirmative E-mail response from the new subscriber, with- out which the tenative subscription will harmlessly expires of its own accord). I am still here, and still on-line, so obviously I was able to survive these premeditated attacks, but each one was quite disruptive and took quite a lot of time and effort to cleanup. Not only did I have to wade through tons of useless mail to get to my _real_ mail, but I also had to go around and bug (in some cases several times to people who apparently don't even speak English and who have no desire to learn) to take me off of their *&^$#@@&&%#$^& lists. In the majority of cases, the list admins wrote me back expressing surprise and saying ``But when you went to this web page and signed up, you were asking to be on our list!'' (This was _after_ I has sent them all a quite detailed and elaborate message explaining that my address had been forged, and that I had been subjected to a subscription bomb.) In short, the majority of the list admins involved displayed a density rivaling that of lead. This fact of course meant that I had my work cut out for me when (in my always hopeful frame of mind) I attempted to convinve essentially all of them of my belief that running a list _without_ a subscription validation protocol which requires a confirmation from the (alleged) new subscriber was at the very least anti-social, and at worst bordering on criminal. They all just keep saying ``But it is so easy to go to our web site and get subsubscribed!'' ``Great!'' I said, ``But what if I had just been leaving for a three month vacation when this subscription bombing was starting? I would have come back to a full disk a a crashed server!'' ``But this has never happend before!'' they all protested. ``It has happened now!'' I said ``And someone out there with evil intent now knows about this web page where he/she can go to sign up people to 84 mailing lists at a time almost effortlessly! So I think you can bet that although this was the first time, it won't be the last.'' ``But making people reply before we finalize their subscriptions would be a hassel for our legitimate subscribers!'' they all said. ``Swell.'' I said. ``So you don't mind screwing a few people so long as your legitimate customers are not inconvenienced.'' Mots of these approximately 84 E-Mail conversations tapered off to nothing, right about at this point in the conversation. (Of course in the case of the French and Brazillian lists I was subscribed to, things never made it anywhere near this far, because the list admins in question apparently were unable to read even my original nasty-grams demanding to be taken off their lists, and thus, only some small scale mailing-bombings of the relevant admin addresess proved sufficient in these cases to actually trigger my removal from these particular lists.) So anyway, I think that this story has made it clear what _my_ feelings are about mailing lists that do not require active confirmations of sub- scriptions. (Basically, I think that running such lists is every bit as negligent as giving a teenager the keys to the car _and_ to the liquor cabinet.) Now I would like to listen to some other people's opinions on this. The fundamental question (as far as I am concerned) and the one I would like to see there be some discussion of here is just this... Is it morally or ethically defensible to run a mailing list on the net in this day and age in such a way that it can be abused to cause (or at least contribute to) potentially massive harm to other individuals or businesses on the net? If not then why are people still doing it? P.S. I actually feel fortunate. I was only signed up for 84 lists in each of two separate incidents. I have recently heard a rumor about one fellow who had complained about some spam to the spammer's ISP and who subsequently ended up on THOUSANDS of lists. This is the kind of thing that could po- tentially put a small business whose main interactions with its customers is via E-Mail out of business for good. I hope we never see that actually happen. P.P.S. I used to think that spam and ordinary mail-bombing were bad. But I've now had a nice first hand demonstration of the fact that those are just like so-called Saturday Night Specials (handguns) whereas subscription bombs, if done on a sufficiently large scale, are more like nuclear weapons by comparison. I am serious when I say that I think this sort of thing is a real threat to essentially everyone on the net. _Anyone_ could be next. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Sat Oct 25 21:38:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA28082; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (elycion.geology.ualberta.ca [129.128.54.168]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA28011 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA27369; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 22:37:44 -0600 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971023082857.006c6820@sky.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:41:18 -0400 To: Paul Allen Rice , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: While we are ranting.... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 9:28 -0400 10/23/97, Paul Allen Rice vented: >So here's the source of my rant. One particular luser sent (improperly >formatted) sub commands to every address possible with the exception of the >right one. The list posting address, the owner address, even my own damn >PERSONAL address, but never the subscription address. This continued daily >for a week, and finally at the end of the week I got a note from the >sysadmin of his ISP stating that "Your autoresponder is broken or >configured incorrectly." REPLY: "Your user is broken or configured incorrectly. If you fix your user, I won't have to fix my autoresponder." __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man is a woman who enjoys expensive vacations. From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 26 04:23:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id EAA22927; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:13:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from pentioum90.silverquick.com (mail.omegaweb.co.uk [194.205.38.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id DAA17208 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 03:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [194.205.38.50] by pentioum90.silverquick.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma270672 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:47:35 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971026113744.0090fdf0@post.silverquick.com> X-Sender: gordon@post.silverquick.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:40:30 +0000 To: "Roger Fajman" From: Gordon Burns Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Cc: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 19:07 25/10/97 EDT Roger Fajman said.... >> Point is, you're preaching to the choir. Go preach to Lotus. ;-) > >I'm not a Lotus Notes customer, so they won't listen much to me. >Requests from their cusomers will likely have more effect. Lotus Notes are the bain of my life at times. There appears to be a configuration setting that is easy to get wrong and it insists on putting a space either side of the @ like so; fred @ freds.co.uk We have one newsletter with many employees from two companies that use Lotus Notes/mail it is a constant headache. The problem is that they can not believe that it is Lotus that get it wrong "it must be you". These are users, not in the least interested in the nechanics, their firm has "world leading software" and they just want the newsletter. You can not blame them, getting into a mud slinging match with Lotus is a waste of time. Now that I have mounted the hooby horse, does anyone know if CIS have some sort of multiple Rcpt ban operating against spammers? We have a constant problem with some CIS users not receiving mail ( a 6K newsletter so I do not beive it is size) It has suddenly got worse. We run one newsletter with around 6000 CIS members among the subscribers and another with 1000 both reported all sorts of probelms in the last publication. Does anyone have an address that one can complain to at CIS? I can never ever get any sort of response from them. G.Burns Publisher DealerDeals - The UK Car Finance Email Newsletter "Don't buy a New Car in the UK without it!" http://www.dealerdeals.co.uk/info.htm mailto:info@dealerdeals.co.uk +44 1326 373077 +44 1326 373088 From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 26 08:38:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA20254; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA20202 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:27:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10168 ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:29:28 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19971023082857.006c6820@sky.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 09:22:53 -0700 To: Vince Sabio , Paul Allen Rice , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: While we are ranting.... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:41 PM -0700 10/25/97, Vince Sabio wrote: > REPLY: "Your user is broken or configured incorrectly. If you fix your user, > I won't have to fix my autoresponder." Can't fix my autoresponder. It ain't broke. (grin) chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Sun Oct 26 08:43:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA19961; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (elycion.geology.ualberta.ca [129.128.54.168]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA19952 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by elycion.geology.ualberta.ca (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA29275; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 09:27:27 -0700 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19971026113744.0090fdf0@post.silverquick.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:29:41 -0500 To: Gordon Burns , "Roger Fajman" From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Cc: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think that the juxtaposition of these two statements says it all on this subject ... ** Sometime around 6:40 -0500 10/26/97, Gordon Burns sent everyone: >At 19:07 25/10/97 EDT Roger Fajman said.... >> >>I'm not a Lotus Notes customer, so they won't listen much to me. >>Requests from their cusomers will likely have more effect. >[...] You can not blame them, getting into a mud slinging >match with Lotus is a waste of time. You've got that right, Gordon. *sigh* __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com HumourNet: Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man is a woman who enjoys expensive vacations. From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 00:48:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA14808; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id AAA14760 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:43:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26914 invoked from network); 27 Oct 1997 08:43:12 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.eris.dera.gov.uk (128.98.2.2) by ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 27 Oct 1997 08:43:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 32451 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 1997 08:43:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5852 invoked from network); 27 Oct 1997 08:43:12 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (128.98.2.7) by mail-relay.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 27 Oct 1997 08:43:12 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: validity of Message-Id's Organization: IT Vulnerabilities Group, DERA Malvern, UK References: <672.877827819@monkeys.com> In-reply-to: <672.877827819@monkeys.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:43:11 +0000 Message-ID: <19403.877941791@cray.eris.dera.gov.uk> From: Christopher Samuel Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <672.877827819@monkeys.com>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes: > X-UIDL: is one such unambiguous indicator of spam. No it's not unambiguous, I have had one valid message turn up in my "uce" folder which had a X-UIDL: header. Basically they'd resent (as in just resubmitted the message to their MTA with no new headers) a message (also not spam) they'd received to a list I was on. Unfortunately their POP server had put an X-UIDL header in and their MUA had not stripped it out. -- Christopher Samuel +44 1684 894644 C.Samuel@eris.dera.gov.uk N-115, Defence Evaluation & Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Malvern, UK DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are entirely those of the author and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any other entity. From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 11:33:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA22269; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from netguide.com (nexus.netguide.com [199.108.80.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id LAA22141 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from delundel.netguide.com by netguide.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05729; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:29:34 -0800 Message-ID: <3454EBD0.7FA1@netguide.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:30:24 -0800 From: David Lundell Reply-To: delundel@netguide.com Organization: CMP Media, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Managers CC: rfg@monkeys.com Subject: Re: verification II (was: Re: sunyjefferson.edu) References: <5974.877839830@monkeys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [snip] > > So anyway, I think that this story has made it clear what _my_ feelings > are about mailing lists that do not require active confirmations of sub- > scriptions. (Basically, I think that running such lists is every bit as > negligent as giving a teenager the keys to the car _and_ to the liquor > cabinet.) Now I would like to listen to some other people's opinions > on this. The e-mail newsletters I coordinate were among the mailing lists Mr. Guilmette. found himself dealing with as a result of a mail bomb attack. My thoughts on the subject: The first thing I did when I found out that Mr. Guilmette was subscribed to our mailing lists mailiciously was to send a note to this list asking for input on the verification issue. Specifically, I asked whether there is any ethical imperative to verify subscriptions and whether most people felt it was a good idea. Most people said that it's really up to each list owner, and that there isn't really an ethical responsibility to do so. But the overall consensus was that it is simply a good thing to do so that you don't have to deal with angry victims of mail bomb attacks, and besides, it doesn't have a serious impact on list growth, so "better safe than sorry." This pretty much confirmed how I felt (except that I do believe that for most list owners verification is the right thing to do from an ethical standpoint), and we decided to move forward with putting a verification system in place. I do not feel, on the other hand, that mailing list owners which don't verify subscribers are criminal, or even negligent. But it is part of being a good net citizen. > > The fundamental question (as far as I am concerned) and the one I would > like to see there be some discussion of here is just this... Is it morally > or ethically defensible to run a mailing list on the net in this day and > age in such a way that it can be abused to cause (or at least contribute > to) potentially massive harm to other individuals or businesses on the net? > If not then why are people still doing it? Most people simply don't realize the importance of it. Most list owners are relatively new, and some people are simply taken by surprise at events such as the one you described. Naive, maybe, but negligent, no. As I said, I raised this topic a couple weeks ago, and I'll forward to you the responses if you wish. > In short, the majority of the list admins involved displayed a density > rivaling that of lead. I hope that I am not among those you describe here. At any rate, if I may interject some advice here, it is this: I know that you feel you have been wronged here, and there is no doubt of that. But if the first correspondence you sent to me regarding the attack is any indication of the type of message you send to other admins, I think I see a possible reason for the communication problem. My first message from you was an angry threat, not an opening to discussion on the issue. I know that you wanted action on our part, not discussion, but retaliating to an event such as this with threats to parties who might otherwise be sympathetic to your request will not help your cause. Lastly, I think we need to understand each other's view point. You seem to see yorself as the victim of two parties: the mail bomber, and the borderline-criminal list owners. I see you as a victim of the mail bomber. That is not to say that our mailing list system should have been set up to prevent such abuse -- I agree that it should have. But we'll all be better off if we work together on these issues, not as enemies (i.e. please don't flame me -- I am honestly trying to be helpful). Thanks, David Lundell Producer, E-mail Products CMPnet | http://www.cmpnet.com From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 13:22:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA11125; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:11:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA11048 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22082 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15291 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:11:43 -0800 To: List Managers Subject: Re: verification II (was: Re: sunyjefferson.edu) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:30:24 -0800. <3454EBD0.7FA1@netguide.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:11:42 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.877986702@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3454EBD0.7FA1@netguide.com>, delundel@netguide.com wrote: >The e-mail newsletters I coordinate were among the mailing lists Mr. >Guilmette. found himself dealing with as a result of a mail bomb attack. >... >As I said, I raised this topic a couple weeks ago, and I'll forward to >you the responses if you wish. Thank you but I don't think that will be necessary. My assumption is that now that I myself have also raised this issue here, I can see how people feel on the subject, based upon my onw rant. >> In short, the majority of the list admins involved displayed a density >> rivaling that of lead. > >I hope that I am not among those you describe here. No, in fact I would characterize you as the exception that proves the rule, just on the basis of the fact that you _did_ take the time to join this mailing list and to try to seek out some other, independent opinions on this issue of subscription verifications. That alone proves that that you are both more clueful and more sensitive to the potential effects of list abuse than the vast majority of the other list owners whoses lists were misused to harass me. I salute your openness to new ideas, and the good sense you displayed by (a) coming to this list and (b) soliciting more opinions on the topic of subscription verification. But how many of those other 83 list admins whose lists were also abused to harass me even took the time to find this mailing list?? Nary a one, I gather. Most of them seem to either not get it, or else they just don't care. >At any rate, if I >may interject some advice here, it is this: I know that you feel you >have been wronged here... Excuse me, but this is something more than a mere ``feeling''. I *was* wronged, and when I catch the bastard that did it, I'm going to make him pay dearly for it in a court of law.... and I *am* going to catch him. >... and there is no doubt of that. But if the first >correspondence you sent to me regarding the attack is any indication of >the type of message you send to other admins... It was. In response to this overwhelming attack on my site I drafted a single ``form letter'' nasty-gram which I sent to all involved list admins. >... I think I see a possible >reason for the communication problem. My first message from you was an >angry threat, not an opening to discussion on the issue. You were expecting maybe a kiss on the lips and an ``atta boy''?? Sorry, but I was in no frame of mind to be kind to the 84 folks who, in my opinion, had helped to make it possible to perpetrate this crime. (And no, I am _not_ stretching the definition of the word ``crime'' in any sense. This attack involved _several_ violations of federal laws, most notably the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.) >I know that you wanted action on our part... That's putting it mildly. >... not discussion, but retaliating to an event >such as this with threats to parties who might otherwise be sympathetic >to your request will not help your cause. I agree that my nasty-grams were of no help whatsoever in some cases, in particular the ones I sent to the list admins in France and Brazil, neither of whom (it seems) were able to adequately appreciate my finely honed verbal venom, owing to the fact that they didn't even speak English. But in other cases, I think that whatever words I used to clarify just how extrodinarily pissed off I was about these subscription bombing incidents may in fact have been useful in leaving no doubt in the minds of the recipients about the degree of seriousness I attached to these incidents. >Lastly, I think we need to understand each other's view point. You seem >to see yorself as the victim of two parties: the mail bomber, and the >borderline-criminal list owners. I see you as a victim of the mail >bomber. Yes, and if I get shot tomorrow by some fool with a Saturday Night Special that he bought from a kitchen-table gun dealer who failed to perform _his_ due diligence in doing a background check on the perp before selling him a gun, then I shall likewise hold that gun dealer partly responsible for _that_ crime. >That is not to say that our mailing list system should have been >set up to prevent such abuse -- I agree that it should have. But we'll >all be better off if we work together on these issues, not as enemies >(i.e. please don't flame me -- I am honestly trying to be helpful). I am not flaming you, and I shall not flame you. As I have said above, I think that you are probably the _only_ one from your group of 84 list admins who was even willing to admit to himself/herself that there may be a problem, or that it was even possible that there may be some amount of social responsibility associated with running a mailing list. For that you have my appreciation and my respect. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 23:18:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17381; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA17373 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:17:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from NrgUp.Com (garbo.nrgup.com [208.150.70.114]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id EAA29014 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 24191 invoked by uid 501); 26 Oct 1997 07:43:27 -0500 Message-ID: <19971026074327.46238@NrgUp.Com> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 07:43:27 -0500 From: Jonathan Bradshaw To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Netcom's broken mail host Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.81 X-Mailer-Info: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/ X-Operating-System: Linux Garbo 2.0.30 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am getting rather annoyed. For at least a couple of weeks, I am seeing that Netcom's server is spitting this back at me: Connected to 192.100.81.142 but sender was rejected./Remote host said: 451 ... Domain must resolve 142.81.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer mail6.netcom.com Ok, so, out of the 2,000+ deliveries yesterday that were made, only Netcom can't figure out how to do DNS properly. No other hosts are complaining. I've checked my primary and secondary DNS hosts, they are fine. I've sent mail to them, and got NO RESPONSE. Anyone else having problems with them? -- Jonathan Bradshaw (Jonathan@NrgUp.Com) | Novell 4.x CNE | Ham Call N9OXE 1024 PGP Key fingerprint EA 16 1B 5D 5D 94 6B 06 58 FD E6 E9 52 F3 6E 11 Better drowned if duffers, if not duffers, won't drown | CPT/DPMA/PURDUE From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 23:33:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA18526; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA18513 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:22:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA18349 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d13.dial-2.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.45]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14191) with SMTP id PAA06092; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:18:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971026201947.00a08d50@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:19:47 -0500 To: ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: If I may have my own rant... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:40 AM 10/26/97 +0000, Gordon Burns wrote: >Lotus Notes are the bain of my life at times. There appears to be a >configuration setting that is easy to get wrong and it insists on >putting a space either side of the @ like so; > >fred @ freds.co.uk > >We have one newsletter with many employees from two companies that >use Lotus Notes/mail it is a constant headache. The problem is >that they can not believe that it is Lotus that get it wrong "it must be you". That's *LEGAL* though, as are many uglier forms. See RFC 822. What are you using that chokes on that? Cheers, Stan From owner-list-managers-list Mon Oct 27 23:49:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA20341; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:33:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA18680 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA11896 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:04:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26666 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA03816 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:05:14 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:58:47 +0000. <199710261904.LAA29943@monkeys.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:05:14 -0800 Message-ID: <3813.877907114@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199710261904.LAA29943@monkeys.com>, amys@iquest.net wrote: >On 25 Oct 97 at 21:23, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> I am still here, and still on-line, so obviously I was able to survive >> these premeditated attacks, but each one was quite disruptive and took >> quite a lot of time and effort to cleanup. Not only did I have to wade >> through tons of useless mail to get to my _real_ mail, but I also had >> to go around and bug (in some cases several times to people who apparently >> don't even speak English and who have no desire to learn) to take me off >> of their *&^$#@@&&%#$^& lists. > >You know Ron, we are people too and quite frankly, had I received a >request even remotely worded like that I would have ignored it (for >your own protection). Why? Because I NEVER subscribe someone to one >of my lists and I'm assuming that even if you were subscribed against >your wishes... Even if?? I was. That's the truth. >... you received welcome letters that gave you explicit >instructions on how to unsubscribe. So do most of the E-mail spams that I get. What's your point? _My_ point is that I do not believe that it should be incombant upon me to wade through some convoluted procedure (either web-based or mail based) ...which by the was was different and unique for each of the lists that was used to subscription bomb me... for dozens and dozens of lists that I never asked to be on in the first place. Seriously, this is no different that what most spammers do... They sign you up to _their_ lists and then force you to jump through _their_ hoops to get off of _their_ *&^$#@@&&%#$^& lists. And in any case, just because that first ``greeting'' message often (but not always) gives instructions for getting off the list, that still isn't terribly useful if I happen to be out of town (either on vacation of on an extended business trip) at the time the subscription bomb is initiated. As I mentioned earlier, the excuse that instructions are given for getting one's self off the list doesn't really wash, given this potentially dis- asterous possibility. >Secondly, I don't like being talked to like that. And I _really_ don't like being subscription bombed with the help of badly configured mailing lists (and their operators), so that would make us even, yes? >On the other hand, I have removed all non-confirming WWW gateways >that only require you put in an address for the very reason you've >stated. Good. I think that is a good first step, and I applaud you for that. But if you still accept (and finalize) subscriptions based upon a single (possibly forged) subscription request sent in via _any_ medium (e.g. E-mail) then your list can still be abused by unscruplous individuals intent upon causing harm to others. >> In the majority of cases, the list admins wrote me back expressing surprise >> and saying ``But when you went to this web page and signed up, you were >> asking to be on our list!'' (This was _after_ I has sent them all a quite >> detailed and elaborate message explaining that my address had been forged, >> and that I had been subjected to a subscription bomb.) > >Like somehow they were at fault? In my opinion, yes. In a court of law, this is what is commonly called ``contributory negligence''. The analogy I used before was giving a teenager the keys to the car _and_ to the liquor cabinet. Another analogy might be leaving a box of rocks with a sign on the box saying "drop me" on a freeway overpass where adolecents may come upon them and think that it is an exceptionally clever idea to see what happens when a few of the rocks come into contact with passing windshields. >If you had the wherewithall to get >their addresses to send them this "elaborate message"... It ain't that hard. My MUA (Rand UCI/MH) puts the envelope from address into a Return-Path: header so that I can easily see where errors are supposed to be sent. >... why didn't you just take yourself off their list... Again, I feel forced to point out that this is ``spammer speak''. Most people who have ever complained about being spammed have had the experience (at least once) of having the spammer write back and say ``I don't see why you sent me this complaint. If would have taken you less time to just follow the directions and get yourself taken off of our mailing list.'' The bottom line is that I don't do that because I don't just want the spammers to stop doing what they are doing to _me_... I want them to stop doing what they are doing to _everybody_. Likewise in the case of mailing list admins that operate lists that don't require subscription validation before finalizing subscriptions. Sure, I could just do the expedient thing and get just _my_ address removed, but that's not the point. What about the next poor dumb schmuck who gets victimized by one of these subscriptions bombs?? _You_ may not care about him or his mailbox or his life or his business, but I do. I don't think that _anybody_ deserves the kind of enormous hassle that results from these sorts of subscription boms involving non-validating lists, and I'd like to see this whole net-wide threat ended. >...and then send them a message that >their list is open to this kind of abuse. Oh swell. Now you are saying that while I am tearing my hair out and trying to clean up the enormous mess that resulted from a subscription bomb, you expect me to send not one but _two_ messages for each badly run lists that is participating in bombing me, just on the theory that doing so would be more polite in some vague way. Sorry, but in the heat of battle, my preferred course of action was to send off _one_ message to each list admin, hoping to kill two birds with one stone in each case, with the messages saying (in so many words) ``You and your list are participating in a subscription bombing attack on my account/server. Please remove me from your list(s) and please also fix your lists so that they cannot be abused in this same way ever again.'' >I found out quite by >accident that my smartlist based list had virtually no security in >this area, which is the reason why I removed it from the LWgate web >site. You found out by accident??? Maybe what we need is some sort of big warning lable on the side of Majordomo, Listserv, and all other mailing list packages saying ``WARNING: Improper configuration and use of this software can cause serious harm to your fellow netizens! Proceed with caution!'' See, this is the _real_ issue I am griping about... i.e. the fact that so many lists admins out there don't even seem to know before they startup their lists that this kind of abuse is possible or that it _does_ happen. Of course I also have a serious beef with the lists admins that don't care even when they _are_ told that their lists can be used to cause harm to innocent third-parties, and I have a *real* serious beef with mailing list packages (like one I heard about for Windows NT) that doesn't even offer the capability of running a lits with a subscription validation protocol. (One list admin told me that LISTSERV for Windoze NT is in this category. Can anyone else verify that?) >> In short, the majority of the list admins involved displayed a density >> rivaling that of lead. > >Probably not. I would imagine they dug in their heels. Is there any functional difference between these two assertions? Sounds like we are just saying the same thing in two different ways. >> This fact of course meant that I had my work cut out for me when (in my >> always hopeful frame of mind) I attempted to convinve essentially all of >> them of my belief that running a list _without_ a subscription validation >> protocol which requires a confirmation from the (alleged) new subscriber >> was at the very least anti-social, and at worst bordering on criminal. > >LISTSERV has a "global" delete feature that allows you to be removed >from every LISTSERV list, which can be handy in this manner. I assume that this feature you are talking about operates on a per-site basis, and no over the entire Internet, correct? Assuming so, that information comes as little comforrt to me, as I was being subscription bombed by 84 different lists hosted on 84 different sites all around the world. >Any other list that allows commands to be put in the subject (Lyris, >Smartlist) could have been put in a boilerplate kind of message. So >if you had put all the -request addresses and one LISTSERV address... Yes, yes, yes. But you are still missing the point that not only did *I* want *this* subscription bomb to be terminated, but I also wanted the *threat* of subscription bombing attacks to be lessened for the sake of _all_ netizens everywhere and for all time.... not just for today, but for tomorrow and the next day, and the day after that. Do you see what I mean? What is the point of me going through the elaborate exercise of doing what you suggest if the perp (whoever he/she is) could just turn around and do the same thing to me all over again the very next week? (And in fact, this is _exactly_ what happened to me.) You see, you are being short-sighted and just suggesting short-term methods for dealing with the _symptoms_ of the disease, but you don't seem to even be thinking about how to cure the disease itself. >Up until recently, subscription validation was not an issue. Really? Seem to me that I have been reading about such things for YEARS now. >In fact, I would still choose ability to customize, ease of use, easy >on the resources over subscription validation in searching for a good >list management package. See, that's the kind of attitude that irks me. It's kinda like saying ``Screw the public good and the public welfare. It's a lot easier for me just to dump these barrels of toxic waste into a river over in the next county... where I personally won't have to deal with the consequences of that... than it is for me to try to deal with this is a more socially responsible manner.'' >> They all just keep saying ``But it is so easy to go to our web site and >> get subsubscribed!'' > >or take yourself off. When I was using LWGate over half of the >subscriptions and unsubscribes came through the web. Yes, but again, this is ``spammer speak''. It shouldn't be _my_ job to take myself off of lists that I did not ever request to be on. And I have a srong tendency to try to annoy (to the maximum extent possible) people who think that they can or should shove such responsibilities unfairly onto _my_ back. I have plenty of other stuff to do every day, and I *really* dislike people who (either by acts of comission or omission) try to create more work for me without paying me. >> ``Great!'' I said, ``But what if I had just been leaving for a three month >> vacation when this subscription bombing was starting? I would have come >> back to a full disk a a crashed server!'' > >I'm having a little problem with this argument for obvious reasons. I see. And what ``obvious reasons'' are those exactly? Whatever they are, they are _not_ in the least bit obvious to me. >> ``But this has never happend before!'' they all protested. > >Probably not. It has probably never happened before that anyone has committed murder by tying someone up and having 3,000 little Radio Shack robots slice them up into little pieces with X-acto knives either, but it would still be a crime if it happened. >> ``Swell.'' I said. ``So you don't mind screwing a few people so long as >> your legitimate customers are not inconvenienced.'' > >This is quite alright as long as you remember every time you stand in >line while someone's check is validated (or their credit card) or you >are asked to be inconvenienced (like having packages searched) in a >store. Everyone should be inconvenienced because of the evil intent >of a few. I _do_ understand it, and I _do_ accept the reasonable things that we all have to go through these days because of ``the evil intent of a few''. I stand and wait patiently for my turn to go through the metal detector everytime I go to the airport, and sometimes I even thank the attendants for helping to insure my safety. >Before you get all upset,... Oh, its far too late to stop me from doing _that_. I was upset from the first moment that I realized that I had been subscription bombed. >... I use confirmation for all lists run on my >site, and my web site does, too. Good! You are one of the Good Guys/Gals! I applaud you for taking the job of list admin seriously, and for doing it in a responsible fashion. >And trust me, it is a hassle for the legitimate subscribers. A minor hassle, yes. So are metal detectors at airports, but I for one am still damn glad that they are there. >However, it has eliminated the >bad addresses, subscription errors, and malicious subscribes. Yes. >It also requires that the subscriber have their brain engaged when they >subscribe. Yes. >BUT, I don't do it for "you", the victim (or potential >victim). I do it for me. Regardless of the reason, I'd like to thank you anyway. >Running lists is a "hobby" for me. I don't >get paid for it and I can't be spending hours every day doing a lot >of hand-holding. And while I would have probably responded to a plea >of help that you have been maliciously signed onto 84 lists by >removing you, my response to anything remotely worded that it was my >fault or responsibility that you were on one of my d*#Q lists would >have gotten a complaint mailed to YOUR ISP. Which would have been utterly pointless, because I already know that my ISP sides with _me_ when it comes to badly run mailing lists. Anyway, I guess that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree about the proper response to a subscription bomb. Personally, I went out of my way to be as annying as I could be to the admins of all of the lists that I was subscription-bombed onto that didn't require subscription vali- dations before finalizing the subscriptions. I felt this was most than justified because (as I have said) I think that such lists are being run in a highly anti-social manner. >After all, there is a >right and a wrong way to deal with this kind of thing and the way you >chose to deal with it was, in my opinion, very very wrong. You chose >to be a jerk about it and yell at the list owner who didn't have >anything to do with your situation... Again, I beg to differ. My feeling is that any list admin who sets up a list in such a way that it does not require an affirmative response from the (alleged) new subscriber _before_ the subscription is finalized _does_ have a lot to do with the amount of grief and work created by one of these subscription bombing attacks, and that they are thus guilty of contributory negligence, and deserve to be chastized for that. >> So anyway, I think that this story has made it clear what _my_ feelings >> are about mailing lists that do not require active confirmations of sub- >> scriptions. (Basically, I think that running such lists is every bit as >> negligent as giving a teenager the keys to the car _and_ to the liquor >> cabinet.) Now I would like to listen to some other people's opinions >> on this. > >I would say that most list owners don't have a heck of a lot of >choice over what list management software they are using and try to do >the best job they can do with the tools they have as most of them are >"off site" list owners who are essentially being granted the "gift" >of resources to run a list. Granted. But how many list admin software packages these days fail to include this capability of doing subscription validations via a (required) return E-mail from the (alleged) new subscriber? >Most of us are adults and most of us are above average in computer >ability, as site managers don't have the time or desire to train up >list owners... Oh, I'm well aware of that! (I had the audacity to suggest to one Vice President of a mid-sied ISP that his company should consider trying to tell the owners of lists run from his site at least the basics about modern list administration, _and_ about the possibility for abuse of mailing lists, and he essentially just laughed at me.) >... so they don't hand out lists to just anybody who wants to run one. Wrong. Most ISPs these days _do_ give out list creation/management privl- eges to essentially anybody who asks for them. And if it ain't the ISP directly doing this, there are also (apparently) great swarms of net-newbies who have arrived in the past couple of years, many of who are running their own lists off of their own Windoze dial-up machines. >> The fundamental question (as far as I am concerned) and the one I would >> like to see there be some discussion of here is just this... Is it morally >> or ethically defensible to run a mailing list on the net in this day and >> age in such a way that it can be abused to cause (or at least contribute >> to) potentially massive harm to other individuals or businesses on the net? >> If not then why are people still doing it? > >You could ask the same thing about letting *just anyone* have an >email account. Indeed, as a vigorous fighter of spam, I _do_ often ask that exact question. But I am pragmatic enough to realize that (despite what would be best for the net) there will never be any such thing as an ``E-mail driver's license''. But I think that mailing lists, especially when considered en mass (i.e. as in the total sum of all mailing lists now in existance on the net) are capable of doing far more damage and grief than any single spammer ever was, so I view this as a more pressing problem. >> P.S. I actually feel fortunate. I was only signed up for 84 lists in each >> of two separate incidents. I have recently heard a rumor about one fellow >> who had complained about some spam to the spammer's ISP and who subsequently >> ended up on THOUSANDS of lists. This is the kind of thing that could po- >> tentially put a small business whose main interactions with its customers >> is via E-Mail out of business for good. I hope we never see that actually >> happen. > >The "average joe" computer user in business is not going to attract >this kind of ire. It's mainly those of you who are very outspoken >about spam that have something to be concerned about. Oh! Well I guess that makes it OK then, right? What about Satanists or Marxists or Peruvian Rebels? Is it a good idea for the net to be organized and/or administered in such a way they can effectively get bombed off the net by a single dedicated lunatic? Maybe that hasn't happened (yet), but there is nothing to say that it could not happen, given the present situation with mailing lists. >So while I sympathize with your plight, you are barking up the wrong >tree as to who should be "responsible" for dealing with your >unfortunate mishap. And when The Dali Lama of Tibet gets bombed off the net by some Chinese government bureaucrat signing _him_ up for 5,000 mailing lists, and when he has to give up _his_ old E-mail address for good, you will likewise shrug your shoulders and say ``Well, that's what you get for being so controversial.'' I hope that you see what I am driving at. Yes, you are correct that there is undoubtedly a direct correlation be- tween being controversial and being subscription bombed. No, this does not mean that the subscription bombs are the fault of the victim, or that the victim deserves what happens to him, or that such things should just be allowed to happen. (It is also no longer acceptable to just shrug and write off any case of criminal rape by just saying ``Well, you see, she was wearing this really tight short dress...'') >Commercial list software or list services are >out of the financial reach of most listowners (which is why running >lists on university machines is highly desirable as actual costs can >be buried) and the free list management software is done gratis and >is not and should not be the developer's primary focus. While I've >seen security tighten up considerably in the last couple of years, >the overall philosophy of the internet community is still pretty open. I don't think this is mostly an issue of what is or isn't available technology-wise. I think it is mostly a matter of will and of the acceptance of personal responsibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many/most/all of the free list admin packages now include subscription validation capabilities?? If so, and if people just are being too lazy to use those capabilities, then _that_ is the problem. >As the Internet has become more of a commercial entity and less of a >community entity, and the overall "dumbing down" of the whole process >of being online, there is going to be more of this kind of thing >happening. And again, while I deeply sympathize with your situation >the individual list owners were not part of the problem... I continue to disagree, respectfully. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 00:02:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA20096; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV ([140.214.189.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA20073 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:32:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV (MX I5.0) id 29; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:31:44 -0800 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:31:43 -0800 From: "Henry W. Miller" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com CC: henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009BC6B8.F28773BA.29@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: FWD: New qmail anti-spam system Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Submitted, for your approval: (and by the approval of the author) a message post to the qmail list earlier today by Russ Nelson, concerning proposed DNS extensions and an extension to the qmail system for fighting spam. -HWM Just about now, Paul Vixie and our own John Levine are on a panel at NANOG (North American Network Operator's Guild) giving a presentation on various anti-spam measures. One of these measures is Paul's MAPS (Mail Abuse Protection System), and the associated RBL (Realtime Blocking List). Paul publishes this list based on recommendations he receives from various spam fighters. He's taking those measures to a new level by publishing the RBL via DNS records. The RBL was previously only available via a BGP feed, and a signed agreement with Paul. qmail users can now make use of the RBL without needing to know anything about BGP, and without prior arrangement with Paul. http://www.qmail.org/rbl has patches for qmail and ucspi. Apply the patches, reinstall, and your incoming spam will be greatly reduced without any effort on your part. And you'll help the anti-spam effort by making a listing in the RBL much more feared by spammers. -- -russ http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson | Freedom is the Crynwr Software supports freed software | PGPok | primary cause of peace. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Taxes feed the naked Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | and clothe the hungry. From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 00:09:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA18397; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:21:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA18386 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from stinson.amys-answers.com ([205.160.203.108]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA06770 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:03:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710261903.LAA06770@honor.greatcircle.com> Received: from basement (205.161.197.98) by stinson.amys-answers.com (LSMTP Lite for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.5DCF8EA0@stinson.amys-answers.com>; 26 Oct 1997 13:59:24 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Amy Stinson" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:58:47 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu Reply-to: amys@iquest.net References: Your message of Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:36:25 -0500. <199710241536.KAA30878@celery.tssi.com> In-reply-to: <5974.877839830@monkeys.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 25 Oct 97 at 21:23, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > I am still here, and still on-line, so obviously I was able to survive > these premeditated attacks, but each one was quite disruptive and took > quite a lot of time and effort to cleanup. Not only did I have to wade > through tons of useless mail to get to my _real_ mail, but I also had > to go around and bug (in some cases several times to people who apparently > don't even speak English and who have no desire to learn) to take me off > of their *&^$#@@&&%#$^& lists. You know Ron, we are people too and quite frankly, had I received a request even remotely worded like that I would have ignored it (for your own protection). Why? Because I NEVER subscribe someone to one of my lists and I'm assuming that even if you were subscribed against your wishes, you received welcome letters that gave you explicit instructions on how to unsubscribe. Secondly, I don't like being talked to like that. On the other hand, I have removed all non-confirming WWW gateways that only require you put in an address for the very reason you've stated. > In the majority of cases, the list admins wrote me back expressing surprise > and saying ``But when you went to this web page and signed up, you were > asking to be on our list!'' (This was _after_ I has sent them all a quite > detailed and elaborate message explaining that my address had been forged, > and that I had been subjected to a subscription bomb.) Like somehow they were at fault? If you had the wherewithall to get their addresses to send them this "elaborate message" why didn't you just take yourself off their list and then send them a message that their list is open to this kind of abuse. I found out quite by accident that my smartlist based list had virtually no security in this area, which is the reason why I removed it from the LWgate web site. > In short, the majority of the list admins involved displayed a density > rivaling that of lead. Probably not. I would imagine they dug in their heels. > This fact of course meant that I had my work cut out for me when (in my > always hopeful frame of mind) I attempted to convinve essentially all of > them of my belief that running a list _without_ a subscription validation > protocol which requires a confirmation from the (alleged) new subscriber > was at the very least anti-social, and at worst bordering on criminal. LISTSERV has a "global" delete feature that allows you to be removed from every LISTSERV list, which can be handy in this manner. Any other list that allows commands to be put in the subject (Lyris, Smartlist) could have been put in a boilerplate kind of message. So if you had put all the -request addresses and one LISTSERV address in a distribution list and put UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject and unsub * (netwide in the body, you would have only been stuck with the majordomo lists to deal with. Up until recently, subscription validation was not an issue. In fact, I would still choose ability to customize, ease of use, easy on the resources over subscription validation in searching for a good list management package. Fortunately, I didn't have to do that. > They all just keep saying ``But it is so easy to go to our web site and > get subsubscribed!'' or take yourself off. When I was using LWGate over half of the subscriptions and unsubscribes came through the web. > ``Great!'' I said, ``But what if I had just been leaving for a three month > vacation when this subscription bombing was starting? I would have come > back to a full disk a a crashed server!'' I'm having a little problem with this argument for obvious reasons. > ``But this has never happend before!'' they all protested. Probably not. > ``It has happened now!'' I said ``And someone out there with evil intent > now knows about this web page where he/she can go to sign up people to > 84 mailing lists at a time almost effortlessly! So I think you can bet > that although this was the first time, it won't be the last.'' > > ``But making people reply before we finalize their subscriptions would > be a hassel for our legitimate subscribers!'' they all said. > > ``Swell.'' I said. ``So you don't mind screwing a few people so long as > your legitimate customers are not inconvenienced.'' This is quite alright as long as you remember every time you stand in line while someone's check is validated (or their credit card) or you are asked to be inconvenienced (like having packages searched) in a store. Everyone should be inconvenienced because of the evil intent of a few. Perhaps it teaches that one's intent should not be evil because all bear the burden. Before you get all upset, I use confirmation for all lists run on my site, and my web site does, too. And trust me, it is a hassle for the legitimate subscribers. However, it has eliminated the bad addresses, subscription errors, and malicious subscribes. It also requires that the subscriber have their brain engaged when they subscribe. BUT, I don't do it for "you", the victim (or potential victim). I do it for me. Same reason why I have autodelete and a rotating instructional banner at the bottom of every message that's posted to the list(s). Running lists is a "hobby" for me. I don't get paid for it and I can't be spending hours every day doing a lot of hand-holding. And while I would have probably responded to a plea of help that you have been maliciously signed onto 84 lists by removing you, my response to anything remotely worded that it was my fault or responsibility that you were on one of my d*#Q lists would have gotten a complaint mailed to YOUR ISP. After all, there is a right and a wrong way to deal with this kind of thing and the way you chose to deal with it was, in my opinion, very very wrong. You chose to be a jerk about it and yell at the list owner who didn't have anything to do with your situation, any more than a person has anything to do with receiving spam. > So anyway, I think that this story has made it clear what _my_ feelings > are about mailing lists that do not require active confirmations of sub- > scriptions. (Basically, I think that running such lists is every bit as > negligent as giving a teenager the keys to the car _and_ to the liquor > cabinet.) Now I would like to listen to some other people's opinions > on this. I would say that most list owners don't have a heck of a lot of choice over what list management software they are using and try to do the best job they can do with the tools they have as most of them are "off site" list owners who are essentially being granted the "gift" of resources to run a list. So I don't agree with your analogy. Most of us are adults and most of us are above average in computer ability, as site managers don't have the time or desire to train up list owners, so they don't hand out lists to just anybody who wants to run one. > The fundamental question (as far as I am concerned) and the one I would > like to see there be some discussion of here is just this... Is it morally > or ethically defensible to run a mailing list on the net in this day and > age in such a way that it can be abused to cause (or at least contribute > to) potentially massive harm to other individuals or businesses on the net? > If not then why are people still doing it? You could ask the same thing about letting *just anyone* have an email account. And some of us feel the computer itself is a lethal weapon in the hands of an illiterate user. But, as I'm fond of saying, "Every expert was once a beginner." I'm sure you didn't have to show a high level of list management proficiency to be granted access to this list, but here you are anyway. This forum exists for those of us who want to become better at what we do, however it's not a requirement to be here just as it's not a requirement to actually manage a list to be a subscriber. Those of us who use this list as a tool to become better managers really appreciate the time, effort and energy people such as Michael and Brent (and the other majordomo workers), Eric, Stephen and Anastasio put into making list management more flexible (and possible). I think it's sad that Michael has had to resort to moderating this list in order to block UCE and it has resulted in a lot more work for him to run the list as well as a delay in messages being posted (if he doesn't recognize your email address), but he did it to protect US from spam (Thanks, Michael). > P.S. I actually feel fortunate. I was only signed up for 84 lists in each > of two separate incidents. I have recently heard a rumor about one fellow > who had complained about some spam to the spammer's ISP and who subsequently > ended up on THOUSANDS of lists. This is the kind of thing that could po- > tentially put a small business whose main interactions with its customers > is via E-Mail out of business for good. I hope we never see that actually > happen. The "average joe" computer user in business is not going to attract this kind of ire. It's mainly those of you who are very outspoken about spam that have something to be concerned about. I personally have had an elaborate filtering system set up on my system to delete spam and upon occasion I have taken a moment to send a comment to certain companies that I don't do business with telephone solicitors and I've expanded that philosophy to UCE. But I gave up going after any spammer long ago. My delete key works fine and it doesn't give anyone any ammunition to target me for the kind of thing you have dealt with. So while I sympathize with your plight, you are barking up the wrong tree as to who should be "responsible" for dealing with your unfortunate mishap. Commercial list software or list services are out of the financial reach of most listowners (which is why running lists on university machines is highly desirable as actual costs can be buried) and the free list management software is done gratis and is not and should not be the developer's primary focus. While I've seen security tighten up considerably in the last couple of years, the overall philosophy of the internet community is still pretty open. As the Internet has become more of a commercial entity and less of a community entity, and the overall "dumbing down" of the whole process of being online, there is going to be more of this kind of thing happening. And again, while I deeply sympathize with your situation the individual list owners were not part of the problem, nor should any of your angst been directed toward them. Sincerely, Amy Amy Stinson Amy's Answers LLC Phone (317) 885-1741 Fax (317) 885-6589 From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 00:15:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA23254; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:49:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA23233 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA26909; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:49:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA32298; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:50:31 -0800 To: Jonathan Bradshaw Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Netcom's broken mail host In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 26 Oct 1997 07:43:27 -0500. <19971026074327.46238@NrgUp.Com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:50:31 -0800 Message-ID: <32295.878025031@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19971026074327.46238@NrgUp.Com>, you wrote: >I am getting rather annoyed. For at least a couple of weeks, I am seeing that >Netcom's server is spitting this back at me: > >Connected to 192.100.81.142 but sender was rejected./Remote host said: 451 P-request@NrgUp.Com>... Domain must resolve > >142.81.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer mail6.netcom.com > >Ok, so, out of the 2,000+ deliveries yesterday that were made, only Netcom >can't figure out how to do DNS properly. No other hosts are complaining. I've >checked my primary and secondary DNS hosts, they are fine. > >I've sent mail to them, and got NO RESPONSE. > >Anyone else having problems with them? Your forward lookup does not match your reverse lookup, which may explain why you are having a problem: % nslookup NrgUp.Com Server: eagle.ns.net Address: 204.75.146.20 Non-authoritative answer: Name: NrgUp.Com Address: 208.150.70.114 % nslookup 208.150.70.114 Server: eagle.ns.net Address: 204.75.146.20 Name: garbo.nrgup.com Address: 208.150.70.114 I believe that some plaaces are now starting to filter out mail from sites where doing a forward and then a reverse doesn't get you back the same domain name. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 00:18:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA23509; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:52:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA23482 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA17594 ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:52:12 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971026074327.46238@NrgUp.Com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:49:06 -0800 To: Jonathan Bradshaw , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Netcom's broken mail host Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:43 AM -0800 10/26/97, Jonathan Bradshaw wrote: > I am getting rather annoyed. For at least a couple of weeks, I am seeing that > Netcom's server is spitting this back at me: Heck, it's fairly normal for see to see a small rash of rejected messages (mostly 500s, so they bounce their users mail) in my error box. Heck, while I might even understand it for plaidworks, since it's fairly small (but had reliable, diverse DNS), I see it *constantly* at Apple, too. And I *know* Apple's DNS isn't going down and we aren't dropping off the net. I don't even think twice about it any more... > Connected to 192.100.81.142 but sender was rejected./Remote host >said: 451 ... Domain must resolve Heck -- at least Netcom is smart enough for it to be a 400 message, so it requeues and hopefully delivers the next time. Most sites bounce it if it fails once. There are some subscribers where I can almost guarantee they're losing 3-5% of their mail from my sites this way. > I've sent mail to them, and got NO RESPONSE. > > Anyone else having problems with them? Now, having said that -- Netcom's been causing general problems with my lists. Their servers are showing classic signs of overload again, with lots of deferred messages that need to be retried later, timeouts, and just plain old not-home-now-go-away refusals. And if their servers are being beaten to death trying to keep up with the load, I'll bet their server's DNS is a bit flakey, too. So I'm not surprised. I've even had one user write me to complain about how slow my mail list has gotten recently. I sent him the logs showing how many times netcom refused to accept the mail before it let him have it... Right now, as we speak, in fact, my mail queue has 260 batches in it. 52 of them are because netcom deferred accepting mail and I'm sitting waiting to retry. Tonight it seems to be ix.netcom.com, but most nights, it's both that and the netcom.com side of things. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 01:48:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA05866; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id AAA00132 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:34:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21089 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 1997 08:33:30 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu References: <3813.877907114@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:05:14 -0800 Date: 28 Oct 1997 00:33:30 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > Maybe what we need is some sort of big warning lable on the side of > Majordomo, Listserv, and all other mailing list packages saying > ``WARNING: Improper configuration and use of this software can cause > serious harm to your fellow netizens! Proceed with caution!'' Yes. We do. Seriously. It should be *difficult* in a list management program to set up a list with open subscription. Difficult and covered in a lot of warnings. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 13:18:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA27573; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:14:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA27548 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway.tssi.com [198.147.197.29]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18041 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:14:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA19435 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:36:41 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA01196 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:40 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199710282116.PAA01196@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:40 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Although I think Ronald is being unnecessarily prolix, I think his basic point is worthwhile. List managers _do_ need to seriously consider switching to some kind of affirmative response subscription mechanism if they haven't already done so. I know I will be looking into this for my lists. I don't know that it is the ultimate solution, but until a better one comes along it is probably a necessary step. -- Mike Nolan From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 13:48:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA02221; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA02200 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03743 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22817 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:48:42 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:40 -0600. <199710282116.PAA01196@celery.tssi.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:48:42 -0800 Message-ID: <22814.878075322@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199710282116.PAA01196@celery.tssi.com>, Mike Nolan wrote: >Although I think Ronald is being unnecessarily prolix... I hate it when I have to drag out my dictionary just to find out if I should be offended or not. :-) My dictionary says ``tedious and wordy''. I just want to clarify that I'm like that ALL OF THE TIME, not just when I'm ranting. (I got the tedious and wordy gene from my father's side.) >I think his basic >point is worthwhile. List managers _do_ need to seriously consider >switching to some kind of affirmative response subscription mechanism if >they haven't already done so. > >I know I will be looking into this for my lists. Thank you. You are a gentleman. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 17:49:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA15209; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:39:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA15181 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29394 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 01:39:02 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 01:39:02 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971028173508.008de260@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:35:08 -0800 To: rfg@monkeys.com, Jonathan Bradshaw From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: Netcom's broken mail host Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <32295.878025031@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:50 PM 10/27/97 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >I believe that some plaaces are now starting to filter out mail from sites >where doing a forward and then a reverse doesn't get you back the same >domain name. Which is 100% broken. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 18:27:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA19236; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.greene.com (mailhost.greene.com [204.254.225.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA19204 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:08:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from vicon.viconet ([207.17.227.184]) by mailhost.greene.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-34903U200L100S0) with SMTP id AAA169 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:09:55 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971028210655.006a8b24@mailhost.everythingemail.com> X-Sender: greg.elin@mailhost.everythingemail.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:07:13 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Greg Elin Subject: MSN attachment problems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Does anyone have experience with attachments to/from/through MSN? Specifically, what form of encoding does MSN use for attachments? Where might I go to learn more about encoding. Thanks! From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 22:18:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA22268; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from bbfm.di.com (bbfm.di.com [209.64.54.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA22228 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange.di.com by bbfm.di.com with ESMTP id WAA19791 for on Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:06:50 -0800 Received: by exchange.di.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:06:29 -0800 Message-ID: From: Todd Day To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: List owners are a public nuisance? Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:06:26 -0800 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>It's kinda like saying "Screw the public good and the public welfare. It's a lot easier for me just to dump these barrels of toxic waste into a river over in the next county... where I personally won't have to deal with the consequences of that... than it is for me to try to deal with this is a more socially responsible manner."<<<< Ron, perhaps you'll get a more enthusiastic response from list owners in your quest to improve the list subscription process when you stop comparing their mailing lists to Superfund sites. What could possibly be more socially responsible than to actively promote the free communication between peoples of shared interests all over the globe regardless of race, creed, or color? List owners are the last of the world's pure altruists. -todd- From owner-list-managers-list Tue Oct 28 23:03:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA26006; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id WAA25973 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14417 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 06:48:55 -0000 Received: from dave.armchair.mb.ca (HELO dave) (198.163.115.50) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 06:48:55 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029005156.00c356b0@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:51:56 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:06 PM 10/28/97 -0800, Todd Day wrote: >List owners are the last of the world's pure altruists. That may be true, but I think Mr. Guilmette's point is that some of us altruists are leaving loaded high-powered weapons where small children can play with them. A list without confirmation mechanisms is the closest thing we have to a loaded 'net weapon. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 00:18:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA08945; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:03:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA07819 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA05987 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA05724 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:57:47 -0800 cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:06:26 -0800. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:57:47 -0800 Message-ID: <5721.878111867@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Todd Day wrote: >>>>>It's kinda like saying "Screw the public good and the public >welfare. It's a lot easier for me just to dump these barrels of toxic >waste into a river over in the next county... where I personally won't >have to deal with the consequences of that... than it is for me to try >to deal with this is a more socially responsible manner."<<<< > >Ron, perhaps you'll get a more enthusiastic response from list owners in >your quest to improve the list subscription process when you stop >comparing their mailing lists to Superfund sites. OK. Noted. I will admit that my analogies get a bit more colorful than they need to be at times. Bt please do look past that and try to appreciate the point I was making. >What could possibly >be more socially responsible than to actively promote the free >communication between peoples of shared interests all over the globe >regardless of race, creed, or color? Ummmm... How about actively promoting the free communication between peoples of shared interests all over the global regardless of race, creed, or color _and_ doing so in a manner which does not involve the potential for serious harm to anyone or to any business? >List owners are the last of the world's pure altruists. I think that in general you are quite correct, and I have certainly not ever intended to suggest otherwise. It is perhaps worthy of note however that not all lists have strictly altrustic motivations, and that mailing lists, just like the net itself, are now being more and more frequently used for less-than-altrustic reasons, specifically commercial ones. (Of course there is nothing wrong with that. It is just something that we outght to keep in mind when discussing these sorts of policy issues.) I do not mention this increasing prevalence of commercially-oriented mailing lists to make any particular point. I _do_ feel that the majority of all lists on the net are, as you noted, being administered and provided for primarily altrustic reasons. I just felt compelled to mention also the increasing prevalence of commercially oriented lists on the net these days because (as it happens) most of the lists that were misused and abused to bomb me recently were in fact commercially-oriented ones. (I could just as easily have been subscribed to a zillion strictly altrustic lists, I suppose, but that's just not the way it played out, so I am just slightly more ticked off at the net's current population of commercially-oriented list admins who don't do subscription verifications than I am at the set of _all_ list admins who don't do subscriptions... at least at present. Give me a week and I'll probably get over it. :-) One thing that I believe that I _can_ say about the newer breed of commercially-oriented list admins is that they are vastly _less_ likely to be willing to heed my pleas for responsible list administration policies (in particular, subscription verifications) that are the managers of good old-fashioned altrustic lists because the commercially-oriented list admins seem to place a much higher emphasis on their (misguided?) notions about how to ``avoid inconveniencing their legitimate subscribers''. At least I found this to be true for many of the commercially-oriented list admins that I have exchanged E-mail with lately. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 00:49:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA11049; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA11001 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA33584 ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:20:52 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029005156.00c356b0@armchair.mb.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:19:57 -0800 To: Dave Voorhis , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:51 PM -0800 10/28/97, Dave Voorhis wrote: > That may be true, but I think Mr. Guilmette's point is that some of us > altruists are leaving loaded high-powered weapons where small children can > play with them. I might argue with the analogy, but I understand the essence. But frankly, you generally don't change people's minds by walking up to them and slapping them in the face while screaming "you realize what an idiot you are? huh?" -- less enthusiastic discussion tends to minimize people's normal reaction to strangers bitching at them.. As someone with a foot in both camps, as someone who's been slammed onto lists by twits, I can see why when it happens to you, it pisses you off royally.As someone who's job it is to help clean up the mess the slammers do to people, I can ALSO say I don't appreciate it when the poor person who got slammed takes it out on me. Polite, or at least controlled grumpiness, goes a long way. > A list without confirmation mechanisms is the closest > thing we have to a loaded 'net weapon. I could argue that point for a long time, actually, but given the time and what the topoc of this list is supposed to be, I'll spare everyone. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 06:48:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA03137; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:35:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from commedia.cnds.jhu.edu (commedia.cnds.jhu.edu [128.220.231.250]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA03080 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by commedia.cnds.jhu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA23832; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:35:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:35:12 -0500 From: David Shaw To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu References: <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.85 In-Reply-To: <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com>; from List-Managers-Digest on Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 02:40:03AM -0800 X-PGP-Fingerprint: D79D345/1048/93 5A E2 39 4A 2A 45 A3 ED 46 9F F1 26 45 37 DF X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Crescent (4% of Full) X-Uptime: 9:16AM up 12 days, 22:44, 11 users, load averages: 0.26, 0.23, 0.22 X-Current-Email-Backlog: 231 X-Pointless-Random-Number: 180 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 02:40:03AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ronald F Guilmette writes: > > > Maybe what we need is some sort of big warning lable on the side of > > Majordomo, Listserv, and all other mailing list packages saying > > ``WARNING: Improper configuration and use of this software can cause > > serious harm to your fellow netizens! Proceed with caution!'' > > Yes. We do. Seriously. > > It should be *difficult* in a list management program to set up a list > with open subscription. Difficult and covered in a lot of warnings. Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list confirmation system. The thing is - what does this do to your average clueless luser? Speaking as someone who routinely gets *scribe requests to every possible address _except_ majordomo, and who has seen people reply to a list message with "t a k e m e o f f" and quote the whole messsage, INCLUDING the un*sub instructions attached to every message, I have serious doubts of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list confirmation IS! Let's face it - in many cases, we're talking less than two functioning brain cells here. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@cs.jhu.edu | WWW http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~dshaw/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 08:33:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA20130; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA20112 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:21:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from User.wco.com (rock29.wco.com [199.4.109.129]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id IAA18312; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:20:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:20:36 -0800 To: Dave Voorhis From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029005156.00c356b0@armchair.mb.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:51 AM 10/29/97 -0600, Dave Voorhis wrote: >That may be true, but I think Mr. Guilmette's point is that some of us >altruists are leaving loaded high-powered weapons where small children can >play with them. A list without confirmation mechanisms is the closest >thing we have to a loaded 'net weapon. Well, then, consider me armed and dangerous. I have no confirmation mechanisms for my lists. It's not that I don't want them. I have pleaded for them. However, the software on the site where my lists are hosted does not have up to date software with auto-confirm features. Some day, I am told, that will change. It may be months ahead, however. And I know that I am not alone in my circumstances. The best I have been able to come up with is to delay approval of subscription requests by a few days. This is inconvenient to my would-be subscribers, but it does help would-be victims avoid getting a ton of new list mail all at once. I don't have time to manually confirm each subscription request, but the delay has seemed to help. Just a tip for any other list-managers who may be "packin'" even though they don't want to do anyone harm. Todd -- Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 08:48:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA21124; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA21115 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.5/1.2.3) id JAA22898 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:37:16 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199710291637.JAA22898@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:37:15 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list confirmation > system. The thing is - what does this do to your average clueless luser? No doubt it confounds a few of them. Personally, I don't think it's much of a loss. All my lists are run under majordomo 1.94.x with +confirm turned on; I've read the instructions that get sent out and they're reasonably clear and straightforward. Anyone who can't figure out how to follow them is also going to have problems following the general rules of conduct for my lists -- and my lists are likely much better off without anyone that clueless on board. Your mileage may vary, of course; if you're running a support group for people who can't read or follow instructions, you may very well have a case for not enabling confirmation on that list. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm with Ron -- I think that given the current environment on the net, any list admin who has the option available but doesn't use it is being very irresponsible. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 09:04:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA21405; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeus.achilles.net (zeus.achilles.net [198.53.206.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA21380 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.53.6.21] (shadow.void.achilles.net [205.233.55.132]) by zeus.achilles.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA11720 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:43:01 -0500 X-Sender: grant@pop1.achilles.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> References: <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com>; from List-Managers-Digest on Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 02:40:03AM -0800 <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:44:37 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Grant Neufeld Subject: List confirmations (was: sunyjefferson.edu) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:35 AM -0500 10/29/97, David Shaw wrote: >Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list confirmation >system. The thing is - what does this do to your average clueless luser? ... >I have serious doubts >of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list confirmation IS! Which is why one of the things on my plate for the list-headers group is to define a standard confirmation message format that can be interpreted by mail client applications. The client app can then, in turn, present a 'friendly' interface for the confirmation. We're just wrapping up the core list header field definition, so will hopefully be able to move on to this in the next month or so. website: http://arpp.carleton.ca/listspec/ List-Help: List-Subscribe: -- grant@acm.org grant@kagi.com http://arpp.carleton.ca/ O- <*> I accept MIME PGP: 4077 8306 9115 94B0 CEA6 F4F4 3B9A 9482 D158 7B9A From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 13:18:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA13798; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA13756 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10816 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27119 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:12:11 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List confirmations (was: sunyjefferson.edu) In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:44:37 -0500. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:12:10 -0800 Message-ID: <27116.878159530@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >At 9:35 AM -0500 10/29/97, David Shaw wrote: >>Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list confirmation >>system. The thing is - what does this do to your average clueless luser? >... >>I have serious doubts >>of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list confirmation IS! > >Which is why one of the things on my plate for the list-headers group is to >define a standard confirmation message format that can be interpreted by >mail client applications. The client app can then, in turn, present a >'friendly' interface for the confirmation. In my most fanciful utopian daydreams, war and hunger will be ended, and end users would be able to just click on some check-box on the visual interface to their mail clients, just before they send a message, in order to assert that ``I am now sending a subscription request to a mailing list''. That in turn would cause the mail client to (a) remember the name of the mailing list and (b) prep itself to automagically send back the confirmation response when the subsequent confirmation request arrives from the list management software. By 2017 we'll probably have stuff that works this simply. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 13:34:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA13317; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:07:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA13294 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA42196 ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:06:54 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710291637.JAA22898@kitsune.swcp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:04:39 -0800 To: "Lazlo Nibble" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (lm) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:37 AM -0800 10/29/97, Lazlo Nibble wrote: > No doubt it confounds a few of them. Personally, I don't think it's >much of a > loss. All my lists are run under majordomo 1.94.x with +confirm turned on; > I've read the instructions that get sent out and they're reasonably clear and > straightforward. I think the MJ stuff could be improved a bit, but it's pretty good. If the docs are good and they can't figure it out, then yeah, I don't feel too bad. Although if you run lists aimed at naive/novice users, you sort of have an issue with this -- can't be TOO novice or you can't get on the list? If they aren't able to follow directions well enough to get on the list, what are the chances these people will be able to follow directions well enough to deal with the netiquette issues? Answer: not bloody likely. A couple of times a week, I get a "I can't figure this out -- just sign me up!" demand. I turn them down, too. First, it's not unprecendented for mailbombers to try that to get around the confirm stuff (ditto using the "subscribe fredslist spammedaddress" command to see if the admins are just approving stuff in autopilot), but I've found while researching these error casts that 90+% of them are folks who haven't read the instructions. Many times, tried something ONCE and then went off and whined for daddy... I dunno, I just have trouble feeling sympathy for folks who won't meet me even 10% of the way towards the middle.... This is one reason why I try to track both error rates and error trends on my lists. To see not how many users can't make it work, but what percentage, and why. That way you can target fixing up the weak spots in the docs and not waste time on things that don't really cause problems.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 13:51:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA15440; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA15392 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA11305 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA27375 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:19:56 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:20:36 -0800. <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:19:55 -0800 Message-ID: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com>, "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> wrote: >At 12:51 AM 10/29/97 -0600, Dave Voorhis wrote: >>That may be true, but I think Mr. Guilmette's point is that some of us >>altruists are leaving loaded high-powered weapons where small children can >>play with them. A list without confirmation mechanisms is the closest >>thing we have to a loaded 'net weapon. > >Well, then, consider me armed and dangerous. I have no confirmation >mechanisms for my lists. It's not that I don't want them. I have pleaded >for them. However, the software on the site where my lists are hosted does >not have up to date software with auto-confirm features. Some day, I am >told, that will change. It may be months ahead, however. OK, this brings up a good question that I personally would like to raise and have answered by all of you list-admin gurus on this mailing list... Todd is obviously a customer of WCO, aka West Coast Online. In general, WCO runs a pretty good service (or so I understand) but of course I find WCO's failure to install modern list management software inexcusable. But independent of that, what (if anything) can Todd do to deal with this problem himself? He's already asserted that he doesn't have time to do manual subscription verifications, so that's out. My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software in and for _him_ personal account? Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:50:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA04212; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id PAA04088 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.112]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id QAA08484 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:46:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710290046.QAA08484@honor.greatcircle.com> To: rfg@monkeys.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:41:43 EST Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >LISTSERV has a "global" delete feature that allows you to be removed > >from every LISTSERV list, which can be handy in this manner. > > I assume that this feature you are talking about operates on a per-site > basis, and no over the entire Internet, correct? Not correct. The netwide unsubscribe works across all LISTSERVs. From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA11341; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.wco.com (shell.wco.com [199.4.94.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA11296 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from User.wco.com (rock27.wco.com [199.4.109.127]) by shell.wco.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/WCO-18jul97) with SMTP id PAA13660; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:37:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029152827.0097a380@mail.wco.com> X-Sender: 2bits@mail.wco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:28:27 -0800 To: Brian Behlendorf From: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029145929.00979330@hyperreal.org> References: <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com> <3.0.3.32.19971029005156.00c356b0@armchair.mb.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:59 PM 10/29/97 -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: >Seriously, Todd. You're in the bay area. You have a plethora of ISP's to >choose from, most of whom will host mailing lists for a very reasonable >fee, if not free, and many of whom will have confirmation functions in >their mailing lists. I consider those sites housing lists without >confirmation to be just as recklessly dangerous to the health of the 'net >as open SMTP relays, if not worse. Vote with your feet and leave, or get >wco.com to upgrade their majordomo installation. I am also one of the founding members of VeloNet, now called cycling.org after a legal wrangle with the kind people at "VeloNews," at no charge to the list-owners. The server, which hosts hundreds of related lists, is now up in Washington. My ISP, wco.com, does not host lists at all. Thanks for your help, Todd -- Todd Ourston * 2bits@wco.com * Marin County, California From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA01944; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id OAA01901 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19279 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 22:51:02 -0000 Received: from dave.armchair.mb.ca (HELO dave) (198.163.115.50) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 22:51:02 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029165432.00be0d70@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:54:32 -0600 To: rfg@monkeys.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:19 PM 10/29/97 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell >accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, >using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software >in and for _him_ personal account? > >Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal >shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? To my knowledge, that is not possible with Majordomo for a variety technical reasons. If the site ran qmail and ezmlm, it would be theoretically possible for a shell account to have considerable low-level control over the list. Of course, if the site ran qmail and ezmlm it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. I am amazed, though, that this site is unwilling to upgrade their software, and do it RIGHT NOW, considering the importance of confirmation. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA05977; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:12:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id PAA05857 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18308 invoked from network); 29 Oct 1997 23:12:33 -0000 Received: from localhost.hyperreal.com (HELO brianb.organic.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.hyperreal.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 1997 23:12:33 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971029145929.00979330@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:59:29 -0800 To: "Todd O." <2bits@wco.com> From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com> References: <3.0.3.32.19971029005156.00c356b0@armchair.mb.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:20 AM 10/29/97 -0800, Todd O. wrote: >Well, then, consider me armed and dangerous. I have no confirmation >mechanisms for my lists. It's not that I don't want them. I have pleaded >for them. However, the software on the site where my lists are hosted does >not have up to date software with auto-confirm features. Some day, I am >told, that will change. It may be months ahead, however. And I know that >I am not alone in my circumstances. Consider me armed and dangerous. I have no brakes for my car. It's not that I don't want them. I have pleaded for them. However, the mechanic at my local auto shop does not know how to install brakes on my car. Some day, I am told, that will change. It may be months ahead, however. And who knows how many accidents I'll get in by then. Seriously, Todd. You're in the bay area. You have a plethora of ISP's to choose from, most of whom will host mailing lists for a very reasonable fee, if not free, and many of whom will have confirmation functions in their mailing lists. I consider those sites housing lists without confirmation to be just as recklessly dangerous to the health of the 'net as open SMTP relays, if not worse. Vote with your feet and leave, or get wco.com to upgrade their majordomo installation. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA04433; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:05:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA04355 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id PAA04368; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:05:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17847 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA30729 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:06:21 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Oct 1997 16:48:36 -0600. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:06:21 -0800 Message-ID: <30726.878166381@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Douglas Triggs wrote: >To set up a majordomo mail server, you'd need (1) access to mail >account that will receive all the list and list administration traffic >(that is, a seperate account from anything you expected to receive >personal mail with), and (2) access to the configuration file of >whatever MTA (usually sendmail) runs on the server and receives the >mail for the list account so that the proper mail aliases can be set >up for the list. > >Both of those are problematic, especially (2). (You could always >sacrifice an account to get (1) -- but even that's not always an >option.) It's more than reasonable to deny users access to the MTA >configuration files -- in fact, it's generally insane to do anything >else. Without that access, it's impossible to maintain the mailing >list software (which is different from maintaining a list). > >So, in a word -- yes. Not just impractical, essentially impossible. OK. Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. P.S. Sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising software engineer... i.e. building a list management package that could be completely run out of just one or two shell accounts without _any_ help from the local sysadmins. Of course these days, most potential customers for such a thing would probably just give you funny looks and say ``Shell? What's that? Does it run on NT??'' :-( -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03599; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA03557 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17525 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA30486 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:02:05 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:35:17 -0800. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Reply-To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:02:04 -0800 Message-ID: <30483.878166124@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell >> accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, >> using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software >> in and for _him_ personal account? > >He probably can't. I'd argue he SHOULDN'T. The solution isn't building >another half-baked, half-supported system. It's working with the folks >who are supposed to be doing it to get it done. Unless Todd's a mail >expert, it's likely he might solve some problems, but simply create >other ones. And frankly, if he doesn't have time to do manual >intervention now, asking him to simply build and operate his own server >is seriously silly. Whoa there! Slow down. I never asked him to ``build'' his own list server software from scratch. I just asked if it would even be possible for him to just suck down fresh Majordomo sources from wherever they happen to reside at the moment and just follow the directions and compile it and install it in his own account. I _don't_ expect him or any other list admin to start from scratch and write code the way you have done. >Ronald, I know you're sensitive to all of this, but to be honest, >you're WAY too sensitive. I mean that in a positive way -- it's good >that you understand why this stuff is necessary, but also realize that >reality has limitations to it, too. sometimes, the simple answer is >that you don't get what you want.... I think that you maybe misunderstood that I was asking a general question whose answer goes well beyond even the subject that started this thread, i.e. subscription bombing. Independent of _that_ issue, let's just say that I want to start up a mailing list, and all I happen to have is a shell account on a particular system where the sysadmins refuse to install _any_ kind of list management software. Is there anything that I can do for myself in this case? That was the question I was asking. It's a broader question than the one you probably thought that I was asking. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:53:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA01237; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA01034 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:47:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.12.99] (A17-219-12-99.apple.com [17.219.12.99]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA45212 ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:46:44 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:20:36 -0800. <3.0.3.32.19971029082036.009c8370@mail.wco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:35:17 -0800 To: rfg@monkeys.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:19 PM -0800 10/29/97, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Todd is obviously a customer of WCO, aka West Coast Online. In general, > WCO runs a pretty good service (or so I understand) but of course I > find WCO's failure to install modern list management software inexcusable. Hey, here's the reality. Life happens. Apple hired me in January to work on their mail lists full time. That involved both maintaining the systems I'd been doing part-time already, and building a new, replacement system to move everything to (bigger! faster! better! does dishes! works right! Mostly!) Took me eight months to build the new systems. Im' still migrating stuff and working on secondary parts of the project. During that time, the old system had the same old security flaws and problems, and I dealt with them as I could. It'd be nice if this stuff happens overnight, but that's not reality. This is the real world. I probably could have cut my development time in half (easily) by just shutting evreything down until the new system was ready, and boy, that would have solved the security holes, but there's this little issue of having a business to run in the meantime. Stuff just doesn't stop when it's inconvenient... > But independent of that, what (if anything) can Todd do to deal with this > problem himself? It's simple. You keep pressure on your provider to do the upgrades. You do the best you can with what you have. And if that's not good enough, you go find a new provider who HAS done the improvements you need, and make sure the old one knows why you're taking your business elsewhere. > My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell > accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, > using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software > in and for _him_ personal account? He probably can't. I'd argue he SHOULDN'T. The solution isn't building another half-baked, half-supported system. It's working with the folks who are supposed to be doing it to get it done. Unless Todd's a mail expert, it's likely he might solve some problems, but simply create other ones. And frankly, if he doesn't have time to do manual intervention now, asking him to simply build and operate his own server is seriously silly. Ronald, I know you're sensitive to all of this, but to be honest, you're WAY too sensitive. I mean that in a positive way -- it's good that you understand why this stuff is necessary, but also realize that reality has limitations to it, too. sometimes, the simple answer is that you don't get what you want.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 15:54:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA03805; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id PAA03776 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (ladybug.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA15930 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:32:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from seas.gwu.edu (felix.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.3]) by ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (v8) with ESMTP id MAA16202 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:32:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.seas.gwu.edu (sheryl@gypsy [128.164.2.10]) by seas.gwu.edu (8.8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA15041 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:31:59 -0500 (EST) From: Sheryl Coppenger Received: by gypsy.seas.gwu.edu id AA09775; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:31:57 -0500 Message-Id: <9710281731.AA09775@gypsy.seas.gwu.edu> Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:31:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3813.877907114@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Oct 26, 97 03:05:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > In message <199710261904.LAA29943@monkeys.com>, amys@iquest.net wrote: > > >On 25 Oct 97 at 21:23, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > >You know Ron, we are people too and quite frankly, had I received a > >request even remotely worded like that I would have ignored it (for > >your own protection). Why? Because I NEVER subscribe someone to one > >of my lists and I'm assuming that even if you were subscribed against > >your wishes... > > Even if?? I was. That's the truth. > > >... you received welcome letters that gave you explicit > >instructions on how to unsubscribe. There was a discussion here a while back between people who do and people who don't respond to "unsubscribe me from this list!!!" mailings. IMO it's one thing to take a hard line with someone who actually subscribes him/herself. It's an entirely different matter to behave that way with a person who has identified themselves as the victim of a subscribe attack. In the case of someone who was attacked so heavily that the machine crashed or the disk filled up, it's entirely possible that the unsub instructions were lost or truncated and all the victim has to go on is the list address on the messages he's getting after the machine is up again. Even if they have received the unsub instructions, as Ron said it is important to notify list owners that the hole exists *and has been exploited*. It's also important, in a high-traffic list, to get the messages stopped ASAP as a courtesy to the victim. Making them wait for a second copy of the subscribe, read, and implement the directions is an abusive act IMO. Speaking as an involved postmaster, I also think it's a good idea for the victim to inform the postmaster address at the site. At some large sites, for instance, a listserv or other package will be available but someone will configure lazily or put up their own smartlist. A postmaster who is on-the-ball can generally educate the list owner or exert some pressure as needed. The postmaster also may be able to unsubscribe you quickly from all lists or send your request to someone who can. > >Secondly, I don't like being talked to like that. > > And I _really_ don't like being subscription bombed with the help of badly > configured mailing lists (and their operators), so that would make us even, > yes? No, Ron, it wouldn't. As has been mentioned here, many list owners don't realize this is a problem. They are not generally sysadmins and they haven't had broad exposure to forging and abuse issues. They are trying to have a little fun and do something nice for people, and for the most part they have taken on a thankless job. It's not surprising that they get all defensive and upset (i.e. "dig in their heels") when you yell at them. That's not the same as being dense or sociopathic, as you imply. > I don't think that > _anybody_ deserves the kind of enormous hassle that results from these > sorts of subscription boms involving non-validating lists, and I'd like > to see this whole net-wide threat ended. I would too, but alienating people with a hostile posture is not the way to get things done IMO. > You see, you are being short-sighted and just suggesting short-term > methods for dealing with the _symptoms_ of the disease, but you don't > seem to even be thinking about how to cure the disease itself. > > >Up until recently, subscription validation was not an issue. > > Really? Seem to me that I have been reading about such things for YEARS > now. Agreed. And as a postmaster, I have been getting "please unsubscribe from all lists" messages for a couple of years. In every case so far, though, the victim was not clueful enough to figure out where the lists came from and was sending email to the postmaster at the sites of people mailing *to* the lists. But so it goes... However, this problem still is at the "geek" level. People who are likely to have this used against them do not tend to run in newbie circles. It's not as ubiquitous as SPAM and I'm sure many people haven't heard about it. I am rather surprised, though, that someone who has been a list owner as long as Amy and a member of list-managers, isn't aware of the problem. I think that is an indicator of just how much this is a "geek" problem (that is, pretty limited to people who have a very visible .net presence). Now is, however, the time to start doing something about it. > >In fact, I would still choose ability to customize, ease of use, easy > >on the resources over subscription validation in searching for a good > >list management package. > > See, that's the kind of attitude that irks me. I think it depends upon the application. It might be ok for a site with a few low-volume lists. I do think medium and high-volume sites do need to have packages with protection. > It shouldn't be _my_ job to take myself off of lists that I did not ever > request to be on. Agreed. > >> ``Great!'' I said, ``But what if I had just been leaving for a three month > >> vacation when this subscription bombing was starting? I would have come > >> back to a full disk a a crashed server!'' > > > >I'm having a little problem with this argument for obvious reasons. > > I see. And what ``obvious reasons'' are those exactly? > > Whatever they are, they are _not_ in the least bit obvious to me. Me either. > Anyway, I guess that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree > about the proper response to a subscription bomb. Personally, I went out > of my way to be as annying as I could be to the admins of all of the lists > that I was subscription-bombed onto that didn't require subscription vali- > dations before finalizing the subscriptions. I felt this was most than > justified because (as I have said) I think that such lists are being run > in a highly anti-social manner. But that doesn't justify an anti-social response. What are you going to do, go out and subscribe-bomb the list owner so s/he knows what it feels like? Going out of your way to be annoying to people who can help you and help the 'net is cutting your own throat IMO. > >The "average joe" computer user in business is not going to attract > >this kind of ire. It's mainly those of you who are very outspoken > >about spam that have something to be concerned about. > > Oh! Well I guess that makes it OK then, right? > [...] > Yes, you are correct that there is undoubtedly a direct correlation be- > tween being controversial and being subscription bombed. Or vandalized in other forms. It doesn't make it OK. I think surely Amy did not mean to imply that, I think she probably was making the point that this still is a "geek" problem to some extent and not in everyone's field of vision. > >As the Internet has become more of a commercial entity and less of a > >community entity, and the overall "dumbing down" of the whole process > >of being online, there is going to be more of this kind of thing > >happening. And again, while I deeply sympathize with your situation > >the individual list owners were not part of the problem... > > I continue to disagree, respectfully. As do I. Where you and I disagree is that I feel it should be approached as an education issue and list managers should be assumed to be responsible people who will work with you if they understand the problem. Any other approach is pretty pointless, because people who really don't care will ignore you when you send them abusive email. -- Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu The George Washington University (202) 994-6853 http://www.seas.gwu.edu/staff/sheryl From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 16:19:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA14918; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA08476 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:21:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA270477320; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:22:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199710292322.AA270477320@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: rfg@monkeys.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:19:55 PST." <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:22:00 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal >shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? port 25 is a privileged port. and it's probably already got something running on it. -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 16:48:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA19621; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA19609 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.5/1.2.3) id RAA15798 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:42:31 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199710300042.RAA15798@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:42:31 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > P.S. Sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising > software engineer... i.e. building a list management package that could > be completely run out of just one or two shell accounts without _any_ > help from the local sysadmins. Sounds like something that local sysadmins would just looooove. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 16:54:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA18723; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA18541 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA25459; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:36:11 -0600 (CST) To: rfg@monkeys.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? References: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 29 Oct 1997 18:36:11 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:19:55 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 13 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "RFG" == Ronald F Guilmette writes: RFG> Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal RFG> shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? It depends on the MTA and doesn't have much to do with Majordomo. I'm not sure that there's any MTA that will let a user add new system-wide mail aliases without first requiring system privileges. If you're willing to have list names like tibbs-list1 then you can do this with probably any MTA, but I doubt that would fly for most lists. The move toward true virtual hosting does make this kind of thing more feasible, though. - J< From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 17:03:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA21167; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA21119 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23798 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1997 01:00:36 -0000 Received: from flying?fish2.armchair.mb.ca (HELO flying?fish1) (198.163.115.26) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 01:00:36 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971029190113.007125c4@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:01:13 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: <30726.878166381@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:06 PM 29/10/97 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >P.S. Sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising >software engineer... i.e. building a list management package that could >be completely run out of just one or two shell accounts without _any_ >help from the local sysadmins. It exists, and can be run out of one account. The combination of the qmail MTA and ezmlm MLM apparently allows shell users to create, destroy, and administer lists as they see fit. See http://www.qmail.org. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 17:18:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA22499; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA22406 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA19823; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:04:44 -0800 (PST) From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199710300104.RAA19823@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? To: rfg@monkeys.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:04:43 -0800 (PST) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <30483.878166124@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Oct 29, 97 03:02:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ron asked: > Independent of _that_ issue, let's just say that I want to start up a > mailing list, and all I happen to have is a shell account on a particular > system where the sysadmins refuse to install _any_ kind of list management > software. Is there anything that I can do for myself in this case? Well, you could always come to someone like me, or any other company that will run lists for a nominal charge. :) (Or you could do various tricks with procmail, I'm sure.) --Kynn From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 17:31:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA21504; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:03:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA21473 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:03:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 25516 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 1997 01:03:59 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu References: <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com> <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: David Shaw's message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:35:12 -0500 Date: 29 Oct 1997 17:03:59 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David Shaw writes: > Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list confirmation > system. The thing is - what does this do to your average clueless > luser? Speaking as someone who routinely gets *scribe requests to every > possible address _except_ majordomo, and who has seen people reply to a > list message with "t a k e m e o f f" and quote the whole messsage, > INCLUDING the un*sub instructions attached to every message, I have > serious doubts of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list > confirmation IS! Well, my personal inclination is to take a semi-hard line about that. If they can't read English and figure it out from the (IMO) very clear instructions, then they're probably also going to have problems with such concepts as netiquette and unsubscribing and I'm not entirely sure I want to have them on the list in the first place. But then, I run lists that I can afford to be that way about. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Oct 29 17:34:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA24615; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:25:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (SKIGO.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA24583 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA01350; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:26:00 -0500 Message-Id: <9710300126.AA01350@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: Dave Voorhis Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Oct 97 19:01:13 CST." <3.0.1.32.19971029190113.007125c4@armchair.mb.ca> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 20:26:00 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>P.S. Sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising >>software engineer... i.e. building a list management package that could >>be completely run out of just one or two shell accounts without _any_ >>help from the local sysadmins. > >It exists, and can be run out of one account. The combination of the qmail >MTA and ezmlm MLM apparently allows shell users to create, destroy, and >administer lists as they see fit. See http://www.qmail.org. Something is wrong with this picture. If the local sysadmin is not assisting, chances are slim to none that the installed MTA is something other than sendmail. Given that, you're not going to get incoming aliases to work without the sysadmin's assistance. -Mitch "Families can't trust Disney" From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 00:33:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA16320; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id AAA16296 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA04239 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:25:38 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA15172; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:25:37 -0800 Message-Id: <199710300825.AA15172@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: <30483.878166124@monkeys.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 00:25:36 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:02:04 -0800 rfg@monkeys.com wrote: > Independent of _that_ issue, let's just say that I want to start up a > mailing list, and all I happen to have is a shell account on a particular > system where the sysadmins refuse to install _any_ kind of list management > software. Is there anything that I can do for myself in this case? That > was the question I was asking. It's a broader question than the one you > probably thought that I was asking. I was in this position in 1993 when I started my list. At the time, I was a customer of the relatively new ISP rahul.net (I am now an employee) and was able to have the sysadmin add aliases for me. I ran SmartList mailing list software from my own account and installed it non-root. SmartList can still be run this way. Soon, however, the list grew large (thousands of subscribers) and I was asked to pay a higher fee or find a new home. I found a new home, another ISP that agreed to install some aliases for me. I made it very clear to the ISP how large the list was and how much traffic it made. I acquired a domain name, but still need aliases installed by the sysadmin. Eventually this second ISP complained about the mail load from my list and asked me to switch to their software. Their software (majordomo at the time) was set up to route mailing list mail through a special mail server so that non mailing list mail would not be impacted by mailing list mail loads. I declined and since I was now working for the first host ISP was able to move my list back again (also, I had drastically reduced mail loads by reconfiguring SmartList to have the digest be the default subscription option). Eventually, with continued growth, I was asked once again to consider other options. With financial support from the list members, I purchased a home machine and dedicated line and use rahul.net as a smarthost only. Incidently, my MTA is exim, which I highly recommend. All my non-mailing list mail is smtp routed to the direct site, while my mailing list mail is sent through a willing relay via multiple rcpt smtp (and the logs and queues from both are totally merged and easy to monitor). Possible with sendmail, but hard for me configure. Not possible with stock qmail. Exim made it both possible and simple to setup. The point of this story is that mailing lists can have non-trivial impacts on an ISP and you should get permission from the sysadmins of the host machine to run any list with the potential to have more than a handful of subscribers. This is also why no smart ISP would run an MTA that permitted subscribers total mailing list freedom. Last year I wrote an add-on package for SmartList that does subscription confirms. So, if one can get aliases installed (or can setup special procmail arrangements to achieve the same effect) and has permission to run a mailing list, then SmartList is a possibility as an MLM that can be run by ordinary shell users. Incidently, I don't see any load difficulties with the mailing list whatsoever. It may be that exim+linux handles it better than sendmail+(irix/freebsd/sunOS). It's true that it now runs on an almost single user pentium 166, but I never see cpu utilization over 1 or 2 % or loads over .5 due to the mailing list, although there are often many idle and waiting processes spawned. So, I am skeptical that my list was really a problem on the ISPs, I think it was just an obvious target to sysadmins monitoring the system status. Or, it could be SmartList is badly behaved on highly loaded machines, so I'm just not seeing the problem on my usually lightly loaded machine. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 00:59:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA17285; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id AAA17265 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA05088 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:34:34 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA15211; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:34:32 -0800 Message-Id: <199710300834.AA15211@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 97 00:34:32 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 29 Oct 1997 17:03:59 -0800 rra@stanford.edu wrote: > David Shaw writes: > > > I have > > serious doubts of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list > > confirmation IS! > > Well, my personal inclination is to take a semi-hard line about that. If > they can't read English and figure it out from the (IMO) very clear > instructions, then they're probably also going to have problems with such > concepts as netiquette and unsubscribing and I'm not entirely sure I want > to have them on the list in the first place. I'm in total agreement. The confirmation process I wrote for SmartList is a little harder than it needs to be and I've intended to make a change in protocol to make it a bit easier. But, no hurry. I have a stock reply to confirmation errors that repeats the instructions and then lists common errors (mispelling "confirm", putting it in the body instead of the subject, mailing to the wrong address, and so on). Every now and then I find myself sending this form response to a person more than once and having them finally write with another incorrect attempt and addendum to the effect "if this doesn't work, I'm giving up, I don't care about your stupid list." My feelings are: good riddance. If they can't follow the confirm instructions, how likely are they to follow my posting rules? Or to be able to successfully unsubscribe themselves when needed? I don't want folks that clueless on my list, honestly. > But then, I run lists that I can afford to be that way about. Ditto. And that's the only kind I ever intend to run. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 10:04:01 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA16054; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (ladybug.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA16035 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from seas.gwu.edu (felix.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.3]) by ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (v8) with ESMTP id NAA10714 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.seas.gwu.edu (sheryl@gypsy [128.164.2.10]) by seas.gwu.edu (8.8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA18839 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:00:27 -0500 (EST) From: Sheryl Coppenger Received: by gypsy.seas.gwu.edu id AA10429; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:00:26 -0500 Message-Id: <9710301800.AA10429@gypsy.seas.gwu.edu> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:00:25 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199710300104.RAA19823@ayla.idyllmtn.com> from "Kynn Bartlett" at Oct 29, 97 05:04:43 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Ron asked: > > Independent of _that_ issue, let's just say that I want to start up a > > mailing list, and all I happen to have is a shell account on a particular > > system where the sysadmins refuse to install _any_ kind of list management > > software. Is there anything that I can do for myself in this case? > > Well, you could always come to someone like me, or any other company > that will run lists for a nominal charge. :) > > (Or you could do various tricks with procmail, I'm sure.) That's what the Smartlist additions to procmail are for, aren't they? I've even known users to rig up things with .forward files and standard user agents like elm and pine. Pretty ugly, and sometimes really screw up the system, but they (kinda sorta) work for small-to-medium lists. > > --Kynn > > -- Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu The George Washington University (202) 994-6853 http://www.seas.gwu.edu/staff/sheryl From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 10:19:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA16562; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (ladybug.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA16521 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from seas.gwu.edu (felix.seas.gwu.edu [128.164.9.3]) by ladybug.seas.gwu.edu (v8) with ESMTP id NAA10808 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from gypsy.seas.gwu.edu (sheryl@gypsy [128.164.2.10]) by seas.gwu.edu (8.8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA19618 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:04:55 -0500 (EST) From: Sheryl Coppenger Received: by gypsy.seas.gwu.edu id AA10440; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:04:53 -0500 Message-Id: <9710301804.AA10440@gypsy.seas.gwu.edu> Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:04:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9710300126.AA01350@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> from "Mitch Collinsworth" at Oct 29, 97 08:26:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Something is wrong with this picture. > > If the local sysadmin is not assisting, chances are slim to none that > the installed MTA is something other than sendmail. Given that, you're > not going to get incoming aliases to work without the sysadmin's > assistance. > > -Mitch > Having incoming aliases isn't necessarily required, though. To be sure, things are prettier if you have them. But our users have managed to run mailing lists without them. -- Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu The George Washington University (202) 994-6853 http://www.seas.gwu.edu/staff/sheryl From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 10:49:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA19048; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk (ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk [128.98.1.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id KAA19016 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21532 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1997 18:30:12 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.eris.dera.gov.uk (128.98.2.2) by ns0.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 18:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 7932 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 1997 18:30:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6255 invoked from network); 30 Oct 1997 18:30:11 -0000 Received: from cray.eris.dera.gov.uk (128.98.2.7) by mail-relay.eris.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 18:30:11 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: sunyjefferson.edu Organization: IT Vulnerabilities Group, DERA Malvern, UK References: <199710291040.CAA02082@honor.greatcircle.com> <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> In-reply-to: <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: <5618.878236211@cray.eris.dera.gov.uk> From: Christopher Samuel Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu>, David Shaw writes: > Speaking as someone who routinely gets *scribe requests to every possible > address _except_ majordomo, and who has seen people reply to a list > message with "t a k e m e o f f" and quote the whole messsage, INCLUDING > the un*sub instructions attached to every message, I have serious doubts > of the ability of these lusers to comphehend what a list confirmation IS! > > Let's face it - in many cases, we're talking less than two functioning > brain cells here. In that case I would consider it a feature, not a bug. :-) Chris -- Christopher Samuel +44 1684 894644 C.Samuel@eris.dera.gov.uk N-115, Defence Evaluation & Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Malvern, UK DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are entirely those of the author and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any other entity. From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 21:34:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA16114; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:32:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA16070 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA16619 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 21:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d19.dial-1.met.ma.ultra.net [209.6.4.19]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14191) with SMTP id AAA31415 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:30:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971030053120.00c752d0@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:31:20 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:02 PM 10/29/97 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >Independent of _that_ issue, let's just say that I want to start up a >mailing list, and all I happen to have is a shell account on a particular >system where the sysadmins refuse to install _any_ kind of list management >software. Is there anything that I can do for myself in this case? That >was the question I was asking. It's a broader question than the one you >probably thought that I was asking. SmartList, which uses procmail and is available in the same places. You will, however, at least need some cooperation from the sysadmin(s). Forwarding mail to programs must be permitted, and you'll need enough disk space to build and install plus do whatever with the lists. And of course, you'll need to get the list addresses routed to the right place (easiest if plussed addresses or similar are available). Cheers, Stan From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 21:49:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA15788; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA15774 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:30:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from Tribe (tribe.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.51]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA19472 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from Tribe.OnlineToday.Com (tribe.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.51]) by Tribe (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA10171; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:37:08 -0600 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:37:07 -0600 (CST) From: Raven To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? In-Reply-To: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: [snip] > >for them. However, the software on the site where my lists are hosted does > >not have up to date software with auto-confirm features. Some day, I am > >told, that will change. It may be months ahead, however. > > OK, this brings up a good question that I personally would like to raise > and have answered by all of you list-admin gurus on this mailing list... > [snip] > > My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell > accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, > using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software > in and for _him_ personal account? > > Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal > shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? > I am fairly new to all this but I am in sort of the same boat. My ISP doesn't host lists at all and indicated that they do not plan to install any list software last time I asked. I have a PPP account and I got Linux installed on my PC (oh, I forgot to mention I also have a static IP addy) where I installed Majordomo. I find myself thinking that if a shell account has enough space in it and the hardware can handle it then installing Majordomo would simply involve some root perm problems which he might be able to get his ISP to deal with as long as there was space in his account (and of course getting the software). I kinda like having direct control and the root perms in my lap, but I understand not everyone has the luxury. Just my thoughts. From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 22:23:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA15265; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA15243 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA17696 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 07:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA12551 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA03934 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:55:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:55:09 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Help for the Clue Free In-Reply-To: <19971029093512.16668@cnds.jhu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, David Shaw wrote: > Many people here seem to be in favor of some sort of list > confirmation system. The thing is - what does this do to your > average clueless luser? What so you want us to do for your average clueless looser? Should we make it as easy possible for them to send junk mail to mailing lists? Typical confirmation systems require a specific response to the confirmation email BEFORE the clueless subscriber joins your list and starts sending "get me out of here" posts. May not help the luser but confirmation does offer some protection to your regular subscribers. I place a high value on high signal to noise ratios on my mailing lists. I'd just as soon not have someone can't comprehend a confirmation request subscribed. With confirmation, the entrance requirements are about a low as we can set them. It's not like we're requiring a 1400 score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. If they can't read, comprehend, and follow the simplest instructions, they don't get subscribed. I don't see any problem with requiring confirmations. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Thu Oct 30 22:23:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA15682; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA15647 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.entech.com (mail.usboats.com [207.90.209.81]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id OAA01511 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.90.200.130] by mail.entech.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa261006 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:51:41 -0600 Received: by aquila.eaglemap.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA24424; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:48:37 -0600 To: rfg@monkeys.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List owners are a public nuisance? References: <27372.878159995@monkeys.com> From: Douglas Triggs Date: 29 Oct 1997 16:48:36 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:19:55 -0800 Message-Id: Lines: 31 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.39/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes: > My _real_ question is this... Given that Todd _may_ have one of the shell > accounts that I know WCO offers, what can he do alone and independently, > using his shell account, to get up some modern list management software > in and for _him_ personal account? > > Can things like modern versions of Majordomo be run out of a personal > shell account? Or is this impractical for some reason? To set up a majordomo mail server, you'd need (1) access to mail account that will receive all the list and list administration traffic (that is, a seperate account from anything you expected to receive personal mail with), and (2) access to the configuration file of whatever MTA (usually sendmail) runs on the server and receives the mail for the list account so that the proper mail aliases can be set up for the list. Both of those are problematic, especially (2). (You could always sacrifice an account to get (1) -- but even that's not always an option.) It's more than reasonable to deny users access to the MTA configuration files -- in fact, it's generally insane to do anything else. Without that access, it's impossible to maintain the mailing list software (which is different from maintaining a list). So, in a word -- yes. Not just impractical, essentially impossible. doubt -- Douglas Triggs -- Sysadmin, Toolsmith, and... Other Things doubt@lensflare.com, [doubt@eaglemap.com] http://www.lensflare.com/~doubt