From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 3 20:21:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA02005; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from unix1.sihope.com (unix1.sihope.com [209.98.16.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA01998 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:05:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from DSL1123 (dsl-1-123.sihope.com [209.98.133.30]) by unix1.sihope.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA26288 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:17:29 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <018901bf5669$42adbb60$1e8562d1@sihope.com> Reply-To: "Andrew P. Tasi" From: "Andrew P. Tasi" To: Subject: Thank you's; was 'Looking for a new list server' - no technical content Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:07:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Please forgive the lack of technical content, but I would like to publicly thank several people that offered information, assistance, and hosting services when Esosoft abruptly decided to get out of majordomo hosting: -Brian Edmonds (my new majordomo ASP) -Jeremy Blackman (whose excellent Listar software I'm evaluating to possibly use on my server) -Nick Simicich (jeez, does he know his stuff or what!) -Rob Charles -Sharon Tucci -David B. Smith -Becky -Norbert Bollow -James M. Galvin ...and anybody I've foolishly forgotten. As a newbie, I was pleasantly surprised at the generosity of your feedback. With the assistance provided, I was able to very seamlessly leave Esosoft behind. Thank you all, and Happy New Year. Cheers, Andrew P. Tasi From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 4 03:12:37 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA05610; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (ha1.rdc1.wa.home.com [24.0.2.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA05603 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from c542443-a ([24.9.50.49]) by mail.rdc1.wa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000104100724.EEEG3520.mail.rdc1.wa.home.com@c542443-a> for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 02:07:24 -0800 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000104020202.009d7400@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com> X-Sender: carriejl@mail.fedwy1.wa.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 02:05:53 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Carrie Lybecker Subject: Re: Thank you's; was 'Looking for a new list server' - no technical content In-Reply-To: <018901bf5669$42adbb60$1e8562d1@sihope.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:07 PM 1/3/00 -0600, you wrote: >As a newbie, I was pleasantly surprised at the generosity of your feedback. >With the assistance provided, I was able to very seamlessly leave Esosoft >behind. Thank you all, and Happy New Year. I would like to second that thanks for the generosity of all who have offered me help also. Carrie Lybecker From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 02:29:32 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA23989; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from pacific.net ([199.4.80.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA23980 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:25:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from tarycare (oak3b-61.pacific.net [209.209.2.61]) by pacific.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id CAA13176 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:36:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000106013853.00996e90@mail.pacific.net> X-Sender: gcplistmonger@mail.pacific.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:54:45 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Robert Payne Subject: Majordomo Hosting ( Help ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My Majordomo host rolled over into Topica. The Topica service doesn't meet our club needs. I need help locating a new Majordomo host for our club of 330 plus We need a Majordomo server that will allow a monthly PDF news letter attachment of at least 1.0Mb Allow hassle free list management with replace list commands so I can run the list straight from the club data base. Is reliable, secure and not outrageously expensive. Just like the list I had at Esosoft Robert Payne From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 06:30:41 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA27731; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA27724 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:23:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00140 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:33:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:33:25 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Folks, I've been doing a lot of looking at replacing my current majordomo installation with a new list manager. I'd been looking at majordomo2, mailman, and sympa - none of which seem quite right for my needs (virtual domains, making it easier for users to set up mailing lists). Lyris seems to do it all, but it costs serious dollars, and isn't open-source. EZMLM seems to do a lot of the right things, but requires switching to qmail. Has anybody gone through a transition from majordomo/sendmail to ezmlm/qmail? Can you comment on how hard it was, things to watch out for, whether it was worth it? Thanks very much, Miles Fidelman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 07:00:43 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA27895; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from listes.cru.fr (listes.cru.fr [195.220.94.165]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA27887 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.cru.fr (home.cru.fr [195.220.94.79]) by listes.cru.fr (8.9.2/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id PAA31464 ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:58:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from home.cru.fr (IDENT:salaun@localhost.cru.fr [127.0.0.1]) by home.cru.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.1) with ESMTP id PAA30999 ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:58:50 +0100 Message-Id: <200001061458.PAA30999@home.cru.fr> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.3 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: postmaster@aol.com Subject: aol.com not compliant with RFC 1893 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 15:58:50 +0100 From: Olivier Salaun - CRU Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, We are developing a non-delivery reports analyzer for Sympa MLM. This module already extracts bouncing address and error status for more than 90% of "bounces". The goal is to provide information about bouncing addresses within a web interface (WWSympa) for list-owners. Analysis is mainly based on RFCs 1891-1894 defining a MIME extension for Delivery Status Notifications, allowing (automatic) identification of recipients and error status. RFC 1893 defines Mail System Status Codes to be used by MTAs. Eg: 5.1.1 => User unknown ; 5.2.2 => Mailbox full I found out that aol.com is not compatible with status codes as defined in RFC 1893. As you can see in the sample bellow, the transcript of session indicates a 'User Unkown' whereas "Status" field of the delivery-status indicates a Success (2.0.0). This completely alter the analysis of error reports ! Did anyone already observe such problems with other ISPs ? -------------- Olivier Salaün Here is a sample Delivery Status Notification : Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="BOUNDARY" --BOUNDARY ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to xxx.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown --BOUNDARY Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; listes.cru.fr Arrival-Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:22:43 +0100 (MET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; yyy@aol.com. Action: failed Status: 2.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 250 OK --BOUNDARY Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers --BOUNDARY From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 07:15:42 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA28082; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from hen.scotland.net (phys-hen2.scotland.net [194.247.65.128]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA28075 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [148.176.238.82] (helo=beckyvac) by hen.scotland.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 126Edk-00028H-00; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:15:54 +0000 Message-ID: <04b301bf5858$bdcf29a0$0ceeb094@beckyvac> From: "Becky" To: "Robert Payne" , References: <4.2.0.58.20000106013853.00996e90@mail.pacific.net> Subject: Re: Majordomo Hosting ( Help ) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:14:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Robert, Believe me when I say I sympathise. I was also at Esosoft and jumped ship three days after the Topica announcement. I moved to Halisp and have been pretty happy although there was a small probably right after the New Year. However support was good an it was straightened out quickly. They are at: http://www.halisp.net/halisp/mailprice.html Also you might recall the MLA list which was for list owners and run by Esosoft. This list was shut down the Esosoft one hour after the topica announcement. We tried to reach as many other list-owners as we could but only managed about 10%. The MLA people moved to a list called EUG at Onelist in order to provide support for each other. I would suggest that you join this list. Many of the members have gone with VS servers run by other list-owners who were with Esosoft and for the same price and very little hassle. Good Luck Becky From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 08:44:27 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA29182; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragoncat.net (herne.dragoncat.net [216.122.4.136]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA29173 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jtraub@localhost) by dragoncat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA31765; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:51:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:51:44 -0800 (PST) From: JT To: Miles Fidelman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I've been doing a lot of looking at replacing my current majordomo > installation with a new list manager. I'd been looking at majordomo2, > mailman, and sympa - none of which seem quite right for my needs > (virtual domains, making it easier for users to set up mailing lists). You might consider looking at Listar as well (http://www.listar.org/) It would take a little work by the site admin to get it set up so that users could set up their own lists, but it should be doable. --JT -- [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 08:59:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA29291; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from isrv3.isc.org (isrv3.isc.org [204.152.184.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA29276 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from bb.rc.vix.com (bb.rc.vix.com [204.152.187.11]) by isrv3.isc.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id JAA03027; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:02:33 -0800 (PST) env-from (Peter.Losher@nominum.com) Received: from localhost (plosher@localhost) by bb.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id JAA05653; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:02:33 -0800 (PST) env-from (Peter.Losher@nominum.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:02:32 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Losher To: Miles Fidelman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Miles Fidelman wrote: > EZMLM seems to do a lot of the right things, but requires switching to > qmail. I would also suggest looking at Listar (http://www.listar.org/) It does what you are looking for in your message, and it's MTA independent (I used it under Sendmail before going to Postfix and Listar works beautifully under both MTA's) And it's open source :) Best Wishes -Peter (A satisfied user) | Peter Losher | SysAdmin - Nominum, Inc. | Peter.Losher@nominum.com | From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 09:30:02 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA29810; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA29803 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03195; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:36:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:36:16 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: Peter Losher cc: Miles Fidelman , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JT and Peter Losher both suggested I look at Listar. To which I ask two followup questions: - it looks like Listar still requires some manual playing with the virtual user and alias databases (at least with sendmail, exim, and postgres) - is that correct? - it looks like Listar will generate all the files needed to work with qmail, but requires that some info be manually added to the qmail "global alias file" - this is different behavior than ezmlm, which seems to do everything automagically - again, is this correct? Thanks, Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 10:32:19 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA00391; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA00384 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:01:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1052835 invoked by uid 3995); 6 Jan 2000 18:13:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14452.56116.763300.426540@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:13:08 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Sill To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 "20 Minutes to Nikko" XEmacs Lucid (patch 2) Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M wrote: > >Has anybody gone through a transition from majordomo/sendmail to >ezmlm/qmail? Can you comment on how hard it was, things to watch out for, >whether it was worth it? ezmlm (with the ezmlm-idx add-on) makes Majordomo look like a bad hack. Likewise for qmail vs. sendmail. I've used majordomo+sendmail, majordomo+qmail, and ezmlm+qmail. I think ezmlm+qmail is the best in terms of performance, reliability, and manageability, and it's well worth the effort to switch. I recommend installing ezmlm+qmail on your existing list server (just don't install qmail-smtpd (on port 25) or qmail's "sendmail"). That'll allow you to play with qmail and ezmlm without interfering with your majordomo+sendmail setup. Once you've migrated the lists to ezmlm, you can turn off sendmail and install qmail-smtpd. Painless and low risk. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html For help installing qmail. -Dave From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 11:29:49 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01347; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragoncat.net (herne.dragoncat.net [216.122.4.136]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01337 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jtraub@localhost) by dragoncat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32494; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: JT To: Miles Fidelman cc: Peter Losher , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Miles Fidelman wrote: > - it looks like Listar still requires some manual playing with the virtual > user and alias databases (at least with sendmail, exim, and postgres) - is > that correct? Yes, but that could be handled by a wrapper script which when invoked set up the virtual domain files for the MTA, set up the config file for the virual host for listar, invoked listar -newlist with that correct virtual host config file, and then put the output of that in the right form for the MTA aliases file. > - it looks like Listar will generate all the files needed to work with > qmail, but requires that some info be manually added to the qmail "global > alias file" - this is different behavior than ezmlm, which seems to do > everything automagically - again, is this correct? I don't know anything personally about qmail, so I will leave that to someone else to answer. EZMLM most certainly does some things automagically, but that's because it's part and parcel with qmail and unlike listar won't work with anything but (or so I am given to understand). --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 11:44:30 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01405; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01398 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022B8AF89B; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20765; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:26 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:25 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Olivier Salaun - CRU Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, postmaster@aol.com Subject: Re: aol.com not compliant with RFC 1893 In-Reply-To: <200001061458.PAA30999@home.cru.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Olivier Salaun - CRU wrote: > I found out that aol.com is not compatible with status codes as > defined in RFC 1893. As you can see in the sample bellow, the > transcript of session indicates a 'User Unkown' whereas "Status" > field of the delivery-status indicates a Success (2.0.0). This > completely alter the analysis of error reports ! > > Did anyone already observe such problems with other ISPs ? Yes; welcome to my personal hell. After discovering that /only/ Sendmail actually implements the RFC1893 spec completely correctly, I gave up and wrote a temporary method for Listar that just parses certain specific bounce formats, and then tries to determine the information if it is not a bounce format it recognizes. I am currently trying to come up with a much more general way that will work with the busted MIME information I have seen in several bounce messages. I would fold that parser into Listar again, but I would also be happy to work with others to make a bounce parser that is more general-purpose and could be folded into other packages as well. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 11:59:26 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01484; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01477 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF99AF89B; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20768; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:40:44 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Miles Fidelman Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Miles Fidelman wrote: > - it looks like Listar still requires some manual playing with the virtual > user and alias databases (at least with sendmail, exim, and postgres) > is that correct? This is true for pretty much anything that is MTA-independent. Listar does generate the data for you, though, and you can just paste it into the appropriate file. I have all my Listar aliases in a 'listar.aliases' file, and so when I make a new list, I just do: listar -newlist mylist >> listar.aliases And the new aliases are added properly, and then I just rebuild the aliases file. This works for qmail using the Sendmail-compatible aliases module, as well. > - it looks like Listar will generate all the files needed to work with > qmail, but requires that some info be manually added to the qmail "global > alias file" - this is different behavior than ezmlm, which seems to do > everything automagically - again, is this correct? Listar does not run as root; in fact, the code checks and actively demotes itself back down to lose root permissions if you try to run it as root, logging a warning. As a result, though, the .qmail- files cannot be placed in the ~alias directory for qmail, if you tell Listar to create them. This means you have to become root and copy them over to the qmail global aliases directory... but that is a matter of a 'cp' command. :) ezmlm can do everything automagically because it links directly into the mailserver. Listar, the goal was to not tie it to any one package. :) The place where ezmlm beats everything else, hands down, is that individual users can create their own ezmlm lists in their own directories, since they can create per-user aliases. Listar could probably be made to work with qmail per-user aliases (or the Postfix delimited-forward files, for that matter) but would need to be modified to run as the user; that is something on the todo list already. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 13:02:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA02597; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from dnvrpop3.dnvr.uswest.net (dnvrpop3.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.128.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA02583 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14847 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2000 21:00:34 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-list-managers@GreatCircle.COM@fixme Received: (qmail 14831 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jan 2000 21:00:34 -0000 Received: from mp13.roidirect.com (HELO gesche) (209.180.241.13) by dnvrpop3.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2000 21:00:34 -0000 From: "Marsha Petry" To: Subject: experiences with mail merge and scheduling in MLMs Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:46:09 -0700 Message-ID: <001301bf5887$10278d40$0df1b4d1@roidirect.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've only been on this list for a short time, so please feel free to redirect me to another list if this is off-topic for this list... I'm looking for an MLM (or alternatives would be considered) that could handle the following: 1. scheduling sends of moderated messages (ie send out message x at 1am, messages y,z at 2am etc...). This one I can find in most MLMs in varying forms but I also need this: 2. mail merge capability. I prefer to be able to send a message template, a control file, and a data file to a "merger" that would make substitutions from the data file into the message template based on directions from the control file. Extracting the data from a database would be another option. Anybody have some experiences in this area as to what would be a good MLM for these needs? I've looked at Majordomo, Listar, Sympa, Listproc, ezmlm, Listserv (and unless I've missed some documentation on the others Listserv is the closest to what I need, and that's what I may opt for, though it's pretty pricey). If no MLM fits my needs, any suggestions on what open source code might be the best to look at as far as modifying for my needs? Someone on the ezmlm list suggested modifying qmail for the mail merge feature - sounds OK. Any other experiences? Thanks in advance for your help. Marsha Petry mpetry@uswest.net From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 13:16:32 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA02901; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA02893 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA07275 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:23:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:23:24 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? 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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Jeremy Blackman wrote: > The place where ezmlm beats everything else, hands down, is that > individual users can create their own ezmlm lists in their own > directories, since they can create per-user aliases. Listar could > probably be made to work with qmail per-user aliases (or the Postfix > delimited-forward files, for that matter) but would need to be modified to > run as the user; that is something on the todo list already. this is more along the lines I've been looking for - any idea when this might make its way into listar? Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 13:29:53 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA02859; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA02852 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA07176 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:18:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:18:31 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Brian, Thanks very much for the reply. It's sounding more and more like a switch to qmail and ezmlm is in the cards. A few followup questions: > First, the switch to qmail - it alone is well worth it, even if you stick > with majordomo. Are there any gotchas I should watch out for, and/or any suggestions for a smooth transition - first from sendmail to qmail (while keeping my majordomo lists functional) and then from majordomo to ezmlm? Unfortunately, I have to do this on a single, leased host that's supporting ongoing operations - ideally, I'd like to figure out a way to run both systems in parallel and do a rolling cutover domain-by-domain. Thanks again, Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 15:17:30 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA04063; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04053 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB4FAF89B; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA20816; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:13:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:13:17 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Marsha Petry Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: experiences with mail merge and scheduling in MLMs In-Reply-To: <001301bf5887$10278d40$0df1b4d1@roidirect.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Marsha Petry wrote: > Anybody have some experiences in this area as to what would be a good MLM > for these needs? I've looked at Majordomo, Listar, Sympa, Listproc, ezmlm, > Listserv (and unless I've missed some documentation on the others Listserv > is the closest to what I need, and that's what I may opt for, though it's > pretty pricey). Listserv does what you need out-of-box, though it can be a royal nightmare to set up that way at times and is a bit pricey, as you note. I /think/ Lyris can also do this, and is probably slightly less pricey. > If no MLM fits my needs, any suggestions on what open source code might be > the best to look at as far as modifying for my needs? Someone on the ezmlm > list suggested modifying qmail for the mail merge feature - sounds OK. Any > other experiences? Well, for my own part, I can suggest Listar (surprise) for modification simply because the whole thing is based around a dynamic and extendable architecture. Writing a 'mailmerge.lpm' to plug-in could cover your need there fairly well, though you will then have to send each message separately... not /as/ bad as it could be, though, if you are running qmail (as it would seem). Listar already has hooks for per-user message modification, but nothing implements functionality on those hooks yet; the mail merge concept would be one that could make use of that. Of course, I will readily admit that my viewpoint is biased; JT and I wrote Listar that way specifically so we could add new features (or other people could) as needed without having to change the core code. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 16:31:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05536; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:10:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA05529 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:10:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26505 invoked by uid 50); 7 Jan 2000 00:22:20 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? References: In-Reply-To: Miles Fidelman's message of "Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:18:31 -0500 (EST)" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 06 Jan 2000 16:22:20 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Miles Fidelman writes: > Are there any gotchas I should watch out for, and/or any suggestions for > a smooth transition - first from sendmail to qmail (while keeping my > majordomo lists functional) and then from majordomo to ezmlm? For help on running majordomo under qmail, see my FAQ: -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 16:46:45 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05517; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA05510 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26501 invoked by uid 50); 7 Jan 2000 00:21:26 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? References: <14452.56116.763300.426540@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> In-Reply-To: Dave Sill's message of "Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:13:08 -0500 (EST)" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 06 Jan 2000 16:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Sill writes: > I've used majordomo+sendmail, majordomo+qmail, and ezmlm+qmail. I think > ezmlm+qmail is the best in terms of performance, reliability, and > manageability, and it's well worth the effort to switch. The sendmail vs. qmail switch depends a lot on both how experienced you are with setting up mail systems and how much you think like qmail. qmail is a package which seems to be highly intuitive for some people (far more intuitive than any other MTA) and at the same time highly unintuitive for other people. Dave's Life With qmail document is highly recommended. qmail is very much unlike sendmail. As for ezmlm vs. majordomo, well, I'm currently maintaining the majordomo with qmail FAQ and I'm considering switching to ezmlm instead. :) You want the -idx version so that the old majordomo commands still work as your users expect them to, and there are definitely some interesting differences in how ezmlm does things, but the automatic bounce management all by itself is probably worth the price of admission. I don't have experience with mailing list software other than majordomo and ezmlm, so I'll leave the additional recommendations to other folks. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 17:00:59 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA05710; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ntcorp.dn.net (ntcorp.dn.net [207.226.172.79]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA05703 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 16:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.dn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA10503; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:37:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:37:37 -0500 (EST) From: Miles Fidelman X-Sender: fidelman@ntcorp.dn.net To: Dave Sill cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: <14452.56116.763300.426540@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave, A followup question: On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > I recommend installing ezmlm+qmail on your existing list server (just > don't install qmail-smtpd (on port 25) or qmail's "sendmail"). That'll > allow you to play with qmail and ezmlm without interfering with your > majordomo+sendmail setup. > > Once you've migrated the lists to ezmlm, you can turn off sendmail and > install qmail-smtpd. any thoughts on how to get sendmail/majordomo and qmail/ezmlm to run at the same time - each serving some lists as far as I can tell, I can't configure both sendmail and qmail to listen on port 25 - each listening for different things so.. it seems like what I'd have to do is have either sendmail or qmail do the smtp listening, and hand off a range of addresses to the other program's queue -- any thoughts on how to do this? Thanks, Miles Fidelman ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 19:46:16 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA07657; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id TAA07650 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 19:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2383 invoked by uid 100); 6 Jan 2000 22:49:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 22:49:45 -0500 (EST) From: John R Levine To: Miles Fidelman cc: Dave Sill , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > as far as I can tell, I can't configure both sendmail and qmail to listen > on port 25 - each listening for different things Right. > so.. it seems like what I'd have to do is have either sendmail or qmail do > the smtp listening, and hand off a range of addresses to the other > program's queue -- any thoughts on how to do this? It's not hard. Assuming that you have sendmail listening on port 25, just set up the alias file to call qmail-queue for the addresses that you want qmail to handle. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 6 23:31:01 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA09620; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA09613 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13439; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:39:59 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Subject: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 23:39:59 -0800 Message-ID: <13437.947230799@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Just a brief appeal to any of you out there who might be thinking of setting up a mailing list with the help of EGROUPS.COM. Please don't. In fact if you are adverse to spam, you may just want to do what I have just done here, and blacklist the entire egroups.com domain, either at your router or in your mail server control files, so as to avoid being placed on various EGROUPS.COM spam lists without your consent. (See example below.) Seriously, this is SOOOOOOOOO lame. These people are pretending to be professional list administrators, and not only are they spamming but they apparently can't be bothered with little things like, oh, CONFIRMING list subscriptions before they finalize them. Well, gotta run now. I'm off to www.egroups.com. I gotta sign up to a few dozen of their stupid non-confirming lists. Oh yea! And I musn't forget ! Ron Guilmette ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: lfp-retsub-947224300-457933015-rfg=monkeys.com@egroups.com Received: from mu.egroups.com (mu.egroups.com [207.138.41.151]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13092 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:51:42 -0800 (PST) X-eGroups-Return: lfp-retsub-947224300-457933015-rfg=monkeys.com@egroups.com Received: from [10.1.1.11] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2000 05:51:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 05:51:40 -0000 From: "eGroups.com Manager" To: rfg@monkeys.com Subject: Welcome to the lfp group Reply-To: lfp-unsubscribe-rfg=monkeys.com@egroups.com Message-ID: <853utc+f7tc@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 Mailing-List: contact lfp-owner@egroups.com; run by eGroups.com Precedence: list X-Original-Recipient: RFC822;rfg@monkeys.com Hello! info@lotsofreestuff.com has included you in the lfp group at eGroups.com, a free email service. By joining this group, you can share information, store photographs and files, coordinate events and more! info@lotsofreestuff.com says: WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING THE LEGALFORM.COM and LOTSOFREESTUFF.COM NEWSLETTER GROUP. We will not waste your time. WE DO NOT SELL ANYTHING IN OUR NEWSLETTER, SAME AS OUR WEBSITE -- IT'S ALL FREE! We provide FREE information about FREE stuff that you can use whether at home or at work, including merchandise, products, reports, manuals, legal forms, software, services and much more - all FREE! If you sell a product or service, we'll help you in many ways in marketing on the internet. We want to become your number one source for helpful information and FREE stuff. Our service is always FREE and we NEVER give or sell our subscriber list to anyone. Thank you and Welcome! Yancey Sexton, Webmaster TO Unsubscribe: Click Reply in your email program and then Send. eGroups.com asks group moderators to not add anyone to their group who does not wish to join. If you believe this policy has been violated, please notify us at abuse@egroups.com Welcome! eGroups.com - The easiest way for groups of people to communicate! http://www.egroups.com ------- End of Forwarded Message From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 07:55:51 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA16678; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA16671 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:23:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from v4j31 (ip12.proper.com [165.227.249.12]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08876; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:35:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.2.1.20000107073356.00cbe840@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 07:36:09 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted Cc: hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com In-Reply-To: <13437.947230799@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:39 PM 1/6/00 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >Well, gotta run now. I'm off to www.egroups.com. I gotta sign up > to a few dozen of their stupid non-confirming >lists. Oh yea! And I musn't forget ! Great idea, Ron! Go commit fraud in the name of anti-spamming. That is sure to help the anti-spam movement. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 10:02:21 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA18687; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA18680 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA39866 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:07:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.2.1.20000107073356.00cbe840@mail.imc.org> References: <4.2.1.20000107073356.00cbe840@mail.imc.org> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:48:24 -0800 To: Paul Hoffman / IMC , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted Cc: hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:36 AM -0800 1/7/2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > Great idea, Ron! Go commit fraud in the name of anti-spamming. That >is sure to help the anti-spam movement. The ends justify the means. Anything for the cause. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 10:16:02 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA18657; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:51:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from onelist.com (www.onelist.com [209.207.164.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA18650 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7027 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2000 17:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO corp.onelist.com) (63.192.206.67) by www.onelist.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2000 17:52:11 -0000 Message-ID: <387627F2.48FCAE39@corp.onelist.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:52:50 +0000 From: Mark Fletcher X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: kate@corp.onelist.com, eng@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted References: <200001070900.BAA10473@honor.greatcircle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Just a brief appeal to any of you out there who might be thinking of > setting up a mailing list with the help of EGROUPS.COM. Please don't. > > In fact if you are adverse to spam, you may just want to do what I > have just done here, and blacklist the entire egroups.com domain, > either at your router or in your mail server control files, so as > to avoid being placed on various EGROUPS.COM spam lists without your > consent. (See example below.) > > Seriously, this is SOOOOOOOOO lame. These people are pretending to > be professional list administrators, and not only are they spamming > but they apparently can't be bothered with little things like, oh, > CONFIRMING list subscriptions before they finalize them. > You are absolutely correct, and I am embarassed by the mistake. When people want to transfer their lists over to ONElist/eGroups, we have mechanisms in place where a human has to verify that the list is legit before the transfer can go through. That obviously didn't happen in this case, and we're investigating what happened. On a related note, as part of the merger of ONElist and eGroups, we're implementing new strict anti-spamming measures across the entire service, including pro-active deletion of potential spam lists, more human interaction to prevent abuse of our service, and a beefed up customer support group. If anyone has a problem with either ONElist or eGroups, which you are not able to resolve, please feel free to contact Kate Shambarger, our Director of Customer Support, directly at kate@corp.onelist.com. Thanks, Mark From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 11:31:08 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19691; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:24:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19684 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15445; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:18:20 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 07:36:09 -0800. <4.2.1.20000107073356.00cbe840@mail.imc.org> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:18:20 -0800 Message-ID: <15443.947272700@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <4.2.1.20000107073356.00cbe840@mail.imc.org>, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >At 11:39 PM 1/6/00 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >>Well, gotta run now. I'm off to www.egroups.com. I gotta sign up >> to a few dozen of their stupid non-confirming >>lists. Oh yea! And I musn't forget ! > >Great idea, Ron! Go commit fraud in the name of anti-spamming. That is sure >to help the anti-spam movement. It isn't fraud. Egroups has their system setup so that anyone can subscribe anyone else to their mailing lists. I assume that that is intentional on their part... kind-of like MCI's ``friends and family'' plan. Egroups is intentionally allowing me (and you, and everybody) to sign up our friends and family to their lists. (The new subscribee's ascent to this is apparently not required.) Given that, and given that I'm quite sure that would just love to get information from lotsoffreestuff.com via egroups.com, I'm simply going to nominate him for this swell free service. If there is any fraud involved here, it is egroups fradulently trying to pretend that they have no control over what their own servers are doing, not to mention egroups fradulent attempts to skirt the letter of current California law by acting as front-men for the spammers using their services. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 11:46:51 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19894; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [170.1.118.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19887 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e07Jop217811 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:50:46 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-Reply-To: <13437.947230799@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Well, gotta run now. I'm off to www.egroups.com. I gotta sign up > to a few dozen of their stupid non-confirming > lists. Oh yea! And I musn't forget ! Fine... as long as you're the list-owner. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 12:01:31 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19851; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [170.1.118.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19844 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e07JnVp17790 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:49:21 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-Reply-To: <13437.947230799@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > Seriously, this is SOOOOOOOOO lame. These people are pretending to > be professional list administrators, and not only are they spamming > but they apparently can't be bothered with little things like, oh, > CONFIRMING list subscriptions before they finalize them. Do you force your list-managers to use confirmation? That is, is there some mechanism by which it is impossible for a list-manager to add an address unless there has been a user confirmation? I know of no product that will conform to this, Ron, so you might as well just pull yourself off the net. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 12:16:35 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19682; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19670 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:20:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA77328 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:39 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:32:10 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: managing list archives... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I figured I'd bring this up for possible discussion... Because of the virus attack that hit just before Christmas, it made me take a closer look at the mailing list archives and just how secure they are, both from a scenario where someone decides to attack a list by harvesting addresses and mailing list members directly, and the more general anti-spammer harvesting issue. The problem is how to make archives easily accessible, without leaving them wide open to anyone. It's an interesting tradeoff. I use two sets of archives. One is web based, using Web Crossing (www.webcrossing.com), which keeps threaded archives for about 30 days. I found it was possible to access e-mail addresses as guest, so I'm in process of recoding it so that guests can't access that info. Guests will still be able to browse, but can't access key identifying data without logging in and registering on the site. My other archive is via FTP, making the digested versions of things available (and that is accessible via a search engine). This, of course, is wide open. I've considered a number of ways to put some better controls on this. The easy one, obviously, is to put it behind a password, and make the password available in the list documentation. But -- that fails any number of sniff tests. It's a step up from no protection at all, but anyone motivatged enough to target the archives specifically won't get slowed down significantly. It's a false security. What I've decided to do for now is to move the archives from FTP to HTTP, on an Apache server, and then to write an apache authentification module. When you try to access the archives, you'd have to give your e-mail address, and you'll be validated in only if that e-mail address is a subscribed user. That puts the archives at the same level of security as the list itself -- they can only be accessed by someone who has gone through the subscription validation process (so by definition, they can get your e-mail simply by reading the list). It locks out anyone who isn't subscribed, so it locks out anyone you've kicked off the list or who isn't willing to give you a valid e-mail (assuming subscriptions are mailback-validated). anyone see any problems with this? I didn't want Yet Another Password, and it seems to me an authentification scheme that ties into the subscriber database is the easiest way to close off access without significantly raising complexity for the end user. Anyone see any real flaws here? -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 12:46:40 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA20609; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:27:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA20602 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23658 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:39:08 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <15443.947272700@monkeys.com> References: <15443.947272700@monkeys.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:39:38 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM -0800 1/7/2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > It isn't fraud. No, it's not -- but it is spamming, so I guess either Ronald feels that the end does really justify the means, or Ronald ought to admit he's promoting spamming and ought to blacklist himself. To be really blunt about it, if Ronald is willing to say it's okay for him to do this because he feels it's important to prove his point, isn't that exactly what every other spammer uses to justify THEIR reason for spamming? Because their message is so important it overrides the rules the rest of us live with? At the very least, Ronald simply lowers himself to the same level as the spammers, which isn't my idea of a way to prove a point. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 13:00:54 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA20809; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA20802 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:52:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15893; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:04:27 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: abuse@egroups.com, dru@egroups.net Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:50:46 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:04:27 -0800 Message-ID: <15891.947279067@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> Well, gotta run now. I'm off to www.egroups.com. I gotta sign up >> to a few dozen of their stupid non-confirming >> lists. Oh yea! And I musn't forget ! > >Fine... as long as you're the list-owner. Sorry, no. It is _not_ fine. If I wake up tomorrow morning and decide to create a mailing list called ``Great Pyramid Schemes You Can Join for only $19.95'', and if I then unilaterally subscribe to my marvelous new mailing list, that is most definitely _not_ fine. That's called spamming, and it's now illegal under California law. Can Egroups.Com be used as (witting or unwitting) accomplices in this type of violation of California law? Clearly, the answer is `yes', and that was proved by the spam I received from their server yesterday. I for one am more than willing to overlook the participation of either egroups.com or any other list hosting service in this type of spamming and violation of California law IF AND ONLY IF they will just be so kind as to do what most of the rest of the list administrators reading these words have already done long ago, i.e. implement a simple subscription confirmation protocol that will insure that I and other Internet users are not exposed to the additional risk of ``subscription bombing'' IN ADDITION to the risk of being indirectly spammed with the assistance of their servers. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 13:15:55 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA20626; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA20619 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1094376 invoked by uid 3995); 7 Jan 2000 20:41:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14454.20342.529886.975998@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:41:26 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Sill To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: can anybody share experiences w/ EZMLM? In-Reply-To: <14452.56116.763300.426540@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> References: <14452.56116.763300.426540@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 "20 Minutes to Nikko" XEmacs Lucid (patch 2) Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M >I've used majordomo+sendmail, majordomo+qmail, and ezmlm+qmail. I >think ezmlm+qmail is the best in terms of performance, ... And by that I mean both speed of delivery of a message to a list and speed of updating a list. The former is largely a function of MTA (qmail), the latter of the MLM (ezmlm). Here's a sample of the delivery speed you can get with qmail. My list server is an old Alphaserver 2100 that is also ORNL's netnews server and internal anonymous FTP server. One list I host is tru64-unix-managers, with ~1900 subscribers around the world. Here's how one delivery this afternoon went: 13:31:55: message received for list 13:31:59: message resent to list 13:32:01: qmail has spawned 400 qmail-remote processes (config'd max) 13:33:20: qmail-remotes drop below 400, i.e., all subscribers' systems have been contacted 13:33:22: qmail-remotes drop below 300 13:33:29: qmail-remotes drop below 200 13:34:18: qmail-remotes drop below 100 13:36:35: qmail-remotes drop to 0, i.e., message has been delivered to all subscribers whose systems were reachable on the first try Not too shabby, and I haven't even tried max'ing the remote concurrency. This is a Majordomo list with automatic bounce handling. -Dave From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 13:30:20 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA20649; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA20640 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:30:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15797; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:42:25 -0800 (PST) To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:49:21 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:42:25 -0800 Message-ID: <15794.947277745@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> Seriously, this is SOOOOOOOOO lame. These people are pretending to >> be professional list administrators, and not only are they spamming >> but they apparently can't be bothered with little things like, oh, >> CONFIRMING list subscriptions before they finalize them. > >Do you force your list-managers to use confirmation? That is, is there >some mechanism by which it is impossible for a list-manager to add an >address unless there has been a user confirmation? I know of no product >that will conform to this, Ron, so you might as well just pull yourself >off the net. As far as I know, every modern off-the-shelf list management package now provides, at the very least, an option which, when set, will cause the list management package to send, via E-mail, SOME SORT of confirmation request to each alleged new subscriber and to wait for a suitable response BEFORE finalizing the subscription. (The better packages will even e-mail a difficult-to-forge cookie of some sort to the alleged new subscriber and then verify that they get the exact same cookie back from that subscriber as part of the confirmation process.) Certainly, if the administrator of a given server system gives any and all mailing list adminsitartors who have access to that system carte blanche (e.g. root access) so that they can run rampant and do anything they like, then yes, some will undoubtedly be able to disable this prudent safety mechanism. But for any well-managed server that belongs to any company that makes its daily bread on the basis of providing mailing list services to random members of the general public, the user interface provided to the individual mailing list administrators clearly SHOULD NOT allow this safety mechanism to be disabled. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 13:44:42 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21177; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA21170 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29000 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:45:33 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA27726 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:45:32 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <200001072145.PAA27726@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: managing list archives... To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:45:32 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 07, 2000 11:32:10 AM Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > anyone see any problems with this? I didn't want Yet Another > Password, and it seems to me an authentification scheme that ties > into the subscriber database is the easiest way to close off access > without significantly raising complexity for the end user. Anyone see > any real flaws here? Well, if your user base is like mine, users THINK their e-mail address is Joe.User@foo.bar when it is really joeuser@piddly.foo.bar. If you're extracting the subscriber address from headers and then they're hand-typing in their e-mail address as a verification step, a goodly portion of them aren't gonna get in. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 14:15:06 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21521; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21514 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:02:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA62052 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:13:53 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> References: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:14:11 -0800 To: Mitch Collinsworth , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: managing list archives... Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:05 PM -0500 1/7/2000, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > Well, they have to give _a_ e-mail address, but I don't see where it > makes them give _theirs_. If they only have to know the address of > _someone_ who is subscribed to the list then it doesn't really lock > out anyone who was once on the list but since kicked off. Hmm. > For anyone > else, if the list info gives your address anywhere (maybe it doesn't) > and you're a subscriber, then everyone can be assured of knowing one > valid address. That's easy enough to take care of, simply by denying access to admin addresseses. Hmm. you have a good point. While this would nuke out the spammers, since they couldn't get an email address without first subscribing SOME legal address to the list, it doesn't solve the "kicked out getting even" attack scenario, because they would have had access to mail where they could get someone else's address from. So it's no better than the "password on the web site" solution, but a lot more work. Anyone see a way to fix this? I don't, unfortunately. thanks, Mitch. Saves me a buncha work for little real benefit. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 14:29:40 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21382; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from benge.graphics.cornell.edu (benge.graphics.cornell.edu [128.84.247.43]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA21375 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from benge.graphics.cornell.edu (mkc@localhost) by benge.graphics.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA34526; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:05:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mkc@benge.graphics.cornell.edu) Message-Id: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: managing list archives... In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:32:10 PST." Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:05:59 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >What I've decided to do for now is to move the archives from FTP to >HTTP, on an Apache server, and then to write an apache >authentification module. When you try to access the archives, you'd >have to give your e-mail address, and you'll be validated in only if >that e-mail address is a subscribed user. That puts the archives at >the same level of security as the list itself -- they can only be >accessed by someone who has gone through the subscription validation >process (so by definition, they can get your e-mail simply by reading >the list). It locks out anyone who isn't subscribed, so it locks out >anyone you've kicked off the list or who isn't willing to give you a >valid e-mail (assuming subscriptions are mailback-validated). > >anyone see any problems with this? I didn't want Yet Another >Password, and it seems to me an authentification scheme that ties >into the subscriber database is the easiest way to close off access >without significantly raising complexity for the end user. Anyone see >any real flaws here? Well, they have to give _a_ e-mail address, but I don't see where it makes them give _theirs_. If they only have to know the address of _someone_ who is subscribed to the list then it doesn't really lock out anyone who was once on the list but since kicked off. For anyone else, if the list info gives your address anywhere (maybe it doesn't) and you're a subscriber, then everyone can be assured of knowing one valid address. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 14:44:39 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21861; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21854 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA37328 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:45:37 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200001072145.PAA27726@celery.tssi.com> References: <200001072145.PAA27726@celery.tssi.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:46:06 -0800 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: managing list archives... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:45 PM -0600 1/7/2000, Mike Nolan wrote: > Well, if your user base is like mine, users THINK their e-mail address > is Joe.User@foo.bar when it is really joeuser@piddly.foo.bar. That's fixed by moving to something like what Lyris does, or a more generalized VERP mailing. I'm currently wrangling with a replacement for bulk_mailer that'll put the user's subscribed address back into the To: line, and give me some other nice customization features (as we speak, I'm doing some performance testing on net::DNS, and finding they're real performance pigs. Sigh, I may have to move that to C...) -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 14:59:40 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21852; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:34:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21845 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16402; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:46:09 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:10:00 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:46:09 -0800 Message-ID: <16400.947285169@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Jeremy Blackman wrote: >Another possibility, since I know Onelist and eGroups both store all list >subscriptions for an address in a single account, and you can set global >settings for yourself... why not have a setting on the account that says >'I want to /always/ be asked for confirmation, even if the list admin >subscribes me manually'? You're missing the point... My question is ``Why don't they just do this (confirm) for EVERYBODY and ALL OF THE TIME?'' As far as I'm concerned, that is the ONLY responsible way to run a service like the one they are running. Anything less than that allows various ramdom net-hooligans to, for example, launch an egroups-assisted subscription bomb on, for example, Gray Davis, or me, or you, or... The default setting should be set to ``No, DO NOT allow ramdom net-hooligans to subscription bomb Joe Innocent Bystander.'' >And should we really still be cc'ing abuse@egroups.com on this? :) Yes. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 15:15:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21990; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:44:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21970 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:44:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id e07MuU929137; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:56:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:56:30 -0500 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: managing list archives... Message-ID: <20000107175630.K25531@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:32:10AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > But -- that fails any number of sniff tests. It's a step up from no > protection at all, but anyone motivatged enough to target the > archives specifically won't get slowed down significantly. It's a > false security. I don't think there are any good solutions to that problem. In order to make the archives accessible to casual use by human beings, it has to be fairly easy to authenticate yourself. In order to make it sufficiently easy for the clueless to authenticate, the authentication instructions need to be fairly prominent, enough that it would not deter someone specifically interested in harvesting your archives. Here we make the authentication pretty easy. The list archives are behind a password-protected server. Anyone can create their own account and password -- it's trivial. I have never been able to find evidence of someone targeting our archive directly for e-mail addresses and just don't worry about it. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 15:29:57 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21946; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:40:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21939 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16468 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:52:56 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:26:13 -0500. <10001071726.aa18431@one.eListX.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:52:56 -0800 Message-ID: <16466.947285576@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <10001071726.aa18431@one.eListX.com>, James M Galvin wrote: rfg> But for any well-managed server that belongs to any company that rfg> makes its daily bread on the basis of providing mailing list rfg> services to random members of the general public, the user interface rfg> provided to the individual mailing list administrators clearly rfg> SHOULD NOT allow this safety mechanism to be disabled. >Who do you consider a "random member of the general public"? Well, for one example, the guy who subscribed me to that list which promoted lotsoffreestuff.com. >Suppose elist services are provided on a for fee basis. Are such >individuals random? They are less random. In that case, at least we know that they have money... money which can be, and which should be forfitted if they are caught signing up ``subscribers'' who never asked to be on their bleedin' lists. >I hope not. It should be entirely reasonable to >not only disable but not even offer the safety mechanism to a known >elist administrator, where "known" obviously means more than just >someone who came to my web site and told me who they were. Yes. Money can be used as a sort-of `bond' against misbehavior. But as I understand it, you don't need anything other than a Hotmail account in order to start up your own new eGroups list. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 15:33:16 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21110; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA21100 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16012; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:37:22 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com, dru@egroups.net Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:39:38 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:37:22 -0800 Message-ID: <16010.947281042@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 11:18 AM -0800 1/7/2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> It isn't fraud. > >No, it's not -- but it is spamming... Sorry no. It isn't that either. Let's review shall we? Spamming is the act of sending someone unsolicited e-mail. If I sign _you_ up to one (or more) mailing lists... let's say ones that are run by Egroups.Com... then I can do that without sending you any e-mail at all. Thus, *I* have not spammed you. Later on, Egroups.Com may send you some unsolicited e-mails, but that's THEIR responsibility, don't cha think? DUH! OK, chuq, since you may have trouble working that out, let's try a simpler example... I ask a friend to shoot you in the head with his .45 Smith & Wesson. My friend, helpful fellow that he is, complies with my request. Guess who goes to jail for murder, me or my friend. Don't answer right away. Take the afternoon to think about it if you need to. >To be really blunt about it, if Ronald is willing to say it's okay >for him to do this because he feels it's important to prove his >point... To be really blunt about it, I'm more than willing to _say_ that _I_ (or anyone else on the net for that matter) *may* at any moment, go to www.egroups.com and subscribe to a couple of zillion of the lists that are being run from that site. And I am more than willing to have the people at egroups.com con- template the amount of grief and difficulty they would cause for our governor and his staff if this were to happen, and if the governor's staff was then forced to go thru the tedious process of manually UNSUBSCRIBING from all of those same zillion egroups.com lists just in order to return the mailbox to a usable state. (You have no idea what a huge pain in the ass, and a huge time-sink this sort of thing can be UNTIL you have had the mailbox that you use for most of your normal business communications rendered useless by a malicious `subscription bomb' or two.) >At the very least, Ronald simply lowers himself to the same level as >the spammers, which isn't my idea of a way to prove a point. Correction: I *would* lower myself to that level, if I did indeed go to www.groups.com and subscribe to a bunch of their inadequately-secured lists. But it is my sincere hope that it will not be necessary to provide that sort of demonstration of the hazards of non-confirming lists in order for egroups.com, and others, to fully appreciate these risks, and to take steps, immediately, to reduce them. Frankly, I don't actually see why you're even trying to generate an argument here chuq... other than the fact that you like to argue. I mean _you_ _do_ understand the value and importance of doing proper subscription confirmations, and you _do_ already have that setup for all of the lists that _you_ manage, correct? (I'm just guessing that you've done this for all of your lists, because once upon a time I _was_ forge-subscribed to some Apple list or another, and my recollection was that that subscription _did_ require a conformation from me... which I of course never sent... and thus the subscription just harmlessly died of its own accord, without any additional effort on my part.) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 15:45:12 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA22522; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:22:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [170.1.118.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA22515 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:22:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e07NYSg21780 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:34:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-Reply-To: <15794.947277745@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As far as I know, every modern off-the-shelf list management package now > provides, at the very least, an option which, when set, will cause the > list management package to send, via E-mail, SOME SORT of confirmation > request to each alleged new subscriber and to wait for a suitable response > BEFORE finalizing the subscription. (The better packages will even e-mail > a difficult-to-forge cookie of some sort to the alleged new subscriber and > then verify that they get the exact same cookie back from that subscriber > as part of the confirmation process.) > > Certainly, if the administrator of a given server system gives any and all > mailing list adminsitartors who have access to that system carte blanche > (e.g. root access) so that they can run rampant and do anything they like, > then yes, some will undoubtedly be able to disable this prudent safety > mechanism. But, in fact, just about every package of this sort, whether an off-the-shelf package or a list host, DOES allow individual list owners to add users without confirmation if they so choose. Don't generalize without data. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 15:59:39 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA22078; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA22071 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA39540 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:07:50 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000107175630.K25531@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <20000107175630.K25531@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:08:16 -0800 To: Tim Pierce , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: managing list archives... Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:56 PM -0500 1/7/2000, Tim Pierce wrote: > In order to > make it sufficiently easy for the clueless to authenticate, the > authentication instructions need to be fairly prominent, enough > that it would not deter someone specifically interested in harvesting > your archives. I think it's 'only' necessary to make the archives as safe as being subscribed is (and that's another discussion entirely!) -- which is why authentificating against whether the person is subscribed or not is where I'm headed. Hmm. Here's a thought. you have a web page, where you type in your e-mail address. That's validated against the subscriber lists, and if you authenticate, you e-mail the access into to the user. then, you change the password on a regular basis (daily?) or even on a per-user basis, if you want. With an SQL backend, adding a password field isn't that bad, and allowing a user to set a password (and e-mailing it to them again if they forget) isn't terribly difficult. Hmm. that has potential. > I have never been able > to find evidence of someone targeting our archive directly for > e-mail addresses and just don't worry about it. I haven't, either, but I do worry about it, because the only thing I can guarantee is if/when someone DOES target it, it'll be at the time I can least afford to have to deal with it... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 16:14:42 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21609; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21593 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F41CAF89D; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA20995; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:14:00 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:13:59 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: managing list archives... 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 Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > What I've decided to do for now is to move the archives from FTP to > HTTP, on an Apache server, and then to write an apache > authentification module. When you try to access the archives, you'd > have to give your e-mail address, and you'll be validated in only if > that e-mail address is a subscribed user. That puts the archives at > the same level of security as the list itself -- they can only be > accessed by someone who has gone through the subscription validation > process (so by definition, they can get your e-mail simply by reading > the list). It locks out anyone who isn't subscribed, so it locks out > anyone you've kicked off the list or who isn't willing to give you a > valid e-mail (assuming subscriptions are mailback-validated). I have been working on writing a mod_auth_listar, which will check the HTTP user/pass against an e-mail and a web interface password (since Listar does allow passwords for the web interface, though I think the cookie method is more secure). I don't want to use just the e-mail, since then if you knew even one e-mail of someone on the list, you could harvest all the others... though I don't want to require people to set a web password just to access the archives. I have been considering an intermediate login page that would create a Listar authentication cookie, but that is starting to just get frighteningly wrong. > anyone see any problems with this? I didn't want Yet Another > Password, and it seems to me an authentification scheme that ties > into the subscriber database is the easiest way to close off access > without significantly raising complexity for the end user. Anyone see > any real flaws here? Other than the one I point out, no. But say someone forwards a message from the list and you take the 'From' field in the forwarded message, enter that in the 'E-mail' login portion of your web authentication box, and voila, given one e-mail you can harvest all. It is still a better approach than simply leaving them open to the world, though. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 16:18:10 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA21512; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21505 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3522CAF89D; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:24:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA20992; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, hostman@egroups.net, webmaster@egroups.com, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted 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 Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > > Seriously, this is SOOOOOOOOO lame. These people are pretending to > > be professional list administrators, and not only are they spamming > > but they apparently can't be bothered with little things like, oh, > > CONFIRMING list subscriptions before they finalize them. > > Do you force your list-managers to use confirmation? That is, is there > some mechanism by which it is impossible for a list-manager to add an > address unless there has been a user confirmation? I know of no product > that will conform to this, Ron, so you might as well just pull yourself > off the net. I would, however, argue that in largely-unsupervised list hosting situations such as eGroups/Onelist, there should be a 'self-ban' command, which tells the listserver that you never want to be signed up for that list again. In other words, still allow the list admin to subscribe anyone, since too many legitimate lists use it, and in the 'you joined' notice message, offer not only a way to unsubscribe (since often times when they get the unsubscribe notice, malicious users of those systems will simply resubscribe you) but a way to say 'regardless of what the list admin says, I want off this list permanently'. Now, that may not be the most /elegant/ solution - it is something I cooked up spur-of-the-moment as I read this message thread, and could probably be improved upon - but from my point of view it seems to solve both issues...not necessarily in the /best/ way, but it does solve them. Another possibility, since I know Onelist and eGroups both store all list subscriptions for an address in a single account, and you can set global settings for yourself... why not have a setting on the account that says 'I want to /always/ be asked for confirmation, even if the list admin subscribes me manually'? Since I suspect most of us have, at one time or another, been on an eGroups or Onelist list of some sort, that would also seem fairly trivial, and if they included information about how to set that on yourself - either in the 'you have been subscribed' message or on a website on their page with a URL in the 'you have been subscribed' message - that would seem to be another feasible solution. Constructive brainstorming is always better than simply flaming people, and may solve problems that were not originally seen. I know that watching this has made me think about adding something similar to what I describe above to the small list-hosting service JT and I are setting up. :) And should we really still be cc'ing abuse@egroups.com on this? :) -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 16:30:11 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA22087; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (ikkoku.maison-otaku.net [207.195.149.217]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA22080 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.241]) by ikkoku.maison-otaku.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC16EAF89D; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:18:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA21005; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:04:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:04:49 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Blackman To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-Reply-To: <15891.947279067@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > I for one am more than willing to overlook the participation of either > egroups.com or any other list hosting service in this type of spamming > and violation of California law IF AND ONLY IF they will just be so kind > as to do what most of the rest of the list administrators reading these > words have already done long ago, i.e. implement a simple subscription > confirmation protocol that will insure that I and other Internet users > are not exposed to the additional risk of ``subscription bombing'' IN > ADDITION to the risk of being indirectly spammed with the assistance of > their servers. I think the point that was made earlier was that the majority of individual list owners do not have that restriction placed on them on services other than eGroups. Hence, if I am the list administrator on a Majordomo list, I can do: approve subscribe Do they get a confirmation ticket? Not under stock majordomo, not last time I checked. Does this mean Majordomo on a free Majordomo hosting site could be used by list admins as a spam technique, by signing up people without their consent? Of course! The /vast majority/ of listserver software out there has a way for admins to add users. However, that having been said, it probably does make sense on un-supervised large commercial 'free' list hosting sites to have some sort of protection against this being done, but saying 'everyone else does it' is not valid, since while most give confirmation tickets for a normal subscribe, if a user is /manually added/ by a list admin, it does not. And that appears to be the case here; not that another user tried to sign them up, but that they were manually added by the admin. In Listserv, I can add manually. In Majordomo, I can add manually or even just edit the user file. In Smartlist, I can edit the user files. I suspect you can do the same in ezmlm, Mailman, and Sympa (which I have not used as a list or site admin, so cannot attest to). In Listar, I could edit the user file on disk, or I could just send an authenticated admin command mail, and manually add people in that. The key is that most listserver packages are designed around the theory that the list admins are responsible; otherwise the sysadmin would not let them have a list, right? But that theory goes out the window with free hosting services with unsupervised signups, such as eGroups/Onelist. So, while you are arguing a valid point (something should change about the eGroups/Onelist setup) arguing that they are somehow doing something different than all other setups is /not/ true. The problem is they are doing the /same/ thing as the setups where the list admin can be trusted. Just my $0.02 + state sales tax. Take as applicable. -- Jeremy Blackman - loki@maison-otaku.net / loki@listar.org / jeremy@lith.com Lithtech Team, Monolith Productions -- http://www.lith.com Listar Developer -- http://www.listar.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 17:15:15 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA24548; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:08:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA24541 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 889 invoked by uid 50); 8 Jan 2000 01:20:23 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: managing list archives... References: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:14:11 -0800" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 07 Jan 2000 17:20:23 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > Anyone see a way to fix this? I don't, unfortunately. thanks, Mitch. > Saves me a buncha work for little real benefit. It sounds to me like the goal is to restrict access to the archives to only list members, correct? If that's the case, then that means you have to authenticate an incoming user as a list member. To do authentication, you have to have a shared secret between you and the person you're authenticating, however indirectly. In the absence of personal certs issued by a trusted authority or something else extremely complicated, in practice I think this pretty much means either a password equivalent of some sort or a confirmation handshake (which is essentially a one-time password leveraged off the security of the person's e-mail account). The scheme of using their e-mail address and checking against the subscriber list reduces to using their e-mail address as a password. It's not necessary to join a mailing list to know the e-mail address of one of the subscribers; there are other ways of obtaining that information, down to someone just happening to mention in public that they're on a particular mailing list and making some guesses about what address they would be subscribed as. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 19:17:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA25773; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:12:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA25766 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17174; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:24:52 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:34:23 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:24:52 -0800 Message-ID: <17172.947301892@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> As far as I know, every modern off-the-shelf list management package now >> provides, at the very least, an option which, when set, will cause the >> list management package to send, via E-mail, SOME SORT of confirmation >> request to each alleged new subscriber and to wait for a suitable response >> BEFORE finalizing the subscription. (The better packages will even e-mail >> a difficult-to-forge cookie of some sort to the alleged new subscriber and >> then verify that they get the exact same cookie back from that subscriber >> as part of the confirmation process.) >> >> Certainly, if the administrator of a given server system gives any and all >> mailing list adminsitartors who have access to that system carte blanche >> (e.g. root access) so that they can run rampant and do anything they like, >> then yes, some will undoubtedly be able to disable this prudent safety >> mechanism. > >But, in fact, just about every package of this sort, whether an >off-the-shelf package or a list host, DOES allow individual >list owners to add users without confirmation if they so choose. I do not know that to be the case. But that is beside the point anyway. Are you claiming that it is a Good Thing, that anonymous goofballs can go and get outfits like eGroups to do their spamming for them, or are you only claiming that this is a common situation? >Don't generalize without data. Funny. I was just about to say that same to you. *I'm* not the one who is making statements of the form ``... just about every package of this sort...'' Where is your data to backup that generalization? Have you surveyed all such packages? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 19:47:16 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA25948; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:39:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA25941 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17324 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:51:31 -0800 (PST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:04:49 -0800. Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:51:31 -0800 Message-ID: <17322.947303491@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Jeremy Blackman wrote: >On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> I for one am more than willing to overlook the participation of either >> egroups.com or any other list hosting service in this type of spamming >> and violation of California law IF AND ONLY IF they will just be so kind >> as to do what most of the rest of the list administrators reading these >> words have already done long ago, i.e. implement a simple subscription >> confirmation protocol that will insure that I and other Internet users >> are not exposed to the additional risk of ``subscription bombing'' IN >> ADDITION to the risk of being indirectly spammed with the assistance of >> their servers. > >I think the point that was made earlier was that the majority of >individual list owners do not have that restriction placed on them on >services other than eGroups. Hence, if I am the list administrator on a >Majordomo list, I can do: > >approve subscribe > >Do they get a confirmation ticket? Not under stock majordomo, not last >time I checked. Does this mean Majordomo on a free Majordomo hosting site >could be used by list admins as a spam technique, by signing up people >without their consent? Of course! Assuming that this is true, _and_ that the admins of these ``free Majodomo hosting sites'' (got any names?) leave things configured like that, and that they do not take pains to disable this capability, then I for one find it both remarkable and also rather completely absurd. If what you are saying is true, I may switch over to writing spamware, rather than trying to write anti-spamware, because I can see now how writing spamware should be a damn sight easier. Here's a simple scenario... Spammer goes to one of the ``free Majordomo hosting sites'' and does what- ever is necessary to create a new list. He then mails a sequence of 50,000 lines of the form: approve subscribe to that site, followed by a _single_ copy of his spam (for a grand total of only _two_ messages). Total connect time needed for the spammer to spam 50,000 people? Under 1 minute. And as an added bonus, the spammer probably gets the benefit of (a) a nice high-performance server optimized for mailing list distribution and (b) some nice high-bandwidth connections to same. Swell. Just swell. NOT! From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 20:32:12 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA26378; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:27:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA26371 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:27:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom15.netcom.com [199.183.9.115]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA25444; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:39:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000107203235.00983180@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 20:32:35 -0800 To: Russ Allbery From: SRE Subject: Re: managing list archives... Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:20 PM 1/7/00 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >The scheme of using their e-mail address and checking against the >subscriber list reduces to using their e-mail address as a password. It's >not necessary to join a mailing list to know the e-mail address of one of >the subscribers Someone once pointed out to me that forging an email address has no security risk if it results in the file being sent to the person whose address was forged... so if you're emailing out the file, using the list of current subscribers is just fine. If you're showing it on the web, you'd have to do something like email a cookie before authorizing viewing for a period of time. Of course if I know that someone ELSE has been viewing your archives, I can use their address to view until the cookie expires. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 21:32:12 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA26936; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [170.1.118.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA26929 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e085f7u27056 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:41:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, abuse@egroups.com Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted In-Reply-To: <17172.947301892@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message , > "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > >But, in fact, just about every package of this sort, whether an > >off-the-shelf package or a list host, DOES allow individual > >list owners to add users without confirmation if they so choose. > > I do not know that to be the case. Including my hedge of "just about," I do know this to be the case, as I've researched it lately. > But that is beside the point anyway. Are you claiming that it is a Good > Thing, that anonymous goofballs can go and get outfits like eGroups to do > their spamming for them, or are you only claiming that this is a common > situation? Common, of course. > >Don't generalize without data. > > Funny. I was just about to say that same to you. See below. > *I'm* not the one who is making statements of the form ``... just about > every package of this sort...'' > > Where is your data to backup that generalization? Have you surveyed all > such packages? About 20 of them, at last count, free and commercial. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 22:17:15 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27481; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA27458 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA91410 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:27:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:13:29 -0800 To: Jeremy Blackman From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: EGROUPS.COM Blacklisted Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:04 PM -0800 1/7/2000, Jeremy Blackman wrote: > The problem is they are > doing the /same/ thing as the setups where the list admin can be trusted. Which may well be the right thing, as long as there are ways to police the admins appropriately. One thing people have to watch out for is the "no risk" syndrome -- if something, anything can go wrong, then you can't do it. Risk is not absolute, it's something to be managed. The only way you can have no problems it to do nothing. If one admin in one thousand abuses a priviledge, is that a reason to remove it from the other 999? Or do you shoot that thousandth one instead? -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 7 22:32:12 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27479; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA27457 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA91416 ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:27:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200001072205.RAA34526@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 22:18:30 -0800 To: Russ Allbery , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: managing list archives... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:20 PM -0800 1/7/2000, Russ Allbery wrote: > It sounds to me like the goal is to restrict access to the archives to > only list members, correct? That seems to be the cleanest way to limit access to a group of approved users -- given that being a subscriber means they've been authorized at some level. I have no problem with a