From owner-list-managers-list Mon Dec 1 23:57:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA07706; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA07677 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom15.netcom.com (netcom15.netcom.com [192.100.81.128]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA05789 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom15.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id VAA05813 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:37:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:37:39 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom15 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Clueless subscribers? Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk All: I discovered yesterday that I was the first person to be able to successfully unzubscribe from a mailing list, without having to get the list-owner's help. << It appears that people don't know how to send a confirmation message. >> In the last five weeks, I've helped launch five mailing lists, that cover similar topics to that list, and for every individual that has successfully zubscribed to one of those lists, I've had 50 complain that they can't zubscribe to these lists becuase the zubscribe mechanism doesn't work. << Again, it appears that people don't know how to either send an original message to the right address, or a confirmation message, when one is requested. >> A semi-typical example, is the person who tried to set herself to NOMAIL. She knows the listname is list-l, but sends a message to "set nomail list-1." And then complains because it doesn't set list-l to nomail, but generates an error message. Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? If it is the latter, what action are other list-owners taking, to combat it? << Other than using them as fodder for HumourNet. >> xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com I accidentally wrote "will hack Python for food" in my cover letter. The company decided that was enough of a recommendation to hire me as their sole SysAdmin. From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 02:30:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA25003; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:46:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sky.net (solar.sky.net [209.90.0.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id BAA21631 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:17:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from sky.net.sky.net (ts-1-ip11.kc.sky.net [209.90.4.75]) by sky.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA11711; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:10:08 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199712020910.DAA11711@sky.net> X-Sender: price@sky.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Release Candidate 3 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 03:10:29 -0600 To: jonathon , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Allen Rice Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 05:37 AM 11/27/97 +0000, the following was written by jonathon... <-<-<-<-<-<-Start of Quoted Material > > I discovered yesterday that I was the first person to be > able to successfully unzubscribe from a mailing list, without > having to get the list-owner's help. << It appears that > people don't know how to send a confirmation message. >> > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? > <-<-<-<-<-<-End of Quoted Material Actually, and I will stick to this til my dying day..., it's a case of people not reading what they get. I mean, geez, how much more plain can you get than what comes in the confirmation message? Well, admittedly, they could be written a little better. The confirmation message tends to be a little over-verbose. Simply put, they are asking "Do you REALLY want to subscribe to this mailing list? If so hit the reply button and send this back to me. Otherwise trash me." So why do we have to rewrite War and Peace to say that? But even those lists that do not require confirmations get their share of cluelessness. Seems a lot of people just make up their own rules for how this sh*t works. I had one reader last week make attempt after attempt after attempt to get off one of my lists and then had the audacity to cuss me out in a message to the owner address that my list server wasn't working. I looked at his attempts that he had forwarded to me (and I also compared them to the bounced messaged I had from him all week long) and in every case )all seven of them) the luser left the first 'B' out of the word 'unsubscribe'. At the bottom of every list message I have a hyperlink that sets up the unsub command perfectly in well behaved mail clients. However, people have done so many things with that link that I can't believe it. One user cut and past the entire link from the < to the > into the subject of the message and sent it to the list address. And the problem isn't unique to the clueless users either. Even the supposedly informed members of the internet's sysadmin circle don't understand this stuff either. After sending my generic "you've sent the command to the wrong address, the correct address is..." message to the same user in Holland over ten times one week, I get a message from his ISP's sysadmin telling me my autoresponder is broke. I made up for it by banning their domain. Am I the only one around here that gets sadistic pleasure from unsubscribing list members for bounces and random acts of stupidity like that? :-) Sometimes I feel like people who don't have enough intelligence to figure out how to get off a list deserve every piece of mail they get. Other times I wish they never got on. Clueless? P:ossibly. How do we deal with it? I've been trying to find that out myself. At first I was very hard nosed about it. I wouldn't manually take a member of a list until he proved to me beyond a doubt that MD was screwed so badly that he couldn't get off the list. I wouldn't honore manual add/remove requests at all. I was out to "educate the subscriber" Nowdays, I boot''em before their send key cools down. If anyone comes up with the solution, please CC it to my address???? Thanks. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------ (o)(o) Paul Allen Rice > Listowner: CircleJoke and Underground Mailing Lists \/ Homepage: ------------------------------------------------------------ "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." --Robert Wilensky, University of California ------------------------------------------------------------ Support the anti-Spam amendment, go to http://www.cauce.org ------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 08:01:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA14305; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from firewall.edvg.co.at (firewall.edvg.co.at [192.164.36.131]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id HAA14280 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:50:47 -0800 (PST) X-Lotus-Fromdomain: EDVG From: Niels_Hansa@edvg.co.at (Niels Hansa) To: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:44:16 +0200 Subject: Q: How to make Majordomo look for approval where I what him to.. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Loopind: 1 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi! I have a problem: I am using Majordomo 1.94.1 on a Red Hat Linux System with Perl 5.003. Now a customer of ours wants to use Majordomo to distribute HTML mail. He wants to use the "Send Page..." Tool of Netscape Communicator 4.03. He needs to utilize a moderated list for distribution, since it is a information list. What happens is, that HTML mials are sent by Netscape as Mime multipart and Majordomo always bounces the mail back for approval. What I need is a "perl hack" that makes Majordomo look for approval passwd not only in the first line but in a specified amount of lines. Thats IMHO the only way to get Mime multipart through a moderated list. Please tell me how to get accomplish that! Here an example of what the HTML mail looks like From: tech@connect-austria.at (tech) Reply-To: tech@connect-austria.at (tech) Organization: Connect Austria GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: test Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2B92821FEBEDC8BB05F2EA6C" X-Loopind: 1 Status: RO X-Status: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2B92821FEBEDC8BB05F2EA6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved: xxx http://www.connect-austria.at/html/tech/tech1.html --------------2B92821FEBEDC8BB05F2EA6C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="tech1.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tech1.html" Content-Base: "http://www.connect-austria.at/html/tec h/tech1.html" ... --------------2B92821FEBEDC8BB05F2EA6C-- greetings, Niels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EDVg-debis Systemhaus GmbH & Co. KG Competence Center - Network Applications Niels A. Hansa Internet Spezialanwendungen Hofmuehlgasse 3-5, A-1060 Wien Tel.: +43 (1) 59903-1327 Fax.: +43 (1) 59903-1399 Email: Niels_Hansa@edvg.co.at WWW: http://www.edvg.co.at From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 10:43:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA23721; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from blackhole.dimensional.com (blackhole.dimensional.com [208.206.176.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA23699 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from flatland.dimensional.com (tedsmith@flatland.dimensional.com [208.206.176.24]) by blackhole.dimensional.com (8.8.7/8.8.nospam) with SMTP id KAA27540; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:29:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:29:48 -0700 (MST) From: Theodore M Smith To: jonathon cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? 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, 27 Nov 1997, jonathon wrote: > I discovered yesterday that I was the first person to be > able to successfully unzubscribe from a mailing list, without > having to get the list-owner's help. << It appears that > people don't know how to send a confirmation message. >> > > In the last five weeks, I've helped launch five mailing lists, > that cover similar topics to that list, and for every individual > that has successfully > zubscribed to one of those lists, I've had 50 complain that they > can't zubscribe to these lists becuase the zubscribe mechanism > doesn't work. Your software may be having more problems with those zubscribe and unzuscribe commands than you realize. Respectfully yours, Ted Smith Denver, Colorado Where we always walk a mile high. From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 10:58:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA28354; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.geo.net (mail1.geo.net [166.90.101.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id JAA28317 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23224 invoked from network); 2 Dec 1997 17:52:51 -0000 Received: from electra.znyx.com (root@209.0.10.2) by mail1.geo.net with SMTP; 2 Dec 1997 17:52:51 -0000 Received: from alan.znyx.com (alan.znyx.com [209.0.10.4]) by electra.znyx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA14966 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:50:46 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971202183824.00e74100@electra.znyx.com> X-Sender: alan@electra.znyx.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:38:24 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Alan Deikman Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 05:37 AM 11/27/97 +0000, the following was written by jonathon... > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? >From Paul Allen Rice: > > >If anyone comes up with the solution, please CC it to my address???? Thanks. > > I kinda hate to point out the obvious, but has it ever occurred to either of you that you are in the wrong vocation/hobby/profession (whatever word applies) if this sort of thing bothers you? Whine whine whine. Have you ever seen what airline gate agents put up with? Telephone operators? Traffic cops? ANYONE who deals with the public on a regular basis? Most of these people would sneer at what you seem to consider a major tribulation. And you don't even have to deal with halitosis. Kitchen --> Heat. Out of Kitchen --> No Heat. Seems simple to me. So who is clueless? Yes, the appalling lack of literacy of the dear public is a generally known phenomenon. I read that more than 50% of Americans cannot address a letter properly, and cannot identify what state they live in when given a map without labeling. It's not surprising, jonathon, that they don't read your clearly worded instructions. Face it, boys, the reason you are running mailing lists is that you wanted to be the center/master/controller/authority of whatever topic you happened to grab onto. I know you're not getting paid, but you don't have to do it either. I'll bet you can find dozens that will take over your lists for you if it is too much of a burden. Otherwise, just consider it part of the overhead involved. -------------------------------- Alan Deikman, ZNYX Corporation alan@znyx.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 14:00:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA08403; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smsltd.demon.co.uk (smsltd.demon.co.uk [158.152.67.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id NAA08240 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:21:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:09:47 GMT From: njh@smsltd.demon.co.uk (Nigel Horne) Reply-To: njh@smsltd.demon.co.uk Message-Id: <32152@smsltd.demon.co.uk> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #234 Organisation: Wharfedale Computers Ltd. X-Mailer: PCElm 1.11 Lines: 13 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? No, its just that computers are being used by less computer literate people. This is to be expected - I drive a car but it doesn't mean that I can fix it when it breaks down. You just need to be more tolerant with people with less knowledge, or less interest in the 'inards' than you. -Nigel -- Nigel Horne, Wharfedale Computers Ltd. Internet: njh@smsltd.demon.co.uk http://www.smsltd.demon.co.uk/software.htm. From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 14:10:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA14670; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from revnet1.revnet.com (revnet1.revnet.com [198.51.35.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id NAA14476 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from majestic.revnet.com (majestic.revnet.com [198.51.35.45]) by revnet1.revnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA23778; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:42:55 -0600 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:35:34 -0600 Message-ID: <01BCFF37.EE16FF60.mmead@revnet.com> From: Marc Mead Reply-To: "mmead@revnet.com" To: "'jonathon'" , "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: RE: Clueless subscribers? Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:35:33 -0600 Organization: Revnet Systems X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, November 26, 1997 11:38 PM, jonathon [SMTP:grafolog@netcom.com] wrote: > I discovered yesterday that I was the first person to be > able to successfully unzubscribe from a mailing list, without > having to get the list-owner's help. << It appears that > people don't know how to send a confirmation message. >> An alternative solution to this perennial problem is to move on to newer mail list management technology. There are many web-enabled listservers on the market now, including my company's GroupMaster. Each outgoing message can have a URL in the footer that allows for *instant* unsubscribe---no typing, no replying, no sending---just use that handy mouse to click your way off a list via the browser (traditional methods are also supported). Yes, most die-hards still don't use a browser and email in tandem, and yes, many die-hards use text based clients that don't support 'hot' URLs. However, these experienced users (like you & I) usually find their way off any list type---it's the AOLers and newbies that screw up. So, follow this logic: 1. Newbies are comfortable with simple GUIs & clicking mice. 2. Give them a way to manage their list subscriptions with a GUI (web in GroupMaster's case) 3. They cease to screw up their subscriptions. 4. They quit bugging & cursing you. 5. Your blood pressure decreases, your free time increases. Just an alternative to consider, Marc Mead http://www.groupmaster.com From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 14:19:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA27789; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA27737 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:29:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id OAA07455 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:32:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199712022032.OAA07455@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 14:33:32 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11/27/97 12:37 AM, jonathon wrote... > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? A little bit of both. I tend to find that certain segments of society and the online world have a harder time than others. For example, a list I run for fiction writers has more problem subscribers than a list I run for science fiction fans. Users of online services tend to have more problems than users of ISPs. But overall, as the net becomes more and more mass-market, you get more and more people who can't follow simple directions. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 19:42:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA01222; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA01165 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA06315; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:34:12 -0500 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:31:16 -0500 To: jonathon , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 0:37 -0500 11/27/97, jonathon sent everyone: > A semi-typical example, is the person who tried to set > herself to NOMAIL. She knows the listname is list-l, but > sends a message to "set nomail list-1." And then complains > because it doesn't set list-l to nomail, but generates an > error message. Yup. > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? Pretty general. People don't pay attention. Don't worry about it, though -- these are the same people who are hit and killed by busses while crossing the street. Thus, they'll eventually "disappear" from the list. The key is to have a good bounce handling capability. ;-) (The sad part is, of course, that they generally work in tag-team fashion -- the body is barely even cool following one bus-inspired cleansing, and a Clueless Person(tm) is already subscribing to fill the gap. Sometimes two of them.) > If it is the latter, what action are other list-owners taking, > to combat it? Yes. One of my lists is named mac-l. In all of the documentation that *I* write, I denote the list as "Mac-L" or "mac-L"; capitalizing the "L" makes it easier to read as an "L" and not a "1". ><< Other than using them as fodder for HumourNet. >> Well, sure, there's THAT ... ** Sometime around 13:38 -0500 12/2/97, Alan Deikman said: >Whine whine whine. Hmmm. WHO is whining? >Have you ever seen what airline gate agents >put up with? Telephone operators? Traffic cops? ANYONE who >deals with the public on a regular basis? Most of these people >would sneer at what you seem to consider a major tribulation. >And you don't even have to deal with halitosis. > >Kitchen --> Heat. Out of Kitchen --> No Heat. Seems simple >to me. So who is clueless? Eh. It's not only standard, it's healthy. Ever heard a bunch of nurses when they gt together? Let me tell you, if I even land in the hospital, I'm going to be one DAMNED well-bahaved little boy. Ever hear cops rant about the idiots they have to deal with? How about accountants? Hell, my mom's a kindergarten teacher -- and some of the stories/rants/complaints that those teachers share would make your ears curl. Should they all quit their professions? Nah. It's just blowing off steam. As long as it's done in the company of those who can relate to the pain -- instead of those who are CAUSING the pain -- I don't think it's a big deal. In fact, it probably keeps many of us out of the shrinks' offices. Which, BTW, I'm not really convinced is A Good Thing ... ;-) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man Behind every successful man is a is a surprised woman woman with expensive taste -- Maryon Pearson -- Vince Sabio From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 20:27:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA09428; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id UAA09391 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from huitzilo.tezcat.com (adamb@huitzilo.tezcat.com [204.128.247.17]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id WAA12893 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:17:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:17:20 -0600 (CST) From: Adam Bailey To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? (Was: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #234) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 12/2/97 4:09 PM, Nigel Horne wrote... >> Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be >> specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? > >No, its just that computers are being used by less computer literate people. >This is to be expected - I drive a car but it doesn't mean that I can fix >it when it breaks down. Not a good analogy. I don't know how to fix my car either, but the print over the gas gague says "Unleaded Fuel Only." And so I don't put leaded fuel into my car. The problem is, people THINK that anything on the computer is too complicated for them. I've sat down with people and read over the instructions with them, and when they actually paid attention and read it with their brain turned on, they knew right away what to do. But many people just see a bunch of text with big words, and automatically figure they can't do whatever it is. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 2 20:57:41 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA15367; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:44:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from commedia.cnds.jhu.edu (commedia.cnds.jhu.edu [128.220.231.250]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id UAA15360 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by commedia.cnds.jhu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA02395; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:47:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19971202234751.64842@cnds.jhu.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:47:51 -0500 From: David Shaw To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? References: <199712022032.OAA07455@quilla.tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199712022032.OAA07455@quilla.tezcat.com>; from Adam Bailey on Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 02:33:32PM -0500 Organization: Computer Science Department, The Johns Hopkins University X-PGP-Fingerprint: D79D345/1048/93 5A E2 39 4A 2A 45 A3 ED 46 9F F1 26 45 37 DF X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (11% of Full) X-Current-Email-Backlog: 188 X-Pointless-Random-Number: 182 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 02:33:32PM -0500, Adam Bailey wrote: > On 11/27/97 12:37 AM, jonathon wrote... > > > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? > > A little bit of both. I tend to find that certain segments of society and > the online world have a harder time than others. For example, a list I > run for fiction writers has more problem subscribers than a list I run > for science fiction fans. Users of online services tend to have more > problems than users of ISPs. But overall, as the net becomes more and > more mass-market, you get more and more people who can't follow simple > directions. As it was so wisely put in the majordomo config file: # Set the default subscribe policy for new lists here. # If not defined, defaults to "open", but in today's increasingly # imbecile Internet, "open+confirm" or "auto+confirm" is a wiser # choice for publicly available Majordomo servers. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@cs.jhu.edu | WWW http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~dshaw/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 00:27:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA09897; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:24:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA28562 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:37:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA09034 ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:32:03 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:13:26 -0800 To: Vince Sabio , jonathon , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:31 PM -0800 12/2/97, Vince Sabio wrote: > Pretty general. People don't pay attention. Don't worry about it, > though Don't worry about it *until* you know whether or not its your problem. Do you know what your error rate is? If you have 200 admin operations a day and 5 of them are bad, it ain't your fault. It's pilot error. If you have 50 admin operations a day and 5 of them are bad, then you better go find out why and fix the problem. Don't just assume it's stupid users. Maybe it's stupid or unclear documentation. I just rewrote a bunch of mine (actually, I'm about 1/4 done, but the first key piece is in) because I went and logged both errors and user reports, and found a huge percentage of errors were because the documentation confused people. How many list admins know what their error rates are? How many know they HAD one? Generally, mine is between 1-2% a day. one or two botches out of 100. Not bad, IMHO, but higher than it should be. If users are having problems, ask them why. analyze the errors and see if there are themes, or ways to help those willing to be helped. You'll never help the truly clueless, but until you study what's going on, how do you know they are truly clueless? If you've got an error rate of 10% (and I've seen lists that high), it ain't the users... but you don't know until you check... I've pretty literally spent the last year looking for and studying list issues like this, and you'd be amazed at what a few well-placed signposts can do. But you can't put down signposts at random, you have to know where people are getting lost. (and yes, one of my upcoming projects is to write up as much of this as I can, but it's a secondary project to actually implementing the rest of the beast. And one key future is figuring out how to build reports and formal metrics that can be argued over, refined and adopted, so that they're useful to people other than me -- because I know my sites well enough know to intuitively know when something's skew, but that doesn't help make things something someone else can administer easily....). -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 01:42:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA06621; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:35:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from voland.freenet.bishkek.su (voland.freenet.bishkek.su [193.125.230.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id BAA06553 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from freenet.bishkek.su (fygrave@freenet.bishkek.su [193.125.230.1]) by voland.freenet.bishkek.su (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA03356 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:40:35 +0500 Received: (from fygrave@localhost) by freenet.bishkek.su (8.8.4/8.6.12) id OAA10747; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:40:08 +0600 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:40:07 +0600 (GMT+0500) From: Fyodor Reply-To: fygrave@usa.net To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Majorodomo question Message-ID: X-lummer: Bill Gates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello, Just wondering, b/c here i develop some similar thing: where does majordomo read incommming messages for processing storing it into files, or saves temporally in memory? [ sorry i just don't have majordomo source around ] --- Fyodor Yarochkin email:fygrave@usa.net http://www.tigerteam.net/linuxgroup/ tel:(3312) 474465 "Optima philosophia et sapientia est meditatio mortis." From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 06:28:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA09590; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from leslie.mystery.com (leslie.mystery.com [198.202.235.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA09421 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from angus.mystery.com (audrey@angus.mystery.com [198.202.235.1]) by leslie.mystery.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA23635 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:17:18 -0500 Received: (from audrey@localhost) by angus.mystery.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08876 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:17:16 -0500 From: Audrey Helou Message-Id: <199712031417.JAA08876@angus.mystery.com> Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #235 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:17:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199712030946.BAA08429@honor.greatcircle.com> from "List-Managers-Digest" at Dec 3, 97 01:46:40 am Reply-To: audrey@mystery.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Adam Bailey wrote: > Not a good analogy. I don't know how to fix my car either, but the print > over the gas gague says "Unleaded Fuel Only." And so I don't put leaded > fuel into my car. *You* may not put leaded fuel into your car because of the print, but doing so was a serious problem until the pump folks made the nozzles different sizes. The nozzles for leaded fuels are larger than those for unleaded fuels and won't fit. Audrey -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=audrey@mystery.com From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 06:59:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA18021; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA18001 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway2.tssi.com [198.136.212.126]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA09239 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:57:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA00850 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:57:26 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA07354 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:57:24 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199712031457.IAA07354@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Clueless To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:57:24 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Not a good analogy. I don't know how to fix my car either, but the print > > over the gas gague says "Unleaded Fuel Only." And so I don't put leaded > > fuel into my car. > > *You* may not put leaded fuel into your car because of the print, but > doing so was a serious problem until the pump folks made the nozzles > different sizes. The nozzles for leaded fuels are larger than those for > unleaded fuels and won't fit. There are at least two possible explanations for that behavior. One is the 'gas is gas' theory, the other is that '$1.15 gas is cheaper than '$1.25' gas, and as I recall leaded gas was generally cheaper during those confusing days. (Does anybody still sell leaded gas?) Likewise, I think there are at least three explanation for 'cluelessness'. 1. Bad instructions 2. Lazy users (why read the instructions?) 3. True cluelessness (not always attributable to 'newness') In my estimation, there are probably more people in the second category than in the first and third categories added up, but I'm firmly of the opinion that good instructions can reduce the counts in the third category, and _might_ even have some impact on the second one. However, as a list manager, I've had to accept that not everybody who gets on my list is going to be the type of subscriber I would choose, including the PITA's and clueless ones. Although I get annoyed with both types on occasion, they're just part of the landscape. -- Mike Nolan From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 08:47:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA05526; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from siberia.demon.co.uk (siberia.demon.co.uk [158.152.123.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA05395 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:11:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:11:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? (Was: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #23 Reply-to: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) via PM-Demon V4.04 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 2 Dec 97 at 22:17, Adam Bailey puddy cat purred: > The problem is, people THINK that anything on the computer is too > complicated for them. I've sat down with people and read over the > instructions with them, and when they actually paid attention and read > it with their brain turned on, they knew right away what to do. But > many people just see a bunch of text with big words, and automatically > figure they can't do whatever it is. I'd second that. I find it very much the same when giving ppl help over the 'phone: ppl are intimidated by computers, and scared of instructions. If led gently, they can see what they are doing. Most list instructions are much too verbose, and most are badly written (IMO, the *worst* instructions are those that LISTSERV sends in response to a "help" request: even I, as a list admin, systems consultant, programmer etc, find them intimidating and unhelpful). Like Chuq, I've analysed user errors on my lists, and am rewriting most of my help files. One thing that really seems to help is a good webpage, with an index at the start to key questions: "How do I leave the list", "How do I switch email addresses" etc. Another thing, is to answer the most important instructions at the start of the dcument: e.g. how to leave the list. But above all, instructions should be subject to the same test as other public documents: put them out for review by the non-technical, and listen carefully to their feedback. Best of all, take a few non-techie people and sit down with them time at a time when they are tired and see what they make of your instructions -- that's a very good test, because a lot of folks read their list mail in the evenings, when they are tired. I know that Microsoft is not popular amongst techies (and I'll rant abt them all day at the technical level), but their useability labs have done wonders for the approachability of their software. We can all learn from the methodology. It's far too easy to assume that because it make sense to us, it makes sense to the users: if it doesn't, we should be prepared to accept that this is often *our* fault: e.g. the variety of unsubscribe mechanisms on difft lists really confuses folks, so I'm setting up mechanisms to allow ppl to mail to "listname-off@server" to unsub. People can understand that. The final thing is that we should all remember what our lists are *for*. Technical lists may be a difft ballgame, but my lists are support lists, and I regard it as one of my key tasks as an admin to give ppl the technical help needed to let them participate in the group. That includes everything from helping with listserver commands to finding anonymous mail accounts to choosing mail clients and learning how to filter messages into folders so that the list doesn't clog up their mailboxes. The few times I've growled at ppl, I generally regret it. Most ppl really do want support lists to work well, and they want to cause minimum disruption to other users and to the admins. Help them through the difficulties, and the results will be reflected in the list's success. Best wishes, Claire -- Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 10:13:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA15887; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA15873 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA067801133; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:45:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199712031745.AA067801133@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 16:11:31 GMT." <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:45:32 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >the >variety of uns*bscribe mechanisms on difft lists really confuses folks, >so I'm setting up mechanisms to allow ppl to mail to >"listname-off@server" to uns*b. People can understand that. Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 10:57:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA22976; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nucleus.com (nucleus.com [199.45.65.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA22933 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.34.64.181] ([207.34.64.181]) by nucleus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8-NIS-11-28.97) with ESMTP id MAA08459 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:01:12 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: grant@pop1.achilles.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712031745.AA067801133@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 16:11:31 GMT." <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:55:04 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Grant Neufeld Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:45 AM -0700 1997/12/3, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: >>the >>variety of uns*bscribe mechanisms on difft lists really confuses folks, >>so I'm setting up mechanisms to allow ppl to mail to >>"listname-off@server" to uns*b. People can understand that. > >Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and >people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent >yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) It's not a new method - I've seen it used successfully by a number of lists (I'm on a few lists, one of which has been using it for more than a couple years). It is the simplest approach you can take with email based commands, and probably the best for most end users. -- "When all else fails, read the instructions." grant@acm.org grant@kagi.com http://arpp.carleton.ca/ O- <*> From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 11:12:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA23562; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:53:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA23507 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id KAA03712; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [163.185.152.110] (sedalia-at35.access.sinet.slb.com [163.185.152.110]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA03674 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:55:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712030946.BAA08429@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:54:54 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Gary E. Bickford" Subject: An alternative to spamming? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Keeping it short... I don't like spam, but also have need to promote things occasionally, on the net. So, I thought of a possible middle ground, which I'd like to bounce off the folks on this list. Is it ethical/tolerable to use a "referred mail" approach? By this I mean, send mail to people I know, or _conservatively_ have reason to believe are interested in, for instance, a particular shareware product, with a request to forward to others they think may be interested in the product? What if there is a moderate, real incentive to do so, such as a point system of rewards for referrals? To avoid others spamming with this, I would also include a statement of distribution rules, to the effect that the message may not be sent unsolicited to large groups, or posted on lists except by permission of the list owner, and then only when it is relevant and useful to the recipients of the list. I am aware that this approach, if taken to its extreme could become chainmail, which I abhor as well. But it seems to me that is not the case if it is done right. Without going into a lot of detail, I'd like some opinions, including general comments and suggestions for how to provide the proper wording for the proper distributiion rules. Flame On!! :) GEB From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 11:15:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA22942; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nucleus.com (nucleus.com [199.45.65.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA22932 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.34.64.181] ([207.34.64.181]) by nucleus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8-NIS-11-28.97) with ESMTP id MAA08412 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:01:02 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: grant@pop1.achilles.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:51:23 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Grant Neufeld Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One thing I've done with my list instructions is to break them up into three main sections (with the name, address and URL of the list in a centered heading at the top). The sections are labeled with headers like this for the first one: __________________ QUICK INSTRUCTIONS The first section contains very short lines of text, with plenty of whitespace so it looks even more like just a tiny bit of text, describing how to join and get off the list. The next section - "ABOUT THIS LIST" - is the "description" of the list - describing the topic and suitable areas of discussion. The last section - "DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS" - provides full instructions for all available commands and how to post to the list. The help messages are posted to my lists once a month. The other thing is using the List- header fields. This list, for example, could have fields like: X-List-Post: X-List-Unsubscribe: X-List-Subscribe: X-List-Archive: X-List-Help: X-List-Owner: -- grant@acm.org grant@kagi.com http://arpp.carleton.ca/ O- <*> I accept MIME PGP: 4077 8306 9115 94B0 CEA6 F4F4 3B9A 9482 D158 7B9A http://arpp.carleton.ca/grant/pgpkey.txt From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 11:59:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA04680; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from nexus.pigsfly.com (www.pigsfly.com [207.226.166.137]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA04575 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from pslfl5-54.gate.net ([199.227.131.54]) by nexus.pigsfly.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-40113U100L100S0) with SMTP id AAA262; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:54:41 +0000 From: jtlist@pigsfly.com (Jerry Trowbridge) To: jonathon Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:51:57 GMT Organization: Flying Pig Ranch Reply-To: jtlist@pigsfly.com Message-ID: <3488aec1.12587429@pop.pigsfly.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:37:39 +0000 (GMT), jonathon wrote: > Is this degree of cluelessness something that _might_ be > specific to the lists I run, or is it a general phenomena? > > If it is the latter, what action are other list-owners taking, > to combat it? << Other than using them as fodder for > HumourNet. >> We run lists for non-linear video editors---people who edit video on high-end NT machines using programs like Speedrazor and Digital Fusion. These are tremendously complex pieces of software, and the hardware needs to be able to play back NTSC video and 44.1 stereo audio in sync, so these are pretty sophistcated users. We've had people try to subscribe the list to itself, try to subscribe the request address to the list, and all manner of truly brain-dead actions. When we were under petidomo (a mini-majordomo written in C), a friend did a cgi-script web interface along the line discussed here which helped a lot. When we moved to post.office, its lists also had a web interface, so we just pointed the old subscribe pages there. The users still have to contend with that scary email, because we insist on confirms for subs and unsubs, but its a lot easier than starting them from ground zero. - Jerry Trowbridge --at the Flying Pig Ranch From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:21:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA02247; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id LAA02132 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:37:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30434 invoked from network); 3 Dec 1997 19:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bippo) (198.163.115.60) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 3 Dec 1997 19:41:24 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971203134027.00c6f6c0@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 13:40:27 -0600 To: "Gary E. Bickford" From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <199712030946.BAA08429@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM 12/3/97 -0600, you wrote: >Keeping it short... > >I don't like spam, but also have need to promote things occasionally, on >the net. In my not-even-remotely-humble opinion, you can do these things: 1) Create Web pages to peddle your wares. People who are interested in your products can check your pages any time they like. You can, of course, provide goodies (chat pages, on-line games, contests, etc.) to encourage people to visit often. 2) Create moderated announcement lists for your products, and allow folks to s*bscribe via your Web page. 3) Place banner ads on other Web pages. 4) Provide a free service such as a discussion mailing list (but perhaps related to what you're selling), and include a reference to your Web page in the associated documentation, at the end of list digests, etc. >Is it ethical/tolerable to use a "referred mail" approach? No. > By this I mean, >send mail to people I know, or _conservatively_ have reason to believe are >interested in, for instance, a particular shareware product, with a request >to forward to others they think may be interested in the product? I don't care if you're my best buddy in the whole wide world; if you email me a general advertisement of any kind, and it's not a result of a deliberate s*bscription on my part, I will blackhole you. I receive enough mail as it is without getting unwanted ads. If I need or want something, I'll go looking for it. I don't need you sticking it in my face. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:27:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA10137; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:25:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA10124 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:25:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 15:29:26 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: I can't help myself Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9712031529.aa06120@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Given the curren thread about users and their ability levels. From a root account, no less... I promise to shut up now. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html ----- Forwarded message # 1: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:11:57 -0600 (CST) From: root To: majordomo-users@greatcircle.com Sender: majordomo-users-owner@greatcircle.com Precedence: bulk subscirbe majordomo-users brojack@fastlane.net ----- End of forwarded messages From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:28:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA05525; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA05433 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA069329073; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:57:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199712031957.AA069329073@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 11:55:04 MST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:57:52 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and >>people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent >>yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) > >It's not a new method - I've seen it used successfully by a number of lists >(I'm on a few lists, one of which has been using it for more than a couple >years). Oh. My apologies then. I guess "new" is relative. Am I the only net fossil who's not run into before? -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:45:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA09295; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:19:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from netguide.com (nexus.netguide.com [199.108.80.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA09240 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:19:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from delundel.cmp.com by netguide.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17938; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:22:50 -0800 Message-ID: <3485BF98.25F5@netguide.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:22:48 -0800 From: David Lundell Reply-To: delundel@netguide.com Organization: CMP Media, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gary E. Bickford" CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gary: Hope these thoughts help: I like the fact that you underline the word "conservatively". Spamming really seems most evil to me when people buy or rent lists, even if they know what the origin of those lists are, and even if they're supposedly "targetted". If you are collecting the addresses in a more intimate way, that's a very good start. >From what I've seen, people seem to be more or less okay with unsolicited commercial mail when: 1)They can tell up front why they are getting it.(The user understanding how you got their address is key here.) 2)They understand how to discontinue getting it. 3)The mail is _highly_ targetted/personalized (getting back to the idea of collecting addresses in an intimate way). FYI, I'm still trying to figure this out, so I'd love to hear your experiences. My experience: we send out about 6 different newsletters, and from time to time we send out an announcement on things going on around our site (new products, special features, etc.) It's a policy we're still working on: we send you a free (advertising-supported) product that you requested, you allow us to e-mail you from time to time informing you of something that you're likely to be interested in, but which could be a waste of 10 seconds of your time. I know your situation is not the same as mine, but I wanted to give you my perspective on unsolicited commercial e-mail (which is what these occasional messages are, to some extent, although I wouldn't call them spam). Good luck (if you do it wrong, people will let you know!), David Lundell Producer, E-mail Products CMPnet | http://www.cmpnet.com Gary E. Bickford wrote: > > Keeping it short... > > I don't like spam, but also have need to promote things occasionally, on > the net. > > So, I thought of a possible middle ground, which I'd like to bounce off the > folks on this list. > > Is it ethical/tolerable to use a "referred mail" approach? By this I mean, > send mail to people I know, or _conservatively_ have reason to believe are > interested in, for instance, a particular shareware product, with a request > to forward to others they think may be interested in the product? What if > there is a moderate, real incentive to do so, such as a point system of > rewards for referrals? > > To avoid others spamming with this, I would also include a statement of > distribution rules, to the effect that the message may not be sent > unsolicited to large groups, or posted on lists except by permission of the > list owner, and then only when it is relevant and useful to the recipients > of the list. > > I am aware that this approach, if taken to its extreme could become > chainmail, which I abhor as well. But it seems to me that is not the case > if it is done right. > > Without going into a lot of detail, I'd like some opinions, including > general comments and suggestions for how to provide the proper wording for > the proper distributiion rules. > > Flame On!! :) > > GEB From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:58:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA24794; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from siberia.demon.co.uk (siberia.demon.co.uk [158.152.123.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id LAA24764 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <199712031823.claire.97120626@siberia.demon.co.uk> From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:23:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Reply-to: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) In-reply-to: <199712031745.AA067801133@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) via PM-Demon V4.04 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 3 Dec 97 at 12:45, Mitch Collinsworth puddy cat purred: > >the > >variety of uns*bscribe mechanisms on difft lists really confuses folks, > >so I'm setting up mechanisms to allow ppl to mail to > >"listname-off@server" to uns*b. People can understand that. > > Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and > people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent > yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) Point taken :) But I don't think you're right, prob cos I didn't explain myself very well: 1/ the listname-off idea is not a new invention -- there's software that does it already. I reckon its the best of the existing crop, and I'm just hacking our setup to support it. 2/ All it needs by way of instructions is "To leave the list, send any mail to listname-off@server". The minimal accurate instruction for the conventioonal command sybtax takes a paragraph to explain, and generally an example too. 3/ The listname-off@server address can be implemented as a URL in a webpage -- one click and you're done -- or in the modern MUAs that allow clickable URLs -- and in mailers such as Pegasus it can even be incoporated into the headers. Pegasus recognises List-Subscribe: and List-Unsubscribe headers, and offers a clickable, menu-driven, easily understood way of leaving the list. It's very neat, and it's not only Pegasus that supports it. I don't generally like non-standards, but because this one is buried in the headers, it's invisible to anyone whose mailer MUA doesn't support it, so it seems reasonably harmless. Best wishes, Claire -- Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 12:59:15 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA06365; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:01:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from netguide.com (nexus.netguide.com [199.108.80.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA06334 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from delundel.cmp.com by netguide.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17593; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:03:55 -0800 Message-ID: <3485BB29.3F2B@netguide.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:03:53 -0800 From: David Lundell Reply-To: delundel@netguide.com Organization: CMP Media, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Uns*b mechanisms (was: Clueless subscribers?) References: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> <199712031823.claire.97120626@siberia.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is a great discussion everyone, and very timely for me. I run broadcast e-mail newsletters, sending out over 3 million e-mails per month -- so it's a bit different than discussion lists, but the uns*b problems remain. I am now convinced that the most intuitive method for uns*bscribing is to reply to the last newsletter received. Although I like the idea of having a special address, as below, people will inevitably reply, so that's the way I want to go. Given that I want to do it this way, I need your help in deciding the best syntax to use. I am leaning toward something like this: "To be removed from our mailing list, put an x between these brackets [] and reply. Do not make any other alterations to the message." My problem with this is that when AOL users, and users of other e-mail clients, hit reply, the text is not automatically included. Some may have trouble with this. (Would adding extra instructions help here? I'm thinking no, but feel free to express your thoughts on that too.) My other thought would be to have them put either "uns*bscribe" or "remove" in the subject line. But the main reason I don't want to do this is because some users will continue to put these commands in the body, and simply not realize that they are doing something wrong. (So I could add a line in our script to look for this, but this is difficult to do without getting a high false positive rate, it seems. But do tell if I'm missing something.) I could go on with my other thoughts on this vexing issue, but I'm looking for brilliant, free advice -- fast! :) I understand that no method will be perfect, but the customer service aspects of what I do are a bit overwhelming these days, so I want to implement the best method. Thanks for your time. David Lundell Producer, E-mail Products CMPnet | http://www.cmpnet.com > > Point taken :) But I don't think you're right, prob cos I didn't > explain myself very well: > > 1/ the listname-off idea is not a new invention -- there's software > that does it already. I reckon its the best of the existing crop, > and I'm just hacking our setup to support it. > > 2/ All it needs by way of instructions is "To leave the list, send any > mail to listname-off@server". The minimal accurate instruction for > the conventioonal command sybtax takes a paragraph to explain, and > generally an example too. > > 3/ The listname-off@server address can be implemented as a URL in a > webpage -- one click and you're done -- or in the modern MUAs that > allow clickable URLs -- and in mailers such as Pegasus it can even > be incoporated into the headers. > Pegasus recognises List-Subscribe: and List-Unsubscribe headers, and > offers a clickable, menu-driven, easily understood way of leaving > the list. It's very neat, and it's not only Pegasus that > supports it. I don't generally like non-standards, but because > this one is buried in the headers, it's invisible to anyone whose > mailer MUA doesn't support it, so it seems reasonably harmless. > > Best wishes, > Claire > > -- > Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 13:01:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA12848; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA12829 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08658; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA09445; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:46:51 -0800 To: "Gary E. Bickford" cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:54:54 -0600. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 13:46:50 -0800 Message-ID: <9442.881185610@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >Keeping it short... > >I don't like spam, but also have need to promote things occasionally, on >the net. > >So, I thought of a possible middle ground, which I'd like to bounce off the >folks on this list. > >Is it ethical/tolerable to use a "referred mail" approach? By this I mean, >send mail to people I know, or _conservatively_ have reason to believe are >interested in, for instance, a particular shareware product, with a request >to forward to others they think may be interested in the product? What if >there is a moderate, real incentive to do so, such as a point system of >rewards for referrals? > >To avoid others spamming with this, I would also include a statement of >distribution rules, to the effect that the message may not be sent >unsolicited to large groups, or posted on lists except by permission of the >list owner, and then only when it is relevant and useful to the recipients >of the list. > >I am aware that this approach, if taken to its extreme could become >chainmail, which I abhor as well. But it seems to me that is not the case >if it is done right. > >Without going into a lot of detail, I'd like some opinions, including >general comments and suggestions for how to provide the proper wording for >the proper distributiion rules. > >Flame On!! :) OK. You asked for it. The rules are very simple. There is no ambiguity. There is no ``grey area''. There is no such thing as being ``a little pregnant''. You either are or you aren't. Likewise for being a bandwidth theif. If you send E-mail to people who have not themselves _asked_ to have anything from you, then you are a spammer, and you are spamming. If you spam me, or any one of my secret spam collector addresses, then I will (a) add your address and/or your domain name and/or your entire IP block to my blacklists and I will also (b) work overtime to do whatever I can to get your connectivity yanked. If that means repeated annoying phone calls to your provider or ISP then I _will_ do that. The time has long ago passed for being equivocal about the E-mail spam problem. It has already gotten entirely out of control and it will get much much worse if it isn't dealt with severely in all cases. Spammers must be prevented from profiting in any way from their spamming. Many ISPs I talk to about local spamming incidents from their customers try to just shrug their shoulders and say ``He didn't know any better. He's said he is sorry and that he won't do it again.'' I always tell them that's not good enough and I always demand to have the accounts and/or web pages involved terminated. Spamming must not just become an activity that doesn't really yield any gain... It must become an activity which actually _costs_ the perpetrator, e.g. by causing him to lose connectivity. I always do whatever I can, in all cases I can, to make that happen. And I will have no hesitation to do that in your case also, if you decide to become a spammer. P.S. Just for future reference, is `outlawnet.com' your domain, or are you just an individual user there? -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 14:12:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA25296; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA25245 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:47:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id NAA05409; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA25908; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:49:47 -0800 From: Berg Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06152; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:49:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:49:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712032149.NAA06152@eskimo.com> To: mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You're not the only fossil around...I've never seen that particular feature either. From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 16:46:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA22472; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA22316 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id PAA08325; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.7/1.2.3) id QAA29755 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:59:59 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712032359.QAA29755@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (lm) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:59:59 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >It's not a new method - I've seen it used successfully by a number of lists > >(I'm on a few lists, one of which has been using it for more than a couple > >years). > > My apologies then. I guess "new" is relative. Am I the only net fossil > who's not run into before? No. I've never seen it, and I'm on several dozen lists. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) ::: Internet Music Wantlists: http://www.swcp.com/lazlo/Wantlists From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 18:42:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA03166; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:29:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA04577 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway2.tssi.com [198.136.212.126]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02004 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:35:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA08072 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:34:40 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA22819 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:34:38 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199712032234.QAA22819@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:34:38 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > You're not the only fossil around...I've never seen that particular > feature either. I tend to think of myself as a dinosaur rather than a fossil, but at the rate my bones are stiffening up on me, that might be moot soon. (The unofficial definition of a computer dinosaur is someone who actually remembers the Hollerith code for the alphabet.) Anyway, this dinosaur has not seen that particular uns*b feature, either. But I'm busy enough running my lists that I don't spend a lot of time as a member of them, other than lists like this one. -- Mike Nolan From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 19:57:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA08144; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA08055 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id SAA09067; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA15278 ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:07 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9442.881185610@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:54:54 -0600. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:28:25 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , "Gary E. Bickford" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:46 PM -0800 12/3/97, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > The rules are very simple. There is no ambiguity. There is no >``grey area''. > There is no such thing as being ``a little pregnant''. You either are or > you aren't. Likewise for being a bandwidth theif. Oh, yes there is. Everyone draws their lines in different places in the sand. Just watch out drawing lines near a zealot.... (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 20:05:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA15439; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA15320 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:28:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA13416; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:31:38 -0500 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34858248.4E3A83CE@worldnet.att.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:24:50 -0500 To: "Sheryl E. Coe" From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Cc: jonathon , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 11:01 -0500 12/3/97, Sheryl E. Coe sent everyone: >> ...In fact, it probably keeps many of us out of the shrinks' offices. >> Which, BTW, I'm not really convinced is A Good Thing ... ;-) > >Next time you go to YOURS, picture what he's saying about YOU over >sandwiches in the breakroom! You mean, "used to" say about me. He agreed to refund all my money as long as I promised to NEVER come back. I think that was fair. ;-) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man Behind every successful man is a is a surprised woman woman with expensive taste -- Maryon Pearson -- Vince Sabio From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 20:05:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA15440; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.254.96.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA15345 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.254.96.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.254.96.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA13419 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:31:57 -0500 X-Sender: humour@humournet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712032359.QAA29755@kitsune.swcp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 3.0 for Cray Y-MP Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:29:50 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (lm) From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 18:59 -0500 12/3/97, Lazlo Nibble sent everyone: >> >It's not a new method - I've seen it used successfully by a number of lists >> >(I'm on a few lists, one of which has been using it for more than a couple >> >years). >> >> My apologies then. I guess "new" is relative. Am I the only net fossil >> who's not run into before? > >No. I've never seen it, and I'm on several dozen lists. I've seen it. I think that it's probably on more lists than you realize -- but since we are already "trained" on sending "unsubscribe " to "@domain.name", we rarely notice "alternate" methods of, um, getting ourselves off. *IF* we even read those parts of the Welcome messages, that is. ;-) BTW, this is also standard on the Lyris list server, which has been out for about a year(?) now. Or so. __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com Stop Internet Spam! Behind every successful man Behind every successful man is a is a surprised woman woman with expensive taste -- Maryon Pearson -- Vince Sabio From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 20:05:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA08003; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA07903 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA15284 ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:09 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712031745.AA067801133@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 16:11:31 GMT." <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:32:17 -0800 To: Mitch Collinsworth , claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:45 AM -0800 12/3/97, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and > people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent > yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) And your problem with that is.... I mean, as long as you also support the common formats, adding a new, improved, easier one as an optional interface is a pretty darn good idea. Just don't jetison the old ones arbitrarily. You never know -- by trying something new, you might end up replacing the old ones eventually with something better. I use "foo-sub" and "foo-unsub" addresses on my lists, and they work great. So does my web pages that interface to those beasts. But I don't use them as my ONLY interfaces, so if people know how to use standard majordomo, they don't get hosed. But I see no reason to force people to learn those things if they don't want to, and I can create a "new user" interface to help them out. The trick, of course, isn't to freeze things indefinitely, or to break things arbitrarily, but to find ways to help empower the newer, less experienced users WITHOUT getting in the way of the power user. Cater to both -- it's not a crime. Just more work on the developer's part, but then, isn't that why I'm here? -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 20:06:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA07996; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA07833 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA15296 ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:13 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3485BB29.3F2B@netguide.com> References: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> <199712031823.claire.97120626@siberia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:53:11 -0800 To: delundel@netguide.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Uns*b mechanisms (was: Clueless subscribers?) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:03 PM -0800 12/3/97, David Lundell wrote: > I am now convinced that the most intuitive method for uns*bscribing is > to reply to the last newsletter received. For some lists, maybe, but it has serious gotchas. Like people who aren't paying close attention and want to send you feedback. Bang, they're off. Or people who go away, turn on an autoresponder without thinking. Bang, they're gone (maybe you don't MIND that). > Although I like the idea of > having a special address, as below, people will inevitably reply, so > that's the way I want to go. My preference, frankly, is that the reply address be a "comments about the list" address, not an unsub address. But then I'd put a mailbot on that address that (a) confirms receipt, and (b) reminds users that if they're trying to get off the list, to use the following directions -- that this is NOT the unsub address. Make sure those instructions are near the top of your postings, also. And since the mailbot answers for you, you can ignore any misdirected requests (a nice thing about boilerplate mailbots, is it gives you a nice way to avoid getting into protracted arguments -- you're no longer under obligation to respond or confirm receipt, because the mailbot did it, so you get away from a lot fo the "don't send me the damn instructions, just do it" stuff) And that's basically my policy, although if I get mail from users that are either seriously honked, frustrated or lost, I take care of them. But if it's clear they're just mailing to the wrong address and haven't followed directions, I nudge them where they ought to go. I just try to avoid being pedantic. If a person's drowning, you throw them a floatation device, not instructions on how to swim... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 20:13:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA08002; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA07848 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA15290 ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:11 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712031611.claire.97120600@siberia.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:47:44 -0800 To: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab), List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? (Was: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #23 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:11 AM -0800 12/3/97, Claire McNab wrote: > Most list instructions are much too verbose, and most are badly > written Yup. Mine included. V1.0 of my new server instructions tried to deal with the problems in the instructions in my old server, and went into the frothy bloats. I'm now working on V1.1, and I figure I can dump 40% of the text. Or shift it out of the way to focus on the essentials. There's a third piece you missed here, Claire. Most sets of instruction DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. User sends e-mail to a list with a bad instruction. What happens? They get the generic server help file back. anywhree from 10K on up of text. Unless the user is skilled enough to (a) locate the error message, (b) interpret it, and (c) read through the help file and interpret it to find the answer, we've just sent them a huge chunk of useless text. Either they keep fumbling, give up, or write the postmaster looking for a real human. Imagine if list servers recognized the error, and sent back a note explaining what they did wrong and how to fix it? Instead of "Syntax error, here's the list of commands:", send back "you attempted to do this, but that didn't work. Here's are the things to try.....". I've been working on that with my new server system, and it's truly amazing how it's cut down the amount of mail to postmaster screaming "I don't CARE ABOUT SYNTAX JUST DO THIS DAMMIT". And cut the error rate, since I don't have users trying nine varieties of a command praying one works. I've still got pieces to implement, but the pieces there have really helped. Because people get custom information based on their situation. And since so many error run to common themes, I can catch stuff, automate it, and solve lots of problems by doing it once. When I moved my first list from my old (listproc) server to my new (majordomo and stuff) server, I was averaging 175-250 admin messages a day, where that was basically anything NOT a daemon error message I had to look at and deal with (even if it's boilerplate, it requires a human body). I'm now running about 20 more lists than when I first opened the new server system, and the admin set requiring my attention is down to under 50 a day. I came back from four days of turkey to 45 messages. And about half of those will get taken care of when I do my last three automation sets -- you shouldn't TRY to hide from 100% of the mail, because it won't work and it'll upset your users big time, but if you can have the system answer your question? > most of my help files. One thing that really seems to help is a good > webpage, with an index at the start to key questions: "How do I leave > the list", One thing I'm adding to my web site, a very visible page JUST for unsubscribe instructions and links. Because I'm finding when folks want to get off the list, they don't want to navigate around looking for the instructions, they want it easy to find. So I'm gonna give it to them... Signing up, they don't mind browsing. Leaving, they just want to grab their coat and call a taxi. Understandable -- in retrospect.... So I'll make it as easy as possible, because it's one less excuse for them to justify stupidity or braincramp..... > The final thing is that we should all remember what our lists are > *for*. Technical lists may be a difft ballgame, I run a lot of those. Nope, they aren't. Just because a user is a computer nerd or any kind of techie person (or just plain old smart) doesn't mean they're skilled at mail lists. Any more than being a professional truck driver (even a good one) qualifes you to drive Formula 1. You don't have to be SMART to use mail lists -- you have to learn how to use them. So being smart at any other skill doesn't mean anything about list usage, other than perhaps an ability to learn them more easily. Computer people mess up with mail lists just like "normal" folks do. That's not their specialty. The only people with *no* excuse for screwing up on mail lists are people like us, who build, maintain and run them. And we're a really limited audience, but I'd be curious as heck what the error situation for the mailing-list-guru-lists are. Because one can bet they're not zero... (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 3 21:42:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA05765; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from quilla.tezcat.com (quilla.tezcat.com [204.128.247.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA05740 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [206.230.56.44] (adamb.tezcat.com [206.230.56.44]) by quilla.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id XAA15268 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:18:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199712040518.XAA15268@quilla.tezcat.com> Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? (Was: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #23 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 23:19:30 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v2, June 6, 1997 From: Adam Bailey To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 12/3/97 9:47 PM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote... >The only people with *no* excuse for >screwing up on mail lists are people like us, who build, maintain and >run them. And we're a really limited audience, but I'd be curious as >heck what the error situation for the mailing-list-guru-lists are. >Because one can bet they're not zero... (grin) I'm on five or six list owners' lists. And it does happen, more often than it should. Usually, the situation is this: a person works for a company, and their boss tells them that they have to start running a list and here's who to contact to get set up. So they stumble through the creation process with the site manager and suddenly they have a list. They don't really know what to do with it, and really didn't want the job in the first place. When the site manager asked them "do you want to be on the list owners' list," they said yes because they thought it would help. Then, they get barraged with tons of messages about funny settings that they don't understand, people suggesting changes to list documentation that they don't know how to implement, and discussions about clueless subscribers. So they reply to a list message asking to be taken off the list because all they really want is to send out their company's newsletter so they can keep the boss happy. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously; adamb@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive." adamkb@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 4 04:13:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id DAA15507; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from marvin.nipltd.com (marvin.nipltd.com [194.193.44.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id DAA15489 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:50:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [194.193.44.113] [194.193.44.113] by marvin.nipltd.com with esmtp (Exim 1.71 #6) id 0xdZqs-0002us-00; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:53:54 +0000 X-Sender: simon@pop.nipltd.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:50:52 +0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Simon Coles Subject: New mailing list about Notes MTAs Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, A while ago this list had a thread about the delights of Lotus mail gateways. We're Lotus Premium Partners, which means that while Lotus doesn't listen to us much either, we would like to try and improve Lotus products' reputation in the Internet world. So we've created a mailing list about Lotus MTAs, with the aims of: - educating administrators of these gateways - providing a forum for discussing the problems and maybe even getting some grain share from Lotus If you know of any admins of Lotus products who might benefit from joining the list, instructions are below. Having some list managers on the list might also help introduce admins to the impacts of their decisions :-) Here's the list announcement: NOTESMTA-L on notesmta-l@lyris.nipltd.com (Lotus MTAs) Server address: lyris@lyris.nipltd.com List address: notesmta-l@lyris.nipltd.com NOTESMTA-L is an open, unmoderated Internet mailing list for administrators of MTAs and Mail Gateways between Lotus Notes/Domino and other mail systems. The discussion focusses on the issues surrounding connecting Notes/Domino to other mail systems (for example the Internet, X.400, cc:Mail) using MTAs and mail gateways. Typical topics are the choice, configuration, and use of these gateways, as well as problems created by the interaction of different mailing systems. Issues specifically related to the Lotus Notes client are probably better handled on the existing LNOTES-L list. Specific Domino server administration issues should be directed to the DOMINO-L list (http://www.nipltd.com/domino-l.htm) Archives of the list, a web interface to the list server, and other information is available at http://www.nipltd.com/notesmta-l.htm To subscribe to NOTESMTA-L, send a regular email message to: lyris@lyris.nipltd.com and in the body of the note, type: subscribe notesmta-l List Owners: Tom Kranz Simon Coles --------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ---------- Simon J. Coles Email: simon@nipltd.com New Information Paradigms Work Phone: +44 1344 778783 http://www.nipltd.com/ Work Fax: +44 1344 772510 =============== Life is too precious to take seriously =============== From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 4 09:59:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA08592; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:02:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA08571 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA081975125; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:05:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199712041705.AA081975125@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:05:25 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> Oh great. There are too many different uns*b mechanisms out there and >> people are getting being confused by it, so your solution is to invent >> yet another one. Yah, I follow that logic. (not) > >And your problem with that is.... > >I mean, as long as you also support the common formats, adding a new, >improved, easier one as an optional interface is a pretty darn good >idea. Just don't jetison the old ones arbitrarily. You never know -- by >trying something new, you might end up replacing the old ones >eventually with something better. > >I use "foo-sub" and "foo-unsub" addresses on my lists, and they work >great. So does my web pages that interface to those beasts. But I don't >use them as my ONLY interfaces, so if people know how to use standard >majordomo, they don't get hosed. But I see no reason to force people to >learn those things if they don't want to, and I can create a "new user" >interface to help them out. > >The trick, of course, isn't to freeze things indefinitely, or to break >things arbitrarily, but to find ways to help empower the newer, less >experienced users WITHOUT getting in the way of the power user. Cater >to both -- it's not a crime. Just more work on the developer's part, >but then, isn't that why I'm here? Chuq, your argument make sense, at least as far as it goes. The biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then expect to find them at other sites. I.e if foo-unsub@chuq.com works, why doesn't foo-unsub@mitch.com work? -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 4 12:13:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA11650; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:52:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA11507 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:52:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id LAA16173; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA28687; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA16379; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:56:54 -0800 To: jonathon cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 Dec 1997 08:59:05 +0000. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:56:54 -0800 Message-ID: <16376.881269014@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , you wrote: >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> If you send E-mail to people who have not themselves _asked_ to have >> anything from you, then you are a spammer > > When I setup HWA-QA, I merged at least six, and probably more > like ten lists, that dealt with the same, or similar topic, > into that one. The lists had been inactive for a period of > time ranging from three months, to three years. << I was > taking them over, from various list-owners, who asked me if > I was wanting to do something with their list. >> << None > of the lists I took over were run on mailing list software, > such as MajorDomo, or ListProc. >> > > So was my sending each individual on each list, spamming > them? Or not? & explain your answer. That was not spamming. The individuals who had been on the original lists had (I presume) _asked_ to be on those lists. I also assume that their E-Mail addresses had not merely been fished at random out of USENET news or out of related USENET newsgroups, but had been sent, voluntarily, by their owners, to the original list owners along with requests that they receive (mostly non-commercial) information on some very specific topic. You took ten voluntary opt-in mailing lists which had low traffic volume or zero traffic volume and merged them into a single list which actually might have a broad enough interest to survive and be active. The result is still and opt-in mailing list, but one with a somewhat broader focus and readership. Ideally, when you began this new list, you started out by sending a single messge to each of the people that were on the predecessor lists, explaining the situation to them and asking them if they would like to now be subscribed to the new successor list (and assuming a default response of `no'). But even if you didn't do that I would still not characterize what you did as spamming because at some point in time the subscribers _did_ in fact ask to be on a mailing list for a directly relevant topic, and you were merely renaming and broadening those predecessor lists. When someone has expressed no particular interest in a given topic DIRECTLY to the information sender (or someone associated with him, even if only loosely) then sending information to that person is ``unsolicited'' and the messages themselves are spam. (I have been careful to say that the recipient should express interest DIRECTLY to the information sender. Merely posting something to a newsgroup, or on a web page, or to a different active mailing list doesn't count.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 4 14:00:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA02735; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:46:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id NAA00590 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 17361 invoked from network); 4 Dec 1997 21:35:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bippo) (198.163.115.60) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 4 Dec 1997 21:35:49 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971204153432.0091c3f0@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 15:34:32 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.19971203134027.00c6f6c0@armchair.mb.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:03 PM 12/4/97 +0000, Manar Hussain wrote, in response to one of my standard rants: >> I don't care if you're my best buddy in the whole wide world; if you >> email me a general advertisement of any kind, and it's not a result of a >> deliberate s*bscription on my part, I will blackhole you. [...] > >That's just plain nuts. Now you may draw you line in different places - >but if you consider it an ex-communicable offence for a very good long >time friend to come up to you and say "Dave! I've just got this great new >gizmo you've gotta try" then that's very sad. I guess I'm nuts and sad, then. There's a world of difference between a friend telling me about a product that he or she likes, and that I might be interested in, and a "friend" sending me an advertisement. If a friend tries out some new motorcycle tires, say, and thinks I might like 'em too, that's fine. I welcome such information. But that's discussion, not advertising. On the other hand, if that same friend sends me a bloody email brochure, with no concern other than scoring himself a profit, then the @#$%!! gets blackholed. >Fact is that we all have a lot to gain by relying on the ability of others >to act on our behalf. I agree. But advertising is NOT acting on my behalf. It's acting on the advertiser's behalf. > With respect to information channelling this is >going to become far more important in an online environment. The person >might be a friend who knows you well or a list admin that keeps a list >ticking along such that you think it useful. As long as the friend has MY interests in mind and not merely his or her wallet, that's fine. As long as _I_ signed up for the list of my own free will, that's fine. As soon as it's stuffed down my throat, that's NOT fine. >Of course I may have sympathies with your sentiments because of the abuse >that goes on - doesn't mean that in this enlightened forum we can forgive >ourselves jumping way to far in reverse. First of all, don't assume that because this forum is enlightened, I am enlightened too. I revel in my unenlightenment, for I am an ass. Too far in reverse? I think not. I simply refuse to tolerate receiving ANY advertisements, unless I have specifically requested them. If more people felt that way, perhaps we wouldn't have such a problem with spam, and advertisements would only appear where they belong. I really don't mind advertising in general, and indeed I RELY on it as a business owner. I just refuse to be forced to swallow it when I don't want to. There's a place for it, but the place is not email. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 5 05:28:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id FAA21883; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:22:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from talmail.legion.org ([204.180.53.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id FAA21858 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:22:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from jim-patrick ([204.180.53.2]) by talmail.legion.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA17798 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:23:33 -0500 Received: by jim-patrick with Microsoft Mail id <01BD0157.355CD220@jim-patrick>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:24:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD0157.355CD220@jim-patrick> From: Jim Patrick - The American Legion To: "'list-managers@greatcircle.com'" Subject: Multiple Virutual Domains Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:24:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have been successful in following the directions for the setup of = multiple virtual domains with majordomo. I am able to send mail to = majordomo@domain1.com and majordomo@domain2.com. My alias configuration = points the messages to the correct .cf configuration file. The problem = is the reply from majordomo. If I send a request to = majordomo@domain2.com the reply comes from majordomo@domain1.com. How = do I get the reply from majordomo to be from the domain that the request = was sent to? From owner-list-managers-list Mon Dec 8 23:43:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA05566; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:33:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from socrates.nmia.com (socrates.nmia.com [198.59.166.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id XAA05371 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from plato.nmia.com(really [198.59.166.165]) by socrates.nmia.com via smail with smtp id for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:36:45 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2.0.95 1997-May-7 #5 built 1997-May-20) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:36:45 -0700 (MST) From: Ozz Graham Reply-To: Ozz Graham To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Juno.COM Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is anyone else having troubles with juno.com? The last few days or so, I am getting a "Connection Refused" from them... From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 00:13:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA11431; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com (mailgw00.execpc.com [169.207.16.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA11380 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from core0.mx.execpc.com (core0.mx.execpc.com [169.207.16.7]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.8.6) id CAA19048; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 02:05:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from presario-7212 (jaemus-25.mdm.mad.execpc.com [169.207.41.26]) by core0.mx.execpc.com (8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA03248; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 02:05:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <348CF563.259@execpc.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 01:38:11 -0600 From: Gillam Kerley X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ozz Graham CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Juno.COM References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ozz Graham wrote: > > Is anyone else having troubles with juno.com? The last few days or so, I > am getting a "Connection Refused" from them... I have a juno account and couldn't log on as a user today; got a network-down sort of error message. GK From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 07:28:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA23305; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:21:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from cron-2.mco.on.ca (cron-2.mco.net [207.81.18.45]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id HAA23290 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by cron-2.mco.on.ca (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA32579; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:41:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:37:22 -0500 (EST) From: "(ROOT)" To: list-managers@greatcricle.com Subject: Please Help Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="LAB32554.881684987/cron-2.mco.on.ca" Content-ID: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --LAB32554.881684987/cron-2.mco.on.ca Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: I seem to be having problems with permissions and the archive. The first message gets written to the archive correctly and the following file is created: -rw------- 1 bin bin 612 Dec 9 11:26 nspa-org But each subsequent message produces an error (see below). I tried chown majordom.majordom nspa-org and also chmod a+rwx nspa-org and I still get the same errors. Anyone please have any ideas. PS. If this is the wrong forum to ask these questions, then please accept my apologies and let me know the correct one. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:29:47 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: nspa-org-owner@cron-2.mco.on.ca Subject: Returned mail: Can't create output: Permission denied The original message was received at Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:29:46 -0500 from majordom@localhost ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- /w/archives/nspa-org (unrecoverable error) (expanded from: nspa-org-archive) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 /w/archives/nspa-org... Can't create output: Permission denied Message delivered to mailing list nspa-org-archive Message delivered to mailing list nspa-org-outgoing ----- Message header follows ----- --LAB32554.881684987/cron-2.mco.on.ca-- From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 09:13:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA10429; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id JAA10413 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:08:27 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: Subject: Re: Juno.COM To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:08:27 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Ozz Graham" at Dec 9, 97 00:36:45 am From: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ozz Graham asked, | Is anyone else having troubles with juno.com? The last few days or so, I | am getting a "Connection Refused" from them... I've had that sporadically lately; pending mail got through yesterday except for pieces affected by my *other* problem with juno.com. If there are more than one juno.com address on an envelope, and one Juno user is over quota, Juno refuses to deliver to any of the remaining addresses on the envelope, so those subscribers don't get their mail; additionally, Juno keeps reporting it as a temporary failure, so it stays in your site's mail queue for weeks with no NDN sent to the list maintainer. Unless you think of checking the mail queue (and have access to check the mail queue) you don't find out. And if you don't have mail administrator privileges, you have to ask someone else to kill the jobs. Smail here on WWA was compounding the problem by redelivering about once a week to all addresses on an envelope that had some juno.com addresses that were still reporting a temporary failure; I have taken to sending my list's mailings separately to Juno from any other site so that only juno.com users would get those multiple copies. David Tamkin From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 10:13:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA23632; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.azstarnet.com (mailhost.azstarnet.com [169.197.1.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA23557 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from Pbish (dialup08ip37.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.33.165]) by mailhost.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00588 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:11:34 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712091811.LAA00588@mailhost.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ From: "Bob Bish" Organization: http://www.humvee.com To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:11:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: strange problem Reply-to: bish@azstarnet.com In-reply-to: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One listmember's address recently started bouncing list mail. I've corresponded with him and all "regular" mail goes through. He's on other mailing lists and is getting mail from those. Only mail from this particular list seems to bounce. No other listmembers are having this problem. The "bounce" messages give the following info: gcg@mesh.net... Deferred: Name server: ns1.mesh.net.: host name lookup failure Apparently, lookup succeeds for "mesh.net", but not for "ns1.mesh.net". I had the member forward this info to his sysadmin, but he said he had no idea why the list mail is bouncing. Any ideas? ...Bob From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 11:13:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA05772; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.azstarnet.com (mailhost.azstarnet.com [169.197.1.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA05703 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from Pbish (dialup08ip37.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.33.165]) by mailhost.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA18466 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:03:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712091903.MAA18466@mailhost.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ From: "Bob Bish" Organization: http://www.humvee.com To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:03:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: strange problem Reply-to: bish@azstarnet.com In-reply-to: <199712091811.LAA00588@mailhost.azstarnet.com> References: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Apparently, lookup succeeds for "mesh.net", but not for "ns1.mesh.net". The admin where my listserver lives says this: > > Well, I get this when I do a lookup on mesh.net (query type MX [mail > > exchange]): > > > > mesh.net preference = 10, mail exchanger = ns1.mesh.net > > > > The problem is the fact that when I do a lookup on 'ns1.mesh.net' I get > > this: > > > > *** station1.firehouse.net can't find ns1.mesh.net: Non-existent host/domain > > > > Looks like a failure of DNS to resolve that name. Their name servers are > > seriously broken/slow to respond. You must be working off old data that > > will probably expire shortly. ...Bob From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 15:28:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA17940; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA17852 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:30:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01169; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:36:17 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:36:17 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712092236.PAA01169@smtp04.primenet.com> Received: from ip-21-224.phx.primenet.com(206.165.21.224), claiming to be "primenet.primenet.com" via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd001107; Tue Dec 9 15:36:05 1997 X-Sender: bobg@pop.primenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: bobg@primenet.com (Robert L. Guertin) Subject: Re: Juno.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think you have to update or reset the time/date on windows 95 before Juno will send anything through, that's what I had to do. Jan From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 9 23:58:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA25828; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from socrates.nmia.com (socrates.nmia.com [198.59.166.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id XAA25715 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from plato.nmia.com(really [198.59.166.165]) by socrates.nmia.com via smail with smtp id for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:50:42 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2.0.95 1997-May-7 #5 built 1997-May-20) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:50:42 -0700 (MST) From: Ozz Graham To: "Robert L. Guertin" cc: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Juno.COM In-Reply-To: <199712092236.PAA01169@smtp04.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I think you have to update or reset the time/date on windows 95 before Juno > will send anything through, that's what I had to do. Jan If you mean on the machine our majordomo uses? Its running on UNIX and not Win95 From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 10 00:28:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA01273; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:16:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA22092 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:30:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id XAA20982; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:34:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:34:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712100734.XAA20982@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: (dattier@miso.wwa.com) Subject: Re: Juno.COM Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:08:27 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" If there are more than one juno.com address on an envelope, and one Juno user is over quota, Juno refuses to deliver to any of the remaining addresses on the envelope, so those subscribers don't get their mail; Does this mean that if one person on a mailing list from juno.com has a full mailbox that no one else from juno.com who is on the list will get that post? Or does this only apply to named addresses? Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 10 08:14:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA09233; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id HAA09176 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com via sendmail with stdio id for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:47:07 -0600 (CST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #12 built 1997-Nov-30) Message-Id: Subject: Re: Juno.COM To: cnorman@best.com Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:47:06 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199712100734.XAA20982@shell7.ba.best.com> from "Cyndi Norman" at Dec 9, 97 11:34:40 pm From: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk When I wrote, | If there are more than one juno.com address on an envelope, and one Juno | user is over quota, Juno refuses to deliver to any of the remaining | addresses on the envelope, so those subscribers don't get their mail; Cyndi Norman asked for more detail, | Does this mean that if one person on a mailing list from juno.com has a | full mailbox that no one else from juno.com who is on the list will get | that post? Or does this only apply to named addresses? I don't know what Cyndi meant by "named addresses" -- it seems to me that all addresses have to be named. It works like this: if a post comes off your list to juno.com with two or more juno.com addresses as envelope recipients, Juno will deliver until it runs into one that is over quota; then it will defer that one and *all* those after it. Sometimes here in anago.wwa.com's mail queue I've seen the deferred addresses tried again in reverse order, and then those listed later on the envelope might get delivered. But if there are two addresses over quota on the envelope, those and all addresses between them will keep getting deferred and retried. Juno used to report failure after five days of deferral, and WWA used to kick undelivered items in its mail queues back to their senders after five days, but neither seems to be happening any more. I've taken to sending each subscriber on Juno a separate delivery. It may be inefficient in theory for the first delivery attempt but in the long run it leaves fewer addresses being retried for weeks and weeks. From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 10 23:44:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA22260; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from socrates.nmia.com (socrates.nmia.com [198.59.166.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id XAA22226 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from plato.nmia.com(really [198.59.166.165]) by socrates.nmia.com via smail with smtp id for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:40:00 -0700 (MST) (Smail-3.2.0.95 1997-May-7 #5 built 1997-May-20) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:39:55 -0700 (MST) From: Ozz Graham To: Siamak Farah cc: "Robert L. Guertin" , "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Juno.COM In-Reply-To: <01bd059b$83090c80$1269f0cf@babylon.instantweb.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Juno.com not accepting your mail, may be related to the new anti-spam > measures that many sites have put in place. If they cannot look up your > reverse DNS (meaning get an xxx.yyy.com from your IP), they may not accept > your mail. > > Am I barking up the wrong tree? Well, a digest only does out once a night, if Juno.com decided that 1 piece of mail to 8 users on Juno is spam, well, not much I cna do than... From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 08:59:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA02479; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA02472 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:17:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 11:23:16 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: Ozz Graham cc: Siamak Farah , "Robert L. Guertin" , "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Juno.COM Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9712111123.aa05569@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ozz Graham : >> Juno.com not accepting your mail, may be related to the new anti-spam >> measures that many sites have put in place. If they cannot look up your >> reverse DNS (meaning get an xxx.yyy.com from your IP), they may not accept >> your mail. >> >> Am I barking up the wrong tree? > >Well, a digest only does out once a night, if Juno.com decided that 1 >piece of mail to 8 users on Juno is spam, well, not much I cna do than... ...than fix your DNS? A simple PTR record fixes this problem (which is your problem, not juno's). Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 21:19:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA07166; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA07092 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:08:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom7.netcom.com (netcom7.netcom.com [192.100.81.115]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA19212 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:56:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom7.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id WAA07157; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:59:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:59:11 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom7 To: Mitch Collinsworth cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? In-Reply-To: <199712041705.AA081975125@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management > interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then > expect to find them at other sites. How about support for alternative unsubscribe mechanisms, but not have them advertized? IE: listname-off@somewhere.com will unsubscribe you, but only make publically known listname-request@somewhere.com. For various reasons, I suspect that those supported, even if only unoffically, and never publicized means, will be used as much, or more than the publically advertized and supported ones. Also having something that checks for the various creative ways of misspelling unsubscribe, would probably help as well. Though with those, a confirmation message should probably be sent. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 21:25:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA07167; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA07146 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:08:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy4.izzy.net (izzy4.izzy.net [198.108.102.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA19119 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy5.izzy.net (izzy5.izzy.net [198.108.102.9]) by izzy4.izzy.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA28633 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy5.izzy.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id BAA01941 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:58:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy5.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to atbbs!dbsmith using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.970109) id AA02261; 05 Dec 97 02:57:28 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 04 Dec 97 23:27:06 -0500 Subject: Re: An alternative to sp Message-ID: References: <3.0.3.32.19971203134027.00c6f6c0@armchair.mb.ca> <3.0.3.32.19971204153432.0091c3f0@armchair.mb.ca> Organization: American Tune BBS To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk DV>I really don't mind advertising in general, and indeed I RELY on it as a DV>business owner. I just refuse to be forced to swallow it when I don't want DV>to. There's a place for it, but the place is not email. DV>Dave Voorhis Dave, Finally came up with a clear response for folks who argue that "Internet junkmail is no worse than postal junkmail." (The delay may be due to slow-wittedness on my part, of course.) A junkmailer who sends me juunk through the U.S. Postal System is annoyging, true. I may read the stuff. I will probably throw it out. But at least the Postal junkmailer is paying for it. By paying more into the postal system, the P.J. is partly subsidizing my personal postal capabilities. A first class stamp for my letter to mom several states away isn't 32 cents because it -costs- 32 cents to deliver that letter, but rather because the Postal Service gets enough money overall to be able to -afford- to charge me only 32 cents for a couple-thousand- mile drive. The economies of scale are amplified by the payments of all them junkmailers, granted paying less per piece, but also sending a heck of a lot more pieces than I send. So, oh well, I accept the junk, and throw it out. A UCI, or Unsolicited Commercial Idiot is (probably) not paying more for access to the Internet than I am. They are not making a greater contribution to the overall cost of the net than I am. They are simply using much, much more bandwidth than I am, annoying a bunch of folks, and contibuting nothing of value to speak of. Of course I spend rather more than a lot of folks on Internet stuff, with the extra hardware/software/access to run the lists & other Fun Stuff I do. Wish I'd thought of this argument back when somebody last said "but it's just the same as ..." * SLMR 2.1a * I've been wrong about Teri for a long time = Manticore -- >> David B. Smith | Email sysop@atbbs.com, dbsmith@izzy.net >> Sysop, American Tune BBS | DISCLAIMER: Hey, I -own- the place! >> Anyway, my views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's. >> Host of DEATHLAW Maillist. "Subscribe deathlaw" to listserv@atbbs.com >> Host of SPACELAW Maillist. "Subscribe spacelaw" to listserv@atbbs.com From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 21:34:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA09489; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:22:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id VAA06481 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:04:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA20006 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.12.172] (A17-219-12-172.apple.com [17.219.12.172]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20832 ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:03:11 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712041705.AA081975125@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:43:30 -0800 To: Mitch Collinsworth , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:05 AM -0800 12/4/97, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: >Chuq, your argument make sense, at least as far as it goes. The >biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management >interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then >expect to find them at other sites. I.e if foo-unsub@chuq.com works, >why doesn't foo-unsub@mitch.com work? That's why you make sure that you implement the core systems, and have all of this as an option. And yes, there's some risk of confusing users, but given the large number of variances among servers already, adding a bit more variance just doesn't seem significant to me. If it does to you, don't do it.... But between majordomo, listproc, listserv, letterip, etc, etc, etc, etc, each with their own (sometimes ALMOST compatible) way of doing things, we already have a problem. so if we can come up with ideas that reduce complexity, maybe it'll lead down the road to a new, simpler way of doing this. Then it's just (hah!) a matter of dragging people forward and getting them to use it. In fact, foo-sub and foo-unsub aren't new to me, far from it. Unfortunately, there's also foo-on and foo-off, and three or four other variants, too. There's no perfect solution here, since the real world situation is that we can't just release a new version of the setup and expect it to be adopted. So everyone has to make decisions on what they feel is best for their users, with some eye on how that affects the rest of teh list world at large (this latter part is why I'm religiously AGAINST processing admin requests through the main posting address, as some servers, notably ListStar, like to do. Because *that* encourages a behavior that really screws over other list servers and lists, and it might help my list a bit, but it hurts everyone else. The trick is to make your system better without screwing others over, and then convincing others to come join you...) Lots of this is judgement call -- for me, supporting the "standard" majordomo system as the core command set is important, and then whatever I can do to make life easier without hacking on that core system or causing problems that ripple out and impact other sites in a bad way is fine. And -sub and -unsub are pretty innocuous on that. It won't hurt existing servers (ala the ListStar thing), and if a user tries it, it bounces. Not great, but lots of stuff bounces. Hopefully they'll either go look at the docs then, or email someone for help. There are risks, but if you take no risks, you never get anywhere. Avoiding risk isn't the proper attitude, but managing it.... From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 22:27:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA19294; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id WAA19284 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from siberia.demon.co.uk (siberia.demon.co.uk [158.152.123.170]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id QAA26511 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 16:02:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <199712072350.claire.97121317@siberia.demon.co.uk> From: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:50:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Clueless subscribers? Reply-to: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk (Claire McNab) In-reply-to: <199712041705.AA081975125@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) via PM-Demon V4.04 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 4 Dec 97 at 12:05, Mitch Collinsworth puddy cat purred: > Chuq, your argument make sense, at least as far as it goes. The > biggest problem I see with inventing yet more new list management > interfaces is that users who experience them at one site then expect > to find them at other sites. I.e if foo-unsub@chuq.com works, why > doesn't foo-unsub@mitch.com work? The thing about the foo-unsub mechanism, is that: a) it's the most easily understood and easily used of the mechanisms I've seen to date; b) It's part of a proposed standard. The more of these things we can get standardised, the better. Given a choice bettwen standardising on a widely-deployed but clumsy mechanis, (such as the "unsub" command in the msg body) and a less-widely deployed but generally superior approach, I'd choose the latter. I hope this proposed std gets somewhere! -- Claire McNab -- Claire@siberia.demon.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 22:35:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA19274; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id WAA19232 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu4.psi.com (uu4.psi.com [38.146.21.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id GAA24302 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 06:26:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu4.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.940727-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA01321 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 97 09:28:35 -0500 Received: from jsoft.com (eeyore [192.168.128.10]) by flash.jsoft.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id GAA03758 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 06:36:48 -0600 Message-Id: <348A974F.42363D56@jsoft.com> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 06:32:15 -0600 From: Gary Frederick X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: mailing list instructions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I recently joined a mailing list where it's not clear who is the list mom. There is a person that acts in that role, but stated it was not her job when I asked. Someone posted some Dear Abby columns to the list. When the question of posting copyrighted material came up, several people contributed the usual: We don't make any money off posting someone else's material so it's ok. The owner didn't suffer any damage so it's ok. with a It's ok to copy from a non commercial site. added to clarify something... Does anyone have a page of instruction with a clear statement about copyrights? Of not, how does this sound? ===== Do not post copyrighted material without permission. Something does not have to have a copyright notice to be considered copyrighted. For example, you own the copyright on messages you post to the list. The policy on this list is that anything you post, while remaining you property, may be reposted elsewhere. You may copy part of a copyrighted work if it's a reasonable use of the material. That includes copying short sections. It doesn't include copying a big chunk of the article. ====== I feel the above is a start. It does include something about the policy of the list, but that could be removed if it didn't fit. I would like to add pointers for those that want to look further. Any advise on that? Thanks, Gary From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 23:05:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA28135; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.zebra.net (mail.zebra.net [209.12.13.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA28106 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:54:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from default ([209.12.13.145]) by mail.zebra.net (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA12495; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:54:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3490CEF2.1607@zebra.net> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:43:14 -0500 From: bmcmullen@zebra.net (Barbara McMullen) Reply-To: bmcmullen@zebra.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Frederick CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions References: <348A974F.42363D56@jsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gary, I think anything posted with proper credit is fine, so long as the author is noted. It's not like they can't read Dear Abby in any paper. You are not selling her work, just mailing it to people. IMHO ~~barbara in mobile~~ Gary Frederick wrote: > > I recently joined a mailing list where it's not clear who is the list mom. > There is a person that acts in that role, but stated it was not her job when I > asked. Someone posted some Dear Abby columns to the list. When the question of > posting copyrighted material came up, several people contributed the usual: > We don't make any money off posting someone else's material so it's ok. > The owner didn't suffer any damage so it's ok. > with a > It's ok to copy from a non commercial site. > added to clarify something... > > Does anyone have a page of instruction with a clear statement about > copyrights? > > Of not, how does this sound? > > ===== > Do not post copyrighted material without permission. Something does not have > to have a copyright notice to be considered copyrighted. For example, you own > the copyright on messages you post to the list. The policy on this list is > that anything you post, while remaining you property, may be reposted > elsewhere. > > You may copy part of a copyrighted work if it's a reasonable use of the > material. That includes copying short sections. It doesn't include copying a > big chunk of the article. > > ====== > I feel the above is a start. It does include something about the policy of the > list, but that could be removed if it didn't fit. > > I would like to add pointers for those that want to look further. Any advise > on that? > > Thanks, > > Gary From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 23:08:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA18506; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:05:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id WAA18491 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id BAA02208 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:27:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0xdu5y-00057O-00; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:30:50 +0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Manar Hussain" Organization: Internet Vision To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:28:27 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? In-reply-to: <3.0.3.32.19971204153432.0091c3f0@armchair.mb.ca> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I guess I'm nuts and sad, then. :-> > There's a world of difference between a friend telling me about a product > that he or she likes, and that I might be interested in, and a "friend" > sending me an advertisement. If a friend tries out some new motorcycle > tires, say, and thinks I might like 'em too, that's fine. I welcome such > information. But that's discussion, not advertising. My point was to try and illustrate one end of the spectrum to illustrate it's not so cut and dried. You're trying to have your cake and eat it here. You agree "that there's a world of difference" because one case is clearly acceptable but don't seem to see that the two cases are merely two disparate points of the same line - and that there must therefore be a grey area in between > On the other hand, if that same friend sends me a bloody email brochure, > with no concern other than scoring himself a profit, then the @#$%!! gets > blackholed. Who ever said anything about the friend doing it purely to core himself a profit. > >Fact is that we all have a lot to gain by relying on the ability of others > >to act on our behalf. > > I agree. But advertising is NOT acting on my behalf. It's acting on the > advertiser's behalf. One of the beauties of life and economics is that it's not a zero sum game - it IS possible for something to be to your benefit and the advertisers benefit too!! > > With respect to information channelling this is > >going to become far more important in an online environment. The person > >might be a friend who knows you well or a list admin that keeps a list > >ticking along such that you think it useful. > > As long as the friend has MY interests in mind and not merely his or her > wallet, that's fine. As long as _I_ signed up for the list of my own > free will, that's fine. As soon as it's stuffed down my throat, that's > NOT fine. Agreed - this is basically my point. The rest is just a logical extension of it. If you trust someone to bring you something that is actually likely to be worth your time to look at (based on the fact that they have tended to do just that in the past) then you'd be mad to say "sod off" to such a person starting a discussion with "I know this is an ad but I think you'll find it interesting". > Too far in reverse? I think not. I simply refuse to tolerate receiving > ANY advertisements, unless I have specifically requested them. If more But you've just contradicted yourself! I think we got such a SPAM problem that we're in danger of falling into the age old pitfall of not being able to rationally state the position our sober thoughts actually support. I.E. the tolerance of any grey areas goes out the window - as well as the ability to see that there is a grey area at all. You form the unbreakable premiss that "advertising is bad" and no logical conclusion that may be based on assumptions you agree with that contradicts this is likely to have an effect. Ho Humm - I guess the one consolation is that this irrationality is possibly/probably required in order to shift towards the "correct" middle ground. In other words we're not capable of moving to the middle ground, merely staying near it as we swing between extremes. If the severe problem of SPAMming is not met with an over-reaction maybe we won't see it resolved at all. Manar -- Internet Vision Internet Consultancy Tel: 0171 589 4500 60 Albert Court & Web development Fax: 0171 589 4522 Prince Consort Road vision@ivision.co.uk London SW7 2BE http://www.ivision.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Thu Dec 11 23:17:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA28049; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id WAA28011 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:53:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23863 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 1997 06:53:19 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions References: <348A974F.42363D56@jsoft.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: Gary Frederick's message of Sun, 07 Dec 1997 06:32:15 -0600 Date: 11 Dec 1997 22:53:19 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 44 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gary Frederick writes: > Does anyone have a page of instruction with a clear statement about > copyrights? Here's an except from the rec.arts.comics.creative FAQ, which is written from the other perspective (that of authors), but which includes some good pointers. This bit was written by Jeff McCoskey (jjmcc@ix.netcom.com). Subject: 2.5. What do Copyright laws I pay taxes for do for me? I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but there are some things you should know about Copyright laws. Anything you write is copyrighted immediately, whether you flag it with a copyright notice or not. Furthermore, the copyright protection is international under the Berne Copyright Convention, which has been signed by nearly every country with access to Usenet. If you label your text as copyrighted, it preempts a possible "unintentional infringement" defense from plagarizers. The copyright notice is considered legal notice that you intend to retain your rights. The legal format for such a notice requires three things: Your name, the year, and one or more of the following: "Copyright," "Copr.," and/or the c-in-circle symbol. Note that there is no firm legal precedence for (C) or (c) as having any special copyright meaning. Example notice: Copyright 1994 Jeff J McCoskey The only way to get full legal protection (at least in the United States) is to register your work with the government (forms are free, filing fees apply). This *guarantees* an archived, dated copy should future legal action be necessary. Other forms of dating, like mailing yourself a copy or archiving (to get a date stamp), are of dubious and unproven legal value. An excellent resource for Copyright information is misc.legal, where a FAQ is posted monthly. Another excellent resource is the U.S. Copyright Office home page at: -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 02:20:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18244; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA18144 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA09994 ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:49:53 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3490CEF2.1607@zebra.net> References: <348A974F.42363D56@jsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:45:42 -0800 To: bmcmullen@zebra.net, Gary Frederick From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: mailing list instructions Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:43 PM -0800 12/11/97, Barbara McMullen wrote: > I think anything posted with proper credit is fine, so long as the > author is noted. It's not like they can't read Dear Abby in any > paper. You are not selling her work, just mailing it to people. *bzzt*. Sorry, that's wrong. > IMHO Please check the laws before offering advice. On copyright, selling it or making money off of it has nothing to do with it. If it's copyrighted, you cannot reproduce it without permission. (I'm sure some folks will argue fair use aspects of copyright, but if you don't even know the basics of copyright law, please, don't startin on what is and isn't fair use). Unless you have permission to reproduce something, you can't reproduce it. For the discussion at hand (posting copyrighted material), that's pretty much it. There are some pretty good copyright pieces out on the net. Try yahoo, and search on copyright. Take you about five minutes.... I'd do it for you, but it's 1AM and I have a morning meeting.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 06:51:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA11554; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA11520 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:34:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA10172; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA02015; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:34:45 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:34:45 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Gary Frederick cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-Reply-To: <348A974F.42363D56@jsoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Gary Frederick wrote: > The policy on this list is that anything you post, while remaining > you property, may be reposted elsewhere. I doubt that a listowner can give away a subscriber's copyright with a notice like the one listed above. Both parties must agree to the terms of a contract for the contract to be valid. I ask subscribers to get permission from the original author before republishing articles from the mailing list. I don't know the details of law in this area. Contacting the author for permission to republish is common courtesy. Getting permission to redistribute an article is a trivial task in most cases. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 07:22:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id HAA15499; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:14:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA15402 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:13:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA16299; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA03551; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:13:03 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:13:03 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Manar Hussain cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? 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, 5 Dec 1997, Manar Hussain wrote: > My point was to try and illustrate one end of the spectrum to > illustrate it's not so cut and dried. You're trying to have your > cake and eat it here. You agree "that there's a world of difference" > because one case is clearly acceptable but don't seem to see that > the two cases are merely two disparate points of the same line - and > that there must therefore be a grey area in between [much deleted] I'm sorry. I just don't see any grey area here. Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) is evil, plain and simple. There is no redeeming social value to UCE. I suspect that most people only see this problem from the perspective of their personal mail box. Deleting a couple dozen pieces of spam a day doesn't take but a few seconds. Internet service providers have a different point of view. Most of the spam being sent today is being relayed through unsuspecting Internet service providers. The spammers hand off the task of delivering millions of emails to any unprotected mail system they can find in the net. In many cases, the additional load shuts down the mail system which has been hijacked. Legitimate mail services are lost until the system administrator can set up appropriate filters to prevent mail from being sent by his system without permission. On the receiving end, at the service provider level, a few dozen incoming spams times a few thousand subscribers adds up to hundreds of thousands of unwanted emails daily. The service provider, and ultimately the customer, picks up the cost of receiving this unwanted incoming email. On a national level, the cost of spam is huge. I would be willing to bet that millions of dollars have been spent processing spam in the US this year. The money goes for net bandwidth, disk space, CPU capacity, bigger routers and other hardware. Sysadmins, postmasters and customer service reps are spending thousands of man-hours dealing with spam every week. Spam is not a trivial problem. Unsolicited Commercial Email is theft of services. As long as commercial spammers don't bear the true cost of delivering their junk mail, the problem will only get worse. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 09:53:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA11507; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:49:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA28892 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway2.tssi.com [198.136.212.126]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA02200 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:40:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA30922 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:40:55 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA18429 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:40:54 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199712121640.KAA18429@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:40:53 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > The policy on this list is that anything you post, while remaining > > you property, may be reposted elsewhere. > > I doubt that a listowner can give away a subscriber's copyright with a > notice like the one listed above. Both parties must agree to the > terms of a contract for the contract to be valid. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but after working with publishers for the past 15 years, I have had more than a little exposure to intellectual property issues. While it is technically true that both parties must agree to the terms of a contract, all of us agree to numerous one-sided contracts every day, they're called 'contracts of adhesion' in law school, I believe. Look at the back of the ticket at the parking garage, or at the receipt for your film at the photo shop. There are two separate issues here. One is a subscriber violating someone else's copyright. That is something we all need to guard against, I've heard some dark rumblings that there might be some people trolling the net looking for copyright abuse patterns, possibly for a future lawsuit, and personally I would rather not be one of the defendants. The other issue is the redistribution of 'original' material written for your list. In this case, the poster is the copyright holder, and assuming your terms of service discusses the possibility of redistribution (which is sort of the whole POINT to a mailing list, usenet group, or chat room, isn't it?) then you should have a perfectly valid offer and acceptance for posts sent to your list. Here's what my list guidelines have to say about redistribution. I don't know that this would hold up in court, but it has to be better than saying nothing at all about the issue. By posting to the List, you are granting non-exclusive redistribution rights to your message to all individuals and organizations who receive or transmit it. We cannot control nor do we attempt to control any redistribution of posts to other mailing lists, to any USENET newsgroup, via the web, or any other type of redistribution, retransmittal, or reproduction. (Anyone who wants the entire guidelines document can get a copy by sending e-mail to unlfaq@tssi.com.) -- Mike Nolan From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 14:39:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA12629; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA12442 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:43:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) id MAA29910; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:43:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712122043.MAA29910@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: dattier@miso.wwa.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com In-reply-to: (dattier@miso.wwa.com) Subject: Re: Juno.COM Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:47:06 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" | Does this mean that if one person on a mailing list from juno.com has a | full mailbox that no one else from juno.com who is on the list will get | that post? Or does this only apply to named addresses? I don't know what Cyndi meant by "named addresses" -- it seems to me that all addresses have to be named. Let me rephrase: what the heck is an "envelope recipent" ??? I'm guessing it means a group of people you are mailing to without actually specifing their addresses. In other words, you mail to list-managers@GreatCircle.COM and it goes to you and me and tons of other people. When I said "named addresses" I meant directly to the people you want to reach, as in mailing to 5 friends of yours at juno.com at the same time by listing their addresses one by one in the header. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 14:46:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA04963; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA04935 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA25986 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:04:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from 37.houston-09.tx.dial-access.att.net(12.65.192.37) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025937; Fri Dec 12 14:03:55 1997 Reply-To: "Alan Czarnek" From: "Alan Czarnek" To: Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:00:06 -0600 Message-ID: <01bd0738$8aa9f8c0$25c0410c@compaq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >The other issue is the redistribution of 'original' material written for >your list. In this case, the poster is the copyright holder, and assuming >your terms of service discusses the possibility of redistribution (which is >sort of the whole POINT to a mailing list, usenet group, or chat room, >isn't it? -------------- Well not always. It depends on the purpose of the list. I am associated with two private, 'by invitation only' lists. Our policy is that the copyright belongs to the original author of the post. Messages are *not* to be distributed outside of the list without the expressed consent of the copright holder (author.) Reuse or redistribution of posts from the list (without getting permission from the author) is grounds for unsubscription. Notice that we, as operators of the listserv, also do not claim to have any copyright on the material..... the rights belong exclusively to the original author. Sooooo... the policy may vary depending on whether the list is intended to be public or private Alan Cz From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 14:51:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA05722; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from vc.datamerge.com (vc.datamerge.com [209.101.48.41]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA05609 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:07:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from spencer ([209.101.48.101]) by vc.datamerge.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-40360U500L100S0) with ESMTP id AAA488 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:10:18 -0700 Message-ID: <349198FB.B77B8CDF@datamerge.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:05:15 -0700 From: spencer@datamerge.com (Spencer Kluesner) Reply-To: spencer@datamerge.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: List Manager vs Forum Host X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Help! I need to find a service to host my email discussion list and haven't had any luck. The service needs to have it's own server, be able to process posts quickly, and have good list management and list moderator software interface. I want to use an outside service/server because our NT server was unable to process the mail, even though the list only got a total of 5 - 15 posts a day which had to be distributed to our 17,000 subscribers. One post could lock up the server for hours. Most of the services I've found are really just supplumental to a web hosting service. Most had little knowledge about histing an email discussion list. Others specialized in bulk email list hosting where the mail mostly goes one way. They could get the email out fast, but did not provide list management functions like removal of bad email addresses which bounced, and moderation of posts. Any referrals would be greatly appreciated. Spencer spencer@datamerge.com From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 17:35:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA15379; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nexus.pigsfly.com (www.pigsfly.com [207.226.166.137]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA15322 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pslfl2-13.gate.net ([199.227.20.76]) by nexus.pigsfly.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-40113U100L100S0) with SMTP id AAA130; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:41:49 -0500 From: jtlist@pigsfly.com (Jerry Trowbridge) To: cnorman@best.com Cc: dattier@miso.wwa.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shell7.ba.best.com Subject: Re: Juno.COM Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:41:45 GMT Organization: Flying Pig Ranch Reply-To: jtlist@pigsfly.com Message-ID: <3493c8b4.33204886@pop.pigsfly.com> References: <199712122043.MAA29910@shell7.ba.best.com> In-Reply-To: <199712122043.MAA29910@shell7.ba.best.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:43:47 -0800 (PST), Cyndi Norman wrote: >Let me rephrase: what the heck is an "envelope recipent" ??? I'm guessing >it means a group of people you are mailing to without actually specifing >their addresses. OK When email is sent under SMTP, the headers aren't actually used during the sending process. The sending computer, in the mail transfer negotiation, sends a message to any number of "envelope addresses." For instance, let's say that I send you a piece of mail, and send my partner Ray a bcc: The bcc is in the header when the mail leaves my mail client, but the Mail Transfer Agent, sendmail for most unix machines, takes the headers and processes them to see where to send the mail. It takes all the addresses in the to: header, plus all the addresses in the cc: header plus all the addresses in the bcc: header. It then removes the bcc: header, adds any path header information it wants to, and then organizes all the recipient addresses so that if more than one person at the same domain is getting a copy, it only contacts that domain once. Let's say my partner ray is at a different domain than I am. (remember, we sent him that bcc:) So my MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) contacts his domain, and sends him a copy of my mail to you. At this point, his name is nowhere on the "mail" per se. It only exists in the "envelope" which is the pre-mail-transfer negotiation between the mail clients that set up the SMTP session. Unless the receiving machine adds his name in a path header: "received [timestamp] by [hostname] as [messageid] for ray@pigsfly.com" his name need not ever appear on the mail. Take a look at a piece of spam (I'm sure you have one lying around), and you'll see that the to: header is probably forged, as is the from: header. The way the mail got to you was through the "envelope address" which was given to your mail host when it received the mail on your behalf. - Jerry Trowbridge --at the Flying Pig Ranch From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 21:21:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA21944; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA21898 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:08:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA19836 ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:09:21 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:54:06 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm curious what people think of this, since it came up in conversation today. If someone Bcc:s a mailing list, it's not at all obvious to many users 9and in some mail clients, impossible to find out) where the mail came from. And thinking about it, it's arguable whether it's "okay" to allow Bcc to a mail list. I see lots of opportunity for confusion, misdirection, and minor shenanigans. So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thoughts? -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Fri Dec 12 23:20:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA04756; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA04712 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA29680; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:22:09 -0800 From: Berg Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA19419; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:22:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:22:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712130622.WAA19419@eskimo.com> To: chuqui@plaidworks.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On the face of it, coercing a Bcc to a CC might be a good idea, but in the past, I've used Bccs to keep addresses confidential from the recipients. Each person sees my address as sender and reciever, and gets their copy, but nobody knows who else is getting it. It also prevents long and spammy To: lines. From owner-list-managers-list Sat Dec 13 00:23:15 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA23448; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:55:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (kristeva.postmodern.com [198.102.244.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA23348 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [198.102.244.52]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) with ESMTP id XAA25095; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:55:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34923F6F.E3EB5A78@postmodern.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:56:46 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users' attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known headers. In order to stave off the need for the (IMHO ugly and annoying) subject-prefix for list message subject lines, I've told people that they shuld use a filtering program, and that the name of the list is guaranteed to appear in either the "To:" or "Cc:" headers. There's something vaguely bothering me about promoting a Bcc to a Cc, because if the Cc line already has other recipients, a list member who does a normal "Reply All" will send to those recipients as well, who will rightfully be wondering how that person got hold of the message. (That's true of any Bcc, of course, but if the list member does not know that the list he got it on was in fact a Bcc, there would be no reason to presume prudence in replying.) A solution might be to add the list name in an added header, like X-Original-Bcc: or something, just so a "view all headers" action by the list member will reveal the source of the message. On my (Majordomo-based) lists the "owner-listname" address appears in a Sender: header, so that might not be necessary after all. I forget if that's the doing of sendmail or Majordomo's "resend" script. The best choice of all, of course, might just be to discourage Bcc's, and ask list members who would have reason to want to do so to simply forward (i.e., encapsulate) a complete copy of the message instead. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From owner-list-managers-list Sat Dec 13 00:31:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA07741; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:38:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA07720 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA23879; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:38:05 -0600 (CST) To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 13 Dec 1997 00:38:05 -0600 In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:54:06 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 26 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of CVR> a list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the CVR> mail headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives CVR> to it, but perhaps I'm missing something. Well, there's the view that the header should be inviolate. Doing what you propose is one short step away from munging From: or To: (people seem to variously ask for either) to show the list address. Some might say that subject tags constitute the same step down the slippery slope. You could also say that filtering software that can't look at the envelope sender just plain sucks, and that users of such software should change or learn to cope. Finally, if the list name doesn't show in any header, you could just say it's indistinguishable on the surface from spam and punt it. Otherwise it makes spam look like it was actually sent directly. I don't know what's best, really (although reasonable filters really should be able to filter on envelope sender). Because of the current anti-spam frenzy I'm apt to choose the latter myself and just inform the members not to Bcc: the list. I think more lists are going this way. - J< From owner-list-managers-list Sat Dec 13 03:35:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA06818; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id BAA06801 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:21:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA13730 ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:22:50 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Chuq Von Rospach's message of Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:54:06 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:01:43 -0800 To: Jason L Tibbitts III From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > CVR> a list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the > CVR> mail headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives > Well, there's the view that the header should be inviolate. Doing what you > propose is one short step away from munging From: or To: (people seem to > variously ask for either) to show the list address. Some might say that > subject tags constitute the same step down the slippery slope. Yup. I agree with you on Subject tags.... But then, I'm not religious about leaving headers alone, either. That's probably just a new form of the Reply-To argument... (grin). > You could also say that filtering software that can't look at the envelope > sender just plain sucks, and that users of such software should change or > Finally, if the list name doesn't show in any header, you could just say > it's indistinguishable on the surface from spam and punt it. Otherwise it See, here's where I think our esstential difference is. I'm talking users. You're talking filters and software. I figure if a user is smart enough to figure out how to filter, then this isn't really a problem (although *that* is very arguable), but there's a huge group of folks who aren't that capable. And the whole Bcc: thing confuses them, because they haven't gotten past the "look at the header" stage. Just seems to me that part of the population will continue to grow, too. What's best for the Naive/newer user? And as long as it doesn't muck things up for the more advanced users along the way, why not? That's my basic attitude about this stuff.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Sat Dec 13 03:40:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id BAA06878; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:22:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id BAA06849 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:22:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA17892 ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:23:20 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34923F6F.E3EB5A78@postmodern.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:21:09 -0800 To: mcb@postmodern.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users' > attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known > headers. That's why I tell users (and put in my docs) to filter off of the sender. I can guarantee what the Sender: field says off my server. And I think most decent list servers use Sender: now, and it doesn't depend on coercing reply-to or the typing vagaries of the user. > There's something vaguely bothering me about promoting a Bcc to a Cc, because > if the Cc line already has other recipients, That was sort of my feeling -- while it seems like a reasonable thing to do at first glance, it's not a no-brainer for two reasons. First is the disclosing of a Bcc, explictly or implictly. Even though by definition if it's coming off the list the Bcc: is disclosed anyway (in the Sender:, say), it still seems weird. And second, that funny voice in my head keeps saying "you know,if this was such a great idea, someone would have done it by now. They haven't, so why not?" (grin) > a list member who does a normal > "Reply All" will send to those recipients as well, who will rightfully be > wondering how that person got hold of the message. (That's true of any Bcc, Hmm. By Bcc:ing a list that doesn't coerce reply-to as reply-to-list, is that a way for a user to explicitly say "reply to me privately"? If so, I'd say that's a legitimate reason NOT to do this, since there's a legitimate reason to use it this way. Maybe we don't, or don't often, but in the "reply to me and I"ll summarize" school of mail lists, now that I think of this, it could be useful. (but, ohoh, there goes that voice again....) > A solution might be to add the list name in an added header, like > X-Original-Bcc: or something, just so a "view all headers" action by the list But that defeats my purpose -- doing this is primarily for the newer/naive user. If they're smart enough to know about extra headers and/orfiltering, then they aren't likely to NEED me helping them on this.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From owner-list-managers-list Sat Dec 13 21:35:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA09242; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id VAA09235 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18473 invoked by uid 24); 14 Dec 1997 05:25:53 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971213212002.0094d160@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:20:02 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:54 PM 12/12/97 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a >list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail >headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, >but perhaps I'm missing something. In some cases Bcc: is used because the sender doesn't want anyone on the list to respond; putting it in the Cc: makes it look like the author put it in the Cc:, and it would thus be "open season" for other posters to mail the person in the "To:" header. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- "it's a big world, with lots of records to play."-sig brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 02:50:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA02068; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA02044 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id FAA09519; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA19294; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:24:59 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Oskoboiny X-Sender: gerald@world.std.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. In-Reply-To: <34923F6F.E3EB5A78@postmodern.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Michael C. Berch wrote: > The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users' > attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known > headers. In order to stave off the need for the (IMHO ugly and annoying) > subject-prefix for list message subject lines, I've told people that they > shuld use a filtering program, and that the name of the list is guaranteed to > appear in either the "To:" or "Cc:" headers. That isn't good advice IMO; filtering on 'To' and 'Cc' will allow some messages to slip through the filters (such as messages that are Bcc'd, as you noted.) Better advice is to pick a header that's known to be reliably present in all messages (like Sender with Majordomo lists), then provide advice on how to filter for that header, as done in: http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/filterFAQ.html (including advice on what software is capable of such filtering, and what to do if you can't filter on Sender.) Gerald -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 02:53:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA02042; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA02033 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id FAA09513; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA19279; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:50:35 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Oskoboiny X-Sender: gerald@world.std.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, murr rhame wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Gary Frederick wrote: > > > The policy on this list is that anything you post, while remaining > > you property, may be reposted elsewhere. > > I doubt that a listowner can give away a subscriber's copyright with a > notice like the one listed above. Both parties must agree to the > terms of a contract for the contract to be valid. What if one of the conditions of use of a mailing list is that the subscriber agrees to have everything they send to the list made available in a publicly-accessible archive forever? (This is a slightly different topic than the one being discussed, but they're related.) My (non-legal) opinion is that by posting to the list, a subscriber is indicating their consent with the list's rules (which may include a policy on public archives), therefore forfeiting some of their regular copyright rights. I would be very interested to hear of any legal precedents in this area. Gerald -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 02:57:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA02067; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA02041 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id FAA09516; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA19286; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:17:02 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Oskoboiny X-Sender: gerald@world.std.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > If someone Bcc:s a mailing list, it's not at all obvious to many users > 9and in some mail clients, impossible to find out) where the mail came > from. And thinking about it, it's arguable whether it's "okay" to allow > Bcc to a mail list. I see lots of opportunity for confusion, > misdirection, and minor shenanigans. That depends on the list; in many cases it's appropriate. > So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a > list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail > headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, > but perhaps I'm missing something. I think header munging is generally evil, and it would not be good at all to change Bcc's to be Cc's. Better solutions IMO would be: 1. Hack the list processor to reject any submissions which don't have the list address present in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header. (send an autoresponse saying "sorry, this list doesn't accept Bcc's; please re-send your message.) 2. Accept the Bcc'd message, but munge the *body* of the message to say "Note: this message was Bcc'd to the list." (Insert a paragraph at the beginning or whatever, and explain it in whatever way makes the most sense to your subscribers.) In either case, this should be a configurable option on a list-by- list basis; some lists may wish to accept Bcc'd messages without any munging at all. (Several lists I use accept Bcc's, and even encourage them in many cases.) It is reasonable to set a "no Bcc's" policy for certain lists, but if that is the policy, it would be better to enforce it using my suggestion #1 above, and not by munging the headers. Gerald -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 03:02:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id CAA02069; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id CAA02058 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:40:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id FAA09528; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA19308; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:40:29 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:30:26 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Oskoboiny X-Sender: gerald@world.std.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users' > > attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known > > headers. > > That's why I tell users (and put in my docs) to filter off of the > sender. I can guarantee what the Sender: field says off my server. And > I think most decent list servers use Sender: now, and it doesn't depend > on coercing reply-to or the typing vagaries of the user. I agree that's good advice, but it isn't clear to me that "decent" list servers are the ones using the Sender header. :) I haven't had time to research this very well yet, but the other day I found the following a little disconcerting: http://www.imc.org/draft-moore-maillist-req Requirements for IETF Mailing Lists 5.1.3. Sender field A list MUST NOT add a Sender header field to a message redistributed to list subscribers. A list MUST NOT alter or remove a Sender field which was originally present in the message. DISCUSSION: Many lists add a Sender field of some kind which indicates either the address of the list maintainer, or the software which handles the mailing list, and this field is widely used by subscribers of those lists (e.g. for collation of mail from different lists). Such use defeats the original purpose of Sender, which is to identify the person who originated the message. (RFC 822 says "person, system, or process", but neither systems nor processes should be sending messages to IETF lists.) Automatic collation of mail can be accomplished using the Return-Path field. Collation may also be accomplished using one of the List-* fields, or a tag in the Subject field, if the list supports either of these features. -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 10:20:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA15703; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:14:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from nexus.pigsfly.com (www.pigsfly.com [207.226.166.137]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA15696 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from pslfl4-16.gate.net ([199.227.20.207]) by nexus.pigsfly.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-40113U100L100S0) with SMTP id AAB220; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:14:45 -0500 From: jtlist@pigsfly.com (Jerry Trowbridge) To: Gerald Oskoboiny Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:14:33 GMT Organization: Flying Pig Ranch Reply-To: jtlist@pigsfly.com Message-ID: <349720db.996542@pop.pigsfly.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:24:59 -0500 (EST), Gerald Oskoboiny wrote: >Better advice is to pick a header that's known to be reliably present >in all messages (like Sender with Majordomo lists), then provide advice >on how to filter for that header, as done in: Is this header: Sender: [sender address here] and is it in any of the RFCs? I am thinking of adding it. It seems to be clueful. We use post.office for our lists, and sender is not included out of the box. It does allow you to remove any headers you wish, and add any. We want responses to default to the list, so we remove any reply-to: address and then add our own reply-to: that points back to the list address. The envelope from: points to our request address (listname-request@ourdomain.com). I have suggested to listmembers that mail be filtered on the reply-to, since we KNOW that posted listmail cannot escape without that. Every once in a while, when we want people to request things, such as videotape copies or tickets to list functions, we temporarily alter the reply-to address long enough to post our request, and then change it back. - Jerry Trowbridge --at the Flying Pig Ranch From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 14:35:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA05133; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA05101 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA06396; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:33:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from 165.houston-08.tx.dial-access.att.net(12.65.135.165) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020915; Sun Dec 14 10:51:19 1997 Reply-To: "Alan Czarnek" From: "Alan Czarnek" To: "Gerald Oskoboiny" Cc: Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:47:19 -0600 Message-ID: <01bd08af$f0f79ba0$a587410c@compaq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >My (non-legal) opinion is that by posting to the list, a subscriber >is indicating their consent with the list's rules (which may include >a policy on public archives), therefore forfeiting some of their >regular copyright rights. > >I would be very interested to hear of any legal precedents in this >area. > I suspect that there are precedents. It is not much different from writing a 'letter to the editor' to a publication which claims somewhere in the fine print that 'all letters submitted become property of xxx Corporation' or similar language........... Alan Cz From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 15:50:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id PAA09119; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id PAA09110 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA06430; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA08577; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:38:49 -0800 To: "Alan Czarnek" cc: "Gerald Oskoboiny" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:47:19 -0600. <01bd08af$f0f79ba0$a587410c@compaq> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:38:49 -0800 Message-ID: <8574.882146329@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <01bd08af$f0f79ba0$a587410c@compaq>, you wrote: > >>My (non-legal) opinion is that by posting to the list, a subscriber >>is indicating their consent with the list's rules (which may include >>a policy on public archives), therefore forfeiting some of their >>regular copyright rights. >> >>I would be very interested to hear of any legal precedents in this >>area. >> > > >I suspect that there are precedents. It is not much different from >writing a >'letter to the editor' to a publication which claims somewhere in >the fine print that 'all letters submitted become property of >xxx Corporation' or similar language........... We amateurs can argue the law all we want, but what the law says or does does not say makes little different _until_ you get to court... and it can be mighty expensive just getting there. I have for some time now included the following header into all of my outgoing mail and news postings: X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. The question of whether or not this is binding is an interesting one. To date however I have never seen it as being _sufficiently_ interesting to try to persue the answer into a courtroom, nor have I ever even suggested to anyone that I might do so in any particular case where one of my messages was quoted, retransmitted, or rebroadcast. However if anyone is interested in seeing how far my interest can be piqued in this facinating legal question, just try quoting me out of context or twisting my words to make it appear that I have said something that I never intended. Under those circumstances, I may one day decide to suggest to the person doing the mis-quoting of me that what they have done may perhaps be actionable under the copyright laws. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 16:35:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id QAA13347; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from sportsurf.net (sportsurf.net [192.41.36.58]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id QAA13293 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:34:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.204.56.156] (sss.pittsburgh.net [192.204.56.156]) by sportsurf.net (8.8.5) id RAA11253; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:33:25 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712150033.RAA11253@sportsurf.net> Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 97 20:43:34 -0000 x-sender: mark@sportsurf.net x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Mark Rauterkus To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Ron and others, > X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. ... snip.... >However if anyone is interested in seeing how far my interest can be piqued >in this facinating legal question, just try quoting me out of context or >twisting my words to make it appear that I have said something that I never >intended. Under those circumstances, I may one day decide to suggest to >the person doing the mis-quoting of me that what they have done may perhaps >be actionable under the copyright laws. As for the miss-quotes -- why do you not use a PGP public-key to sign your messages? Do you think that would help you be able to guard your words to a much higher degree? Just interested. -------------- Mark Rauterkus, Publisher, S.S.S. http://www.sportsurf.net mrauterkus@sportsurf.net http://www.SportSurf.Net/FootNotes FootNotes: Mac E-book authoring and distribution environment with built-in multi-media, lan, web, internet and e-mail capabilities. -------------- From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 18:21:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA20908; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA20876 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA27242; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA16475; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:16:48 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:16:47 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: nolan@tssi.com cc: List Managers Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-Reply-To: <199712121640.KAA18429@celery.tssi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mike Nolan wrote: > > > The policy on this list is that anything you post, while remaining > > > you property, may be reposted elsewhere. > > > > I doubt that a listowner can give away a subscriber's copyright with a > > notice like the one listed above. Both parties must agree to the > > terms of a contract for the contract to be valid. > While it is technically true that both parties must agree to the > terms of a contract, all of us agree to numerous one-sided contracts > every day, they're called 'contracts of adhesion' in law school, I > believe. Look at the back of the ticket at the parking garage, or > at the receipt for your film at the photo shop. > The other issue is the redistribution of 'original' material written > for your list. In this case, the poster is the copyright holder, > and assuming your terms of service discusses the possibility of > redistribution (which is sort of the whole POINT to a mailing list, > usenet group, or chat room, isn't it?) then you should have a > perfectly valid offer and acceptance for posts sent to your list. > By posting to the List, you are granting non-exclusive > redistribution rights to your message to all individuals and > organizations who receive or transmit it. We cannot control nor do > we attempt to control any redistribution of posts to other mailing > lists, to any USENET newsgroup, via the web, or any other type of > redistribution, retransmittal, or reproduction. [Please pardon my crude trimming of quotes. I could not find a graceful way to cut the quotes down to a reasonable size without killing the context.] I agree that some one-sided contracts do exist and are recognized by law. On the other hand, there are limits on what you can expect another party to agree to. As an extreme example, I could add this phrase to all of my posts: "Anyone who quotes back this message in whole or in part message agrees to pay Murr Rhame one thousand dollars US currency." I presume that I would have no legal grounds to collect my $1000. Absurd contracts can be thrown out as unconscionable, even if both parties initially agree to the terms. I still have doubts that a nearly-anything-goes redistribution notice would be recognized by a court. I'm don't know the law in this area. I do know that when I make a post to a restricted access mailing list I do not expect to see my post republished on a web page or forwarded to usenet without my permission. Many mailing lists have been created specifically to avoid both the random noise of usenet and to avoid the random redistribution of articles often seen on usenet. This does run somewhat counter to the free exchange of ideas which mailing lists promote. On the other hand, there are many topics which would not be discussed on-line at all if not for the level of privacy which is possible on a restricted access mailing list. As others have already noted, the rules for redistribution must be appropriate for the particular forum. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Sun Dec 14 20:35:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA01036; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:23:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id UAA01029 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18250; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15968; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:25:57 -0800 To: Mark Rauterkus cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:43:34 +0000. <199712150033.RAA11253@sportsurf.net> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:25:57 -0800 Message-ID: <15965.882163557@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199712150033.RAA11253@sportsurf.net>, you wrote: >Hi Ron and others, > >> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. >... snip.... >>However if anyone is interested in seeing how far my interest can be piqued >>in this facinating legal question, just try quoting me out of context or >>twisting my words to make it appear that I have said something that I never >>intended. Under those circumstances, I may one day decide to suggest to >>the person doing the mis-quoting of me that what they have done may perhaps >>be actionable under the copyright laws. > >As for the miss-quotes -- why do you not use a PGP public-key to sign >your messages? Do you think that would help you be able to guard your >words to a much higher degree? No. PGP will not stop people from ripping out little snippets and sub- segments of what I have written (just as you have done on this occasion). In essentially all cases to date, I do not mind when people do that. It is only on those very rare occasions when someone uses clever editing to make it appear that I have said something that I didn't say that I might get annoyed. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From owner-list-managers-list Mon Dec 15 09:24:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA20795; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from tardis.Tymnet.COM (tardis.tymnet.com [131.146.3.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA20778 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jms@localhost) by tardis.Tymnet.COM (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA29142; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:18:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:18:48 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Smith Message-Id: <199712151718.JAA29142@tardis.Tymnet.COM> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, chuqui@plaidworks.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a > list to a CC: in the header? No - totally unreasonable. However, I would agree to a "Apparently-To:" header in this case. (That's what /usr/bsd/mail does when delivering local mail when there are no To: or Cc: fields and all addresses are Bcc: or from the command line.) In my opinion, it is blasphemy to munge with the To: and Cc: headers, but perfectly reasonable to add a new filterable header like Apparently-To:. -Joe From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 01:27:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA23703; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id AAA23678 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20148 invoked by uid 24); 16 Dec 1997 08:27:11 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:27:11 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: "spamgard". sheesh. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk No, sorry mister "Gary L. Burnore", I'm not going to play some silly little password game just so you can talk to my majordomo responder. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@hyperreal.org http://www.apache.org http://www.organic.com/jobs ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:27:12 -0800 (PST) From: "Gary L. Burnore" To: majordomo-owner@hyperreal.org Subject: spamgard(tm) in effect; try again. } I'm sorry, your message did not go through. To send me a message } successfully, you need to place a password (which I'm about to tell } you) somewhere in the Subject: line. } } SPAM has dictated, therefore, that I install spamgard(tm), } which has returned your message. To prevent "ringing", future } messages without the password on the Subject: line WILL NOT be } returned, but instead be silently deleted. } } I don't want to read spam, but I * DO * want to read your message } (assuming it's not spam, of course); please send it back to me, } but with the password somewhere on the Subject: line. } } After I become familiar with your e-mail address, I will be able } to place it in my BounceNot list, and you'll be able to drop the } password security. } } I you're not a SPAMMER or a UCE'r or what ever term is currently used } for lowlife scum who send unsolicited email, then } } Thank you for your patience in this matter. } } The password is zamboni. } } Otherwise, the password is something else and go away. } } } spamgard(tm) is a trademark of William J. Evans. } gburnore@databasix dot com or gburnore@netcom dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Raleigh, NC | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ spamgard(tm): zamboni | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ http://www.databasix.com | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== PGPprint: C63B CF4E 1B71 4D7E C6F8 AF4E 338D 5CB4 KeyID: 0x0F7EDBD9 (RSA) finger gburnore@netcom.com for public key --------------------------------------------------------------------------- } } The text of your bounced message follows. Subject: Majordomo results: info analogue-digest -- >>>> info analogue-digest Welcome to Analogue Heaven Analogue Heaven is a mailing list devoted to discussion of analogue and vintage musical equipment, synthesis, and electronic music-making. ... From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 06:40:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA10441; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 06:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA10347 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 06:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA09116; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA00708; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Brian Behlendorf cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. 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 Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > No, sorry mister "Gary L. Burnore", I'm not going to play some silly > little password game just so you can talk to my majordomo responder. > Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:27:12 -0800 (PST) > From: "Gary L. Burnore" > To: majordomo-owner@hyperreal.org > Subject: spamgard(tm) in effect; try again. Gary has been the subject of a subscribe and info file attack. He must have setup this auto responder in defense. I've put him in my ignore filter. Over 150 hits since the filter was in place. - murr - From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 13:25:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA14631; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:29:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from hyperreal.org (taz.hyperreal.org [204.62.130.147]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id MAA14598 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6417 invoked by uid 24); 16 Dec 1997 20:29:32 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971216121342.0091d420@hyperreal.org> X-Sender: brian@hyperreal.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:13:42 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach , murr rhame From: Brian Behlendorf Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:59 AM 12/16/97 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Yes. He was one of four guys who got hit VERY badly yesterday. Cut him >just a little slack. One of them reported over nine hundred spam hits. Ah, okay. I feel a little sheepish now. It would be awful nice if majordomo included the complete message in responses, to help folks who get list-server-bombed like this some help in tracking down the abuser. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- specialization is for insects brian@apache.org brian@hyperreal.org From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 13:34:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA16708; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA16589 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:41:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.219.12.172] (A17-219-12-172.apple.com [17.219.12.172]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA30682 ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:40:29 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971216121342.0091d420@hyperreal.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:37:23 -0800 To: Brian Behlendorf , Chuq Von Rospach , murr rhame From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:13 PM -0800 12/16/97, Brian Behlendorf wrote: >It would be awful nice if majordomo included the complete message in >responses, to help folks who get list-server-bombed like this some help in >tracking down the abuser. ---- That's why I've wrapped all of my addresses with procmail wrappers, and one thing those wrappers do is log copies of everything. VERY useful for figuring out what's going on. LOGFILE=/var/spool/logs/procmail/majordomo.log LOGABSTRACT=yes VERBOSE=no COMSAT=no #backup the mail. Yes, we audit trail everything. # call us silly. call us anal. Call us paranoid. you're right. # :0 c: /var/spool/logs/procmail/majordomo.backup # breaking a mail loop. :0 * not@currently.needed /dev/null # do all of the admin checks. INCLUDERC=/etc/procmailrcs/modules/maxadmin :0 !majordomo-xxxx ---- From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 14:29:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA28519; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from onramp.armchair.mb.ca (onramp.armchair.mb.ca [198.163.115.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id NAA28437 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28312 invoked from network); 16 Dec 1997 21:50:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bippo) (198.163.115.60) by onramp.armchair.mb.ca with SMTP; 16 Dec 1997 21:50:36 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971216154824.00fbe760@armchair.mb.ca> X-Sender: dave@armchair.mb.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:48:24 -0600 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Voorhis Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. Cc: majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971216121342.0091d420@hyperreal.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:13 PM 12/16/97 -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: >It would be awful nice if majordomo included the complete message in >responses, to help folks who get list-server-bombed like this some help in >tracking down the abuser. With that in mind, I patched Majordomo 1.94.4 to include (and log) the message header in all responses. If there's interest, I'll put it on a Web page for downloading. Or I can send it to whoever maintains Majordomo patches, if that person would contact me. Dave Voorhis mailto:dave@armchair.mb.ca http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave GWRRA #100777, DoD #1448, Dave #1, GL1200A; Brandon, Manitoba, Canada, etc... From owner-list-managers-list Tue Dec 16 14:29:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id NAA27396; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA27302 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA22158; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:43:39 -0600 (CST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. References: <3.0.3.32.19971216121342.0091d420@hyperreal.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 16 Dec 1997 15:43:38 -0600 In-Reply-To: Brian Behlendorf's message of Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:13:42 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "BB" == Brian Behlendorf writes: BB> It would be awful nice if majordomo included the complete message in BB> responses, to help folks who get list-server-bombed like this some help BB> in tracking down the abuser. There is a patch available which does this; it should be in the majordomo-users archives. It was discussed and generally regarded as something that would only confuse most people. Please direct any discussion about this to majordomo-users. -- Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-3486 - 622PGH System Manager: University of Houston Department of Mathematics 1994 PC800 "Kuroneko" DoD# 1723 From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:28:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA06352; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA06272 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com. (epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com [163.185.167.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id JAA11764 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from fxt.com by epona.sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com. (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA28736; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:13:48 -0600 Message-ID: <348D7CB5.52255E5@fxt.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:15:47 -0600 From: "Gary E. Bickford" Reply-To: garyb@fxt.com Organization: FXT Corp. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, martin@insyncimaging.com, bentley4@slb.com, support@now.com Subject: Localhost.com Lawsuit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Folks, I bumped into this page (kinda by accident - DNS mixup. Turns out, this is interesting to SPAM fighters. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit/ If it is as they say, I encourage you to support this effort. Note that I have cc'd the folks at now.com, who have been victimized the same way. GEB From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:34:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18490; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA13677 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from lokkur.dexter.mi.us (lokkur.dexter.mi.us [148.59.2.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id GAA14905 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 06:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from scs@localhost) by lokkur.dexter.mi.us (8.8.8/8.8.8/lokkur-1.1-scs) id JAA21454; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 09:37:46 -0500 (EST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Path: lokkur.dexter.mi.us!not-for-mail From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) Newsgroups: local.list-managers Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Date: 13 Dec 1997 09:37:46 -0500 Organization: Inland Sea Lines: 21 Distribution: local Message-ID: <66u6jq$kub$1@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> References: X-Mailer: exmh nn-tk.16.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: >So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a >list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail >headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, >but perhaps I'm missing something. IMHO messing with the user-supplied headers is attempting to override the (possibly important) user intent. List managers should make per-list policy of whether or not Bcc is allowed. If it is, pass the message thru unchanged. If not, return it to sender with a proper error message. -- Steve -- "In a sea of tee shirts, the guy in the suit is the one who wants something." "Everything I Need To Know I Learned At GenCon" From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:42:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18511; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA13925 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA25571 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 09:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice.worldnet.att.net ([12.69.72.223]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA22443; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 17:52:54 +0000 Message-ID: <3492CACC.89CC7446@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 12:50:05 -0500 From: "P.A. Gantt" Reply-To: pagantt@bigfoot.com Organization: Electronic Media Design and Support X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: "P.A. Gantt" Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I happen to like bcc: I can send to a large list of recipients without the annoying huge list showing up bugging the whole distro. list. BCC: is a feature of many browsers... so *obviously* it is up the the listowners to defeat a bcc: if they don't want them or the individuals on the list using filtering techniques besides headers. As for list members complaining about getting email... I am always amazed at people not wanting what they sign up to get. Human nature is fickle and sometimes ignorant. > > The chief mischief of Bcc'ing a list, I think, is that it defeats users' > > attempts to filter their incoming mail using list names (etc.) in well-known > > headers. -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, P.A. Gantt pagantt@bigfoot.com Electronic Media Design and Support M.S., HRD, The University of Tennessee ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:48:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18527; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA09269 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA01318 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:21:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA05071; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 01:21:37 -0600 (CST) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless zubscribers? References: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:32:17 PST." <199712072350.claire.97121317@siberia.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 12 Dec 1997 01:21:36 -0600 In-Reply-To: claire@siberia.demon.co.uk's message of Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:50:02 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "CM" == Claire McNab writes: CM> The thing about the foo-unzub mechanism, is that: CM> a) it's the most easily understood and easily used of the mechanisms CM> I've seen to date; But it doesn't have a mechanism to specify the address to remove... So in the instructions, we have to describe one method, then switch gears massively and describe a completely different method. The end result would seem to be more confusion. A separate address for zubscription would seem to have the additional problem of trying to zubscribe spammers to your list when they misdirect mail to it. CM> b) It's part of a proposed standard. Which one? We already have the proposed list-header standard, which makes this irrelevant. Hopefully we won't get several overlapping standards; it's hard enough keeping up with several moving targets. We don't need any more, especially if they conflict. Not that I think this is a bad idea, just that it needs to be thought out just a bit more. - J< From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:56:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA09852; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA09843 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA02654 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom2.netcom.com by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.8.5/SMI-4.1/Brent-970426) id IAA10286; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom2.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id IAA15235; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:56:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:56:28 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom2 To: Barbara McMullen cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: mailing list instructions In-Reply-To: <3490CEF2.1607@zebra.net> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Barbara McMullen wrote: > I think anything posted with proper credit is fine, so long as the > author is noted. IANAL, but I have a distinct recollection that Microsoft couldn't use the music they wanted to use to introduce Win95, because the copyright owner didn't like micky mouse software. If you think redistributing material that is available free, does not carry consequences, ask some of the newspapers that published _This Is True_ , without getting permission to do so << and also paying the nominal royalties. This was before their was a permium edition of _This Is True_. >> > paper. You are not selling her work, just mailing it to people. Still a copyright violation. The owner may not want the material to be redistributed. And under European Law, the original creators wishes _can_ and usually do prevail. Under US Law, the owner's wishes usually prevail. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com No signature, by popular request. From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 05:57:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18626; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA14018 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id NAA16124 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 13:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id QAA17230; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA07682; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:17:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:17:02 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Oskoboiny X-Sender: gerald@world.std.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. 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, 12 Dec 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > If someone Bcc:s a mailing list, it's not at all obvious to many users > 9and in some mail clients, impossible to find out) where the mail came > from. And thinking about it, it's arguable whether it's "okay" to allow > Bcc to a mail list. I see lots of opportunity for confusion, > misdirection, and minor shenanigans. That depends on the list; in many cases it's appropriate. > So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a > list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail > headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, > but perhaps I'm missing something. I think header munging is generally evil, and it would not be good at all to change Bcc's to be Cc's. Better solutions IMO would be: 1. Hack the list processor to reject any submissions which don't have the list address present in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header. (send an autoresponse saying "sorry, this list doesn't accept Bcc's; please re-send your message.) 2. Accept the Bcc'd message, but munge the *body* of the message to say "Note: this message was Bcc'd to the list." (Insert a paragraph at the beginning or whatever, and explain it in whatever way makes the most sense to your subscribers.) In either case, this should be a configurable option on a list-by- list basis; some lists may wish to accept Bcc'd messages without any munging at all. (Several lists I use accept Bcc's, and even encourage them in many cases.) It is reasonable to set a "no Bcc's" policy for certain lists, but if that is the policy, it would be better to enforce it using my suggestion #1 above, and not by munging the headers. Gerald -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 06:04:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18660; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA09899 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA22075 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0xgXZo-0007H4-00; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:04:32 +0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Manar Hussain" Organization: Internet Vision To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:02:15 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: An alternative to spamming? References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I'm sorry. I just don't see any grey area here. Unsolicited > Commercial Email (UCE) is evil, plain and simple. There is no > redeeming social value to UCE. > > I suspect that most people only see this problem from the perspective of > their personal mail box. Deleting a couple dozen pieces of spam a day > doesn't take but a few seconds. Internet service providers have a > different point of view. Most of the spam being sent today is being > relayed through unsuspecting Internet service providers. The spammers > hand off the task of delivering millions of emails to any unprotected > mail system they can find in the net. In many cases, the additional load > shuts down the mail system which has been hijacked. Legitimate mail > services are lost until the system administrator can set up appropriate > filters to prevent mail from being sent by his system without permission. I very much have the ISP perspective at heart. These are good *concerns* not good points - in fact they merely argue against your initial statement. People abusing mail relays is not the same as UCE even if they are related. If a large number of people considered it fun to mass mail null accounts that bounce errors into the ether we still ahve all the same problems but no UCE. It *is* possible to have UCE without any of the problems you mention. > Spam is not a trivial problem. agreed > Unsolicited Commercial Email is theft of > services. As long as commercial spammers don't bear the true cost of > delivering their junk mail, the problem will only get worse. UCE is frequently delievred in this way - but here's nothing to stop UCE from not causing these concerns. Jeez - I hate actually looking like I'm defending UCE as it is near universally conducted. Don't get me wrong - I abhore the sort of UCE that occurs and that you are referring to (I'd probably even go further than that). It's probably just that I've done too much logic/philosophy in my time to accept a false argument. Manar -- Internet Vision Internet Consultancy Tel: 0171 589 4500 60 Albert Court & Web development Fax: 0171 589 4522 Prince Consort Road vision@ivision.co.uk London SW7 2BE http://www.ivision.co.uk From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 06:06:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA18714; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:45:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA13768 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id HAA20055 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from djr@localhost by mail.n.ml.org (Sendmail 8.8.8) via SMTP (KAA00824) on Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:01:44 -0500 (199712131501) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:01:41 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. 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, 12 Dec 1997, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: ) I'm curious what people think of this, since it came up in conversation today. ) ) If someone Bcc:s a mailing list, it's not at all obvious to many users ) 9and in some mail clients, impossible to find out) where the mail came ) from. And thinking about it, it's arguable whether it's "okay" to allow ) Bcc to a mail list. I see lots of opportunity for confusion, ) misdirection, and minor shenanigans. ) ) So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a ) list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail ) headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, ) but perhaps I'm missing something. It's munging the headers already given. Mailing list managers like LISTSERV (I believe; the one BUGTRAQ runs on) simply discards all of the To: and Cc: fields and adds a To: LISTNAME@LISTHOST.TLD field. It also keeps copies of the original To: and Cc: fields in X-To: and X-Cc:, I believe. However, adding the list's name to the headers could pose other problems. What if, such as in my case, the list server host is lists.n.ml.org, yet all mailing lists are encouraged to use listname@narnia.mhv.net to contact? Date: yesterday From: me To: hackers@narnia.mhv.net Subject: I'm so cool! would become Date: yesterday From: me To: hackers@narnia.mhv.net Cc: hackers@lists.n.ml.org Subject: I'm so cool! and then when people hit reply, they will *always* hit reply-to-all, and hence send two copies of their post to the mailing list. Date: today From: haqqir To: hackers@narnia.mhv.net, hackers@lists.n.ml.org Subject: Re: I'm so cool! sooo, unless it went only by the list name before the @... but then you'd have Date: tomorrow From: JoeBlow To: hackers@eleet.net Subject: this is being sent to hackers@narnia.mhv.net too, but don't tell anyone! I know, I know, "don't use more than one host for your mailing lists." I could just use lists.n.ml.org exclusively, or narnia.mhv.net exclusively. However, then there are the lists I run that have an account somewhere and want all their list mail to be routed through there first, and then sent on to narnia... Date: infinity squared From: Martian To: mylist@theirisp.com Subject: hi! where the mail first goes to theirisp.com, and then is forwarded on to mylist@narnia.mhv.net. -- Daniel Reed (3CE060DD) System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118]) A pound of gold cannot buy an ounce of time... From owner-list-managers-list Wed Dec 17 06:32:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA25083; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 06:10:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA09832 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 23:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from is.rice.edu (is.rice.edu [128.42.42.24]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA05117 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cathyf@localhost) by is.rice.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA13866 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:09:39 -0600 (CST) From: Catherine Anne Foulston Message-Id: <199712121709.LAA13866@is.rice.edu> Subject: Re: mailing list instructions To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:09:38 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think one of the best Internet documents about copyright (for the ordinary user, that is, not a full legal treatment) is Brad Templeton's piece about copyright myths. It lives here: http://www.clarinet.com/brad/copymyths.html That page also has links to other copyright information. Cathy -- Catherine Foulston cathyf@rice.edu Rice University Network Management From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 17 18:12:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA13854; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:04:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.112]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id SAA13847 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:04:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712180204.SAA13847@honor.greatcircle.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:01:12 EST Subject: Re: policy issue on Bcc: of list.. Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > It's munging the headers already given. Mailing list managers like > LISTSERV (I believe; the one BUGTRAQ runs on) simply discards all of the > To: and Cc: fields and adds a To: LISTNAME@LISTHOST.TLD field. It also > keeps copies of the original To: and Cc: fields in X-To: and X-Cc:, I > believe. True, unless you use the IETFhdr option in LISTSERV. Then it leaves the To and cc headers alone. I'm not sure what it does with bcc. Probably leaves it alone too. As for the issue of what to do when a list is bcc'ed, why not add a bcc header with the list address (assuming one is not already there)? From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 07:05:39 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id GAA09619; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from iss.dccc.edu (iss.dccc.edu [207.103.163.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id GAA09572 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:07:57 -0800 (PST) From: drjesus@iss.dccc.edu Message-Id: <199712181407.GAA09572@honor.greatcircle.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Date: 17 Dec 1997 20:28:52 EDT Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun 14 Dec 97, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: RF>I have for some time now included the following header into all of my RF>outgoing mail and news postings: RF> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. RF>The question of whether or not this is binding is an interesting one. I believe it would become even more interesting if the offender were to claim, truthfully, that s/he never saw the notice. There are still plenty of (crappy) mail programs around that automatically strip *all* the RFC-822 headers. One example that comes readily to mind, since I'm stuck with this piece of $%@# due to my ISP is WorldGroup Manager by Galacticomm (the perpetrators of the Major-BBS, for those who remember). You may, therefore, want to consider making it a .sig/body line, plainly visible to all, if you are truly concerned. NE-Raves Account Admin. Geoff Capp Prod. "Close your eyes and look at the music." -J.Devlin to: INT:rfg@monkeys.com cc: INT:list-managers@GreatCircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 08:32:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA20457; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com (outlawnet.com [204.245.248.202]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA20416 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:20:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.245.248.234] (liv10.outlawnet.com [204.245.248.234]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA27200 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:20:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712181349.FAA06248@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:12:03 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Gary E. Bickford" Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> paper. You are not selling her work, just mailing it to people. Slick Willie just signed into law an extension of the US Copyright law defining the penalties for using copyrighted material without permission, EVEN IF the perpetrator is not receiving any recompense. From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 10:47:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA29473; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.bsdi.com (austin.BSDI.COM [205.230.232.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA29456 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.bsdi.com ({w3/S4fR2XaSn4uH391mBlFFa9wfBJgcg}@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by austin.bsdi.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09703 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:39:37 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712181839.LAA09703@austin.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 In-reply-to: List-Managers-Digest's message of Thu, 18 Dec 1997 05:49:47 PST. References: <199712181349.FAA06248@honor.greatcircle.com> From: Tony Sanders Organization: earth.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:39:37 -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Gary E. Bickford" wrote: > this is interesting to SPAM fighters. > > http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit/ This list isn't the best place for this but... please do support them. I spoke with them a couple of weeks ago because I heard from a friend that they had been having problems getting Internet Experts to return their calls. If you want to help, email a short note stating the case ``Seidl v. Greentree Mortgage'' and what your area of expertise would be to (they need DNS, Unix, and general Internet experts). A good place to keep track of spam cases is at: http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/spam.html Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > So, would it be reasonable for mail list software to coerce a Bcc: of a > list to a CC: in the header? At least then it'd be listed in the mail > headers where a user will see it. I don't see any real negatives to it, > but perhaps I'm missing something. I much prefer mailing lists that have a unique header (e.g., Mailing-List) for use in filtering, etc. P.A. Gantt wrote: > BCC: is a feature of many browsers... Huh? `Browsers'? Are we that far lost in the ``web age'' already? :) Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Subject: Re: Clueless zubscribers? [about foo-unsub*] > But it doesn't have a mechanism to specify the address to remove... So in > the instructions, we have to describe one method, then switch gears That is not a given, you could easily allow the the alternate address to be in the subject and/or the message body. From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 20:28:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA05601; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotmail.com (F64.hotmail.com [207.82.250.150]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id TAA05018 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:34:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21104 invoked by uid 0); 19 Dec 1997 03:34:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19971219033443.21103.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 207.137.57.96 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:34:42 PST X-Originating-IP: [207.137.57.96] From: "Judy Page" To: bmcmullen@zebra.net, grafolog@netcom.com Subject: Re: mailing list instructions/Religious? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:34:42 PST Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 20:36:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA05682; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotmail.com (F30.hotmail.com [207.82.250.41]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id TAA05263 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:35:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 16526 invoked by uid 0); 19 Dec 1997 03:35:58 -0000 Message-ID: <19971219033558.16525.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 207.137.57.96 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:35:57 PST X-Originating-IP: [207.137.57.96] From: "Judy Page" To: bmcmullen@zebra.net, grafolog@netcom.com Subject: Re: mailing list instructions/Religious? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:35:57 PST Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, and readers, Dear Fellow readers of My opinion about the Religious web site issue that was raised. Dec.2 issue I think. It's called Your God and Carl. He seems o.k. but also self serving. Does anybody think this Carl guy is really out to help the poor or help himself? My question is how does one fine out. Yes I would like to help the poor and I like what I read about him. I think I will start out with just one of his web sites. It's only $25.00. What do you readers think? See it at http://www.dreamsoft.com/aaa/ygchome.htm Sincerely, Judy page. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 18 20:59:01 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA05796; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from kira.ici.net (kira.ici.net [207.180.0.37]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA05678 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from klingon.ici.net (lbm@klingon [207.180.0.40]) by kira.ici.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13414 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (lbm@localhost) by klingon.ici.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA01631 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:40:18 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: klingon.ici.net: lbm owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:40:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Linda B. Merims" X-Sender: lbm@klingon To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 In-Reply-To: <199712181349.FAA06248@honor.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Barbara McMullen wrote: > > > I think anything posted with proper credit is fine, so long as the > > author is noted... > > > paper. You are not selling her work, just mailing it to people. What you think doesn't matter. What matters is the law. If you listened to the news yesterday (Wednesday, Dec. 17th) you will have heard that Clinton just signed a bill that explicitly makes using copyrighted material illegal *even if the user does not profit by it*. I gather that the media industry wanted this provision to guard against things like fans putting up freebie copies of music and photographs on the web. My list's copyright policy is that all material remains the property of the original poster (which is what would be true by default if I had no stated policy). My subscribers are told that they must obtain the permission of the original poster to use any post. I also explicitly disclaim responsibility for enforcing the copyright rights of my subscribers. That is, if somebody does copy it from the list or the list archive without their permission, I am not responsible or liable. Linda B. Merims Massachusetts, USA lbm@ici.net From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 19 01:12:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA24344; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from cammy.ecom.net (cammy.ecom.net [207.13.224.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id VAA24304 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.155.73.183] [207.155.73.183] by cammy.ecom.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.02) id ADBEC80038; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:01:34 PST X-Sender: sullivan@mail.WeightsNet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199712181349.FAA06248@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:56:58 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Disclaiming Liability Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:40 PM -0800 12/18/97, Linda B. Merims wrote: >I also explicitly disclaim responsibility for >enforcing the copyright rights of my subscribers. That is, >if somebody does copy it from the list or the list archive >without their permission, I am not responsible or liable. Just to be nitpicky but disclaiming liability does not necessarily mean anything. Imagine the following bumper sticker on a car: I disclaim all liability for any accidents this car is involved in. Doesn't mean much, does it? I'm sure you'll be okay but it's just something to be aware of. -- Michael Sullivan WeightsNet - Where the 'net pumps up mailto:sullivan@WeightsNet.com http://www.WeightsNet.com From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 22 11:17:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA02425; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.164.101]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id KAA02358 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:25:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 13:25:04 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: "Janyne M. Kizer" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Moderating individual Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9712221325.aa23619@fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Janyne Kizer >Is there a way to moderate individuals rather than a whole list? I have >two or three people on one of my lists that sometimes write good posts but >sometimes put out what I would call "flame bait." I really need to get >this list settled down a bit and moderating these few people should do the >trick. I've thought about using taboo-header but I want the whole thing >to be transparent to them. Is there a good way to do this? taboo_header the user's address. Then just "approve" any postings from them, same as you would all postings from a moderated list. Works like a champ. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 22 11:21:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id KAA01643; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com (outlawnet.com [204.245.248.202]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id KAA01456 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:20:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.245.248.248] (liv14.outlawnet.com [204.245.248.238]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA28015 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:21:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712191330.IAA16000@kryten.frb.gov> References: Your message of "Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:12:03 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:08:52 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Gary E. Bickford" Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Just for the record and in reply to all my demo friends, I wasn't intentionally differentiating between parties - obviously for the Prez to sign a bill, it has to be passed by Congress - doesn't matter whether they're republicrats or democricans. They're ALL out to create a world gov., turn education into indocrination and (rant, rant) ... BTW - in the middle ages, the rent paid by serfs to their lord was 1 fifth of their income. Our modern enlightened society regards that as near-slavery of course... Now, back to our regularly scheduled list topics, I hope. GEB >> Slick Willie just signed into law an extension of the US Copyright law >> defining the penalties for using copyrighted material without permission, >> EVEN IF the perpetrator is not receiving any recompense. From list-managers-owner Mon Dec 22 23:58:10 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA17832; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:37:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA17812 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id IAA27066 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA04892 ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:04:37 -0800 X-Sender: chuqui2@plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 07:59:27 -0800 To: murr rhame , Brian Behlendorf From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > No, sorry mister "Gary L. Burnore", I'm not going to play some silly > > little password game just so you can talk to my majordomo responder. > Gary has been the subject of a subscribe and info file attack. He > must have setup this auto responder in defense. I've put him in my > ignore filter. Over 150 hits since the filter was in place. Yes. He was one of four guys who got hit VERY badly yesterday. Cut him just a little slack. One of them reported over nine hundred spam hits. My site was one used on him. It got through all my spamblock, although I've since closed down the IP access from the site where it came from (but data from that site shows it's relaying in through mindspring. What a surprise) -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 23 00:01:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA18022; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA17982 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from spsem02.sps.mot.com (spsem02.sps.mot.com [192.70.231.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id OAA03270; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mogate.sps.mot.com by spsem02.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email 2.1 10/25/93) id AA16243 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 16 Dec 97 15:19:03 MST Received: from nombre.risc.sps.mot.com by mogate.sps.mot.com (4.1/SMI-4.1/Email-2.0) id AA18307 for majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 16 Dec 97 15:18:54 MST Received: from miaow.risc.sps.mot.com (miaow.risc.sps.mot.com [223.72.249.15]) by nombre.risc.sps.mot.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA09674; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:18:53 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dwolfe@localhost) by miaow.risc.sps.mot.com (8.7.1/8.7.3) id QAA18894; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:20:15 -0600 From: Dave Wolfe Message-Id: <199712162220.QAA18894@miaow.risc.sps.mot.com> Subject: Re: "spamgard". sheesh. To: dave@armchair.mb.ca (Dave Voorhis) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:20:14 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971216154824.00fbe760@armchair.mb.ca> from "Dave Voorhis" at Dec 16, 97 03:48:24 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [ Dave Voorhis writes: ] > > With that in mind, I patched Majordomo 1.94.4 to include (and log) the > message header in all responses. If there's interest, I'll put it on a Web > page for downloading. Or I can send it to whoever maintains Majordomo > patches, if that person would contact me. Not me, but the development coordinator is Chan Wilson . The unofficial Mj patch site coordinator can be reached at majordomo-patches@cloud.ccsf.cc.ca.us and the URL to upload patches to is ftp://sol.ccsf.cc.ca.us/incoming/. -- Dave Wolfe From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 23 00:30:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA23339; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:14:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA23244 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from out5.ibm.net (out5.ibm.net [165.87.194.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id VAA20188 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mongo (ichat@slip166-72-74-62.dc.us.ibm.net [166.72.74.62]) by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA23488; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 05:34:29 GMT Message-ID: <016201bd0c3f$d2e46ba0$3e4a48a6@mongo> From: "Walkers Moderator" To: "Linda B. Merims" , Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:34:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On the list I moderate, Walkers In Darkness, our policy is to leave the copyright on individual messages with the author but to claim a compilation copyright on the list as a whole. Doing this has helped me a few times when I have found people using the list contents inappropriately or to compile address lists for spam. We do not allow posting of things like song lyrics and wire service articles which are subject to the copyrights of others, except for brief excerpts under the Fair Use Doctrine. If you want to take a look at what we are doing, just request the info file for "walkers" from majordomo@walkers.org or look on our website www.walkers.org under Walkers Information. -----Original Message----- From: Linda B. Merims To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Friday, December 19, 1997 12:18 AM Subject: Re: List-Managers-Digest V6 #246 >My list's copyright policy is that all material remains the >property of the original poster (which is what would be true >by default if I had no stated policy). My subscribers are told that >they must obtain the permission of the original poster to >use any post. I also explicitly disclaim responsibility for >enforcing the copyright rights of my subscribers. That is, >if somebody does copy it from the list or the list archive >without their permission, I am not responsible or liable. > >Linda B. Merims >Massachusetts, USA >lbm@ici.net From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 23 00:58:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA27260; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id AAA22956 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA21298 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.ivision.co.uk [195.50.91.43] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0xiipO-0001nt-00; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:29:38 +0000 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Manar Hussain" Organization: Internet Vision To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:27:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) In-reply-to: <199712181407.GAA09572@honor.greatcircle.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From: drjesus@iss.dccc.edu > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com > Date: 17 Dec 1997 20:28:52 EDT > Subject: Re: mailing list instructions (copyright) > On Sun 14 Dec 97, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > RF>I have for some time now included the following header into all of my > RF>outgoing mail and news postings: > > RF> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. > > RF>The question of whether or not this is binding is an interesting one. > > I believe it would become even more interesting if the offender were > to claim, truthfully, that s/he never saw the notice. There are still > plenty of (crappy) mail programs around that automatically strip > *all* the RFC-822 headers. One example that comes readily to mind, since > I'm stuck with this piece of $%@# due to my ISP is WorldGroup Manager by > Galacticomm (the perpetrators of the Major-BBS, for those who remember). > You may, therefore, want to consider making it a .sig/body line, plainly It is certainly true of the UK and I'm prertty sure it's also true of the US that there is in fact no need to state your copyright - it's merely as nice-ity. If you've got it then you've got it and it doesn't matter whether or not you said so or if anyoen noticed. On the other hand clearly stating with whom the copyright belongs would be helpful should it go to court .... Manar From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 12:28:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id MAA21632; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id MAA21511 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:24:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21206 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA25557 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:25:48 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:25:47 -0800 Message-ID: <25555.882995147@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I and a number of other anti-spam advocates are now in the process of seriously considering the implementation of a new and potentially powerful tactic in our ongoing efforts to thwart E-mail spam and E-mail spammers. I do apologize, but unfortunately I cannot go into much more detail about this new tactic at this time. In any case, it has just occured to me that one potential side effect of the plan now being developed is the opening up of a new and previously unknown form of a denial-of-service attack on legitimate mailing lists. Such an attack might be launched, by one or more disgruntled spammers, in an effort to undermine the anti-spam tactic itself by getting mailing list administrators, en mass, to call for its discontinuation. In light of this possibility, I want to ask you mailing list administrators to tell me (if you can) about any and all past experiences the list admin community might have with respect to directed attacks on legitimate mailing lists. Specifically, I would like to know: a) Is there any history or historical record of attacks made directly on mailing lists themselves, as opposed to individual subscribers? If so, please elaborate (at length). For example, have there ever been instances in which some miscreant has attempted to subscribe one mailing list to another and vise versa? If so, what happened, what was the final outcome, and what happened to the perpetrator? b) Do existing mailing list administration packages cause all subscrip- tion requests to be archived (along with full headers) so that cases such as the one I just mentioned can be properly traced back to their true origin IP address? c) What estimate would you give for the percentage of existing mailing lists whose subscription process is handled manually as opposed to fully automated? P.S. If you consider some of the answer to these questions to be exception- ally sensitive in nature, please feel free to reply to me directly via private E-mail. Thanks. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 14:43:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id OAA21481; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:42:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.inetnebr.com (eagle.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id OAA21379 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from carrot.tssi.com (root@gateway2.tssi.com [198.136.212.126]) by eagle.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06658 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:43:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (carrot.tssi.com) by carrot.tssi.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA02763 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:43:12 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA03338 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:43:09 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199712242243.QAA03338@celery.tssi.com> Subject: e-mail attack by sportfan@gridscape.com To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:43:09 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Recently, the address 'sportfan@gridscape.com' was subscribed to two of my sports mailing lists. Today I received complaints from two people not on my lists that they were receiving mail from them, and from several other lists. I did a list verification test, and the message that was forwarded to these individuals was the one addressed as noted above. I have since heard from a third indivdual who was similarly attacked. I suggest others might want to check their lists for this address and consider removing and banning it, as I have. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 19:28:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA14117; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id TAA14023 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1046 invoked by uid 500); 25 Dec 1997 03:02:53 -0000 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) References: <25555.882995147@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:25:47 -0800 Date: 24 Dec 1997 19:02:52 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 36 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > In light of this possibility, I want to ask you mailing list > administrators to tell me (if you can) about any and all past > experiences the list admin community might have with respect to directed > attacks on legitimate mailing lists. Specifically, I would like to > know: > a) Is there any history or historical record of attacks made directly > on mailing lists themselves, as opposed to individual subscribers? > If so, please elaborate (at length). For example, have there ever > been instances in which some miscreant has attempted to subscribe > one mailing list to another and vise versa? If so, what happened, > what was the final outcome, and what happened to the perpetrator? This happened very recently to NANOG. The result is that there is now a separate NANOG-post list and posts are not accepted from anyone not on that list (which can be subscribed to in the normal fashion). So far as I know, the perpetrator was never caught. > b) Do existing mailing list administration packages cause all subscrip- > tion requests to be archived (along with full headers) so that cases > such as the one I just mentioned can be properly traced back to > their true origin IP address? No. majordomo, for one, doesn't retain any header information at all. > c) What estimate would you give for the percentage of existing mailing > lists whose subscription process is handled manually as opposed to > fully automated? For all mailing lists out there period? Probably 80% or more. For mailing lists with over 200 people subscribed? Maybe 5-10%. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 20:17:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id TAA19820; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:28:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id TAA19775 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:28:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05950 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA04907 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:29:53 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) In-reply-to: Your message of 24 Dec 1997 19:02:52 -0800. X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:29:53 -0800 Message-ID: <4905.883020593@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Russ Allbery wrote: >> b) Do existing mailing list administration packages cause all subscrip- >> tion requests to be archived (along with full headers) so that cases >> such as the one I just mentioned can be properly traced back to >> their true origin IP address? > >No. majordomo, for one, doesn't retain any header information at all. Next question... Who would be in a position to remedy this obviously substantial and serious shortcoming? -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 21:13:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA12814; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 21:09:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id VAA12805 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 21:09:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1382 invoked by uid 500); 25 Dec 1997 05:10:59 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) References: <4905.883020593@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:29:53 -0800 Date: 24 Dec 1997 21:10:59 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> Ronald F Guilmette writes: >>> b) Do existing mailing list administration packages cause all >>> subscrip- tion requests to be archived (along with full headers) so >>> that cases such as the one I just mentioned can be properly traced >>> back to their true origin IP address? >> No. majordomo, for one, doesn't retain any header information at all. > Next question... Who would be in a position to remedy this obviously > substantial and serious shortcoming? majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com, but you should be aware that the current 1.9.x versions are basically under a code freeze while 2.0 is being worked on. Only bug fixes are going in. The new 2.0 version will probably include this too (it's including most everything), but it's still a good ways from being released. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 22:58:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA23568; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 22:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from cantec.com (ns1.cantec.com [206.31.250.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id WAA23526 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 22:52:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from www ([206.31.250.15]) by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.02c/64) id 2378900 ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:53:46 EDT Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971225065255.0033c150@cantec.com> X-Sender: dbigham@cantec.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:52:55 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Dave Bigham Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk It looks to me like the anti-spammers have finally gotten to the position so many other zealots have arrived at. The end justifies the means. It goes something like this. Spam is evil. Evil must be eradicated. The eradication of evil is paramount to anything else. The eradication if Spam must be accomplished no matter who gets hurt or whose principles are violated. This is ridiculous. We (myself included) rail against spammers and call them all kinds of different lowlife. Then some feel it is perfectly OK to commit acts which at their heart are no different than those the spammers are using. Ron, you're wrong, plain and simple. If you want to fight Spam, do it in the legislature, the courts, and the Internet community using vocal pressure. Don't stoop to their level, as you appear to be doing. You can try to rationalize it any way you want to, the fact remains you are pro actively reaching out to inflict pain on someone else for doing something with which you disagree. In reaching that point, you too, in my opinion, become lowlife. Dave Bigham Cantec Communications dbigham@cantec.com At 12:25 PM 12/24/97 -0800, you wrote: > >I and a number of other anti-spam advocates are now in the process of >seriously considering the implementation of a new and potentially >powerful tactic in our ongoing efforts to thwart E-mail spam and >E-mail spammers. > > From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 23:13:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA24471; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id XAA24464 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:08:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1780 invoked by uid 500); 25 Dec 1997 07:09:55 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) References: <2.2.32.19971225065255.0033c150@cantec.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: Dave Bigham's message of Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:52:55 -0500 Date: 24 Dec 1997 23:09:55 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 28 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Bigham writes: > It looks to me like the anti-spammers have finally gotten to the > position so many other zealots have arrived at. The end justifies the > means. > It goes something like this. Spam is evil. Evil must be eradicated. > The eradication of evil is paramount to anything else. The eradication > if Spam must be accomplished no matter who gets hurt or whose principles > are violated. I'm sorry, I'm confused. Where is this coming from? As near as I can tell from Ron's original message, he didn't say anything at all about what he was planning on doing. He simply expressed concerns about several well-known security problems in managing mailing lists, which presumably affect what he's doing in some way. It's possible that he's going to do something you don't like; it's possible that he won't. I can think of a few rough concepts he could be working with off-hand that would raise similar worries. In my previous e-mail exchanges with Ron, I've found him to be quite reasonable, if aggressive and emphatic about his opinions. I don't see any justification for attacking something we don't even know the details of yet. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 23:16:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA24562; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:10:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA24555 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA11911 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA10980 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:11:32 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 25 Dec 1997 01:52:55 -0500. <2.2.32.19971225065255.0033c150@cantec.com> X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:11:32 -0800 Message-ID: <10978.883033892@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <2.2.32.19971225065255.0033c150@cantec.com>, Dave Bigham wrote: >Ron, you're wrong, plain and simple. If you want to fight Spam, do it in >the legislature, the courts, and the Internet community using vocal >pressure. Don't stoop to their level, as you appear to be doing. You can >try to rationalize it any way you want to, the fact remains you are pro >actively reaching out to inflict pain on someone else for doing something >with which you disagree. In reaching that point, you too, in my opinion, >become lowlife. Did I say that I was going to cause someone pain? I love it when people lecture me about how what I'm doing is Bad when it is patently obviously that they haven't the first clue about what I am actually doing. If ever in my years on the net I have ever seen any comment that justified the lable ``knee jerk reaction'', this is it. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 24 23:58:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA27440; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (kristeva.postmodern.com [198.102.244.54]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id XAA27421 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:50:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-960422) id XAA18687; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:51:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712250751.XAA18687@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:51:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >> No. majordomo, for one, doesn't retain any header information at all. > > > Next question... Who would be in a position to remedy this obviously > > substantial and serious shortcoming? > > majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com, but you should be aware that the > current 1.9.x versions are basically under a code freeze while 2.0 is > being worked on. Only bug fixes are going in. The new 2.0 version will > probably include this too (it's including most everything), but it's still > a good ways from being released. Detailed discussion of this should be on the majordomo-workers or majordomo-users list, but you don't need a code change to effect this. All you have to do is add the address "|/usr/local/mail/majordomo/wrapper archive2.pl -f /usr/local/mail/logs/majordomo.incoming -m -a" (modify pathnames to suit, of course) to the majordomo alias in your aliases file and, voila, header logs. Add the logs to your daily or weekly compressing/roll-over list, and there you are. That's what we do at greatcircle.com. Now, if you wanted amore sophisticated interface to the log, or have Majordomo remember "state" with respect to certain addresses or lists, that's a programming project, of course. But simply logging all incoming list requests goes a long way toward discovering and tracking down abuse. And the files compress very nicely. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 25 11:13:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA04736; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA04667 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from om.proper.com (om.proper.com [165.227.249.115]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA25251; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:58:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19971225105930.0089d8d0@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:59:30 -0800 To: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch), List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) In-Reply-To: <199712250751.XAA18687@server.postmodern.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Now, if you wanted amore sophisticated interface to the log, or >have Majordomo remember "state" with respect to certain addresses or >lists, that's a programming project, of course. But simply logging >all incoming list requests goes a long way toward discovering and >tracking down abuse. And the files compress very nicely. ...and can be processed quite nicely as well. A Perl script to go and pull out the blocks of headers from this king of archive should be under 20 lines long (look for \nFrom:, save until you get to \n\n, repeat). --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 25 17:13:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA26837; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:01:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from urth.acsu.buffalo.edu (urth.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id RAA26830 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19113 invoked by uid 305); 26 Dec 1997 01:02:41 -0000 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) References: <25555.882995147@monkeys.com> From: Paul Graham Date: 25 Dec 1997 20:02:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of "Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:25:47 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.64/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "rfg" == Ronald F Guilmette writes: rfg> Do existing mailing list administration packages cause all rfg> subscription requests to be archived (along with full headers) LSoft's Listserv (at least as of fairly recently) does not. In the UNIX environment this is trivial to solve but I can't speak to the VMS or NT versions. -- paul From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 25 17:43:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id RAA28246; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:38:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id RAA28236 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:37:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (murr@katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA04229 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA02858 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:40:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:40:29 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Command Records 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 25 Dec 1997, Paul Graham wrote: > LSoft's Listserv (at least as of fairly recently) does not. In the > UNIX environment this is trivial to solve but I can't speak to the > VMS or NT versions. Listproc 6.0c does save a complete record of command requests. Listproc 6.0c is the freeware version of Listproc for UNIX systems. This record is not directly accessible by listowners. Only the listproc manager can access the command request archive (mbox file). - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Dec 25 23:51:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA27264; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA27249 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.16.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA24622 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from core0.mx.execpc.com (mailx.norlight.net [169.207.16.4]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.8.8) id CAA18647 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 02:22:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from presario-7212 (galaan-2.mdm.mad.execpc.com [169.207.40.67]) by core0.mx.execpc.com (8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA28082 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 02:22:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <349F6DE9.602@execpc.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:53:13 -0600 From: Gillam Kerley X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Delayed Messages (Was: Re: "spamgard". sheesh.) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: What's important is not what he wrote but when he wrote it and when I received it. This post was dated 12/16, and I just received it (and another list-managers post by Dave Wolfe on the same thread) in the wee hours of 12/23. Other lists I subscribe to (and there are now more than a dozen) get messages to my mailbox within a few minutes to a few hours. Can anyone explain why the *list-managers* list, of all lists, does this? Is it doing this to everyone, or just to me? (After all, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) ;-) Shouldn't the list-managers list, having access to the sum total of all of the list-management talent out there in cyberland, be the list *least* likely to do strange things like this? GK From list-managers-owner Fri Dec 26 11:59:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA02124; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.ns.net (eagle.ns.net [204.75.146.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA02109 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com [204.119.242.200]) by eagle.ns.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09397 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07585 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:50:14 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Mailing list headers X-Copyright: (c) 1997 Ronald F. Guilmette; All rights reserved. Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:50:14 -0800 Message-ID: <7583.883165814@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In response to my question about possible attackes on mailing lists themselves (as opposed to individual subscribers) a couple of people wrote to me and told me that infinite feedback loops between pairs of mailing list daemons are generally (or often) prevented via a recognition of the specific headers that are typically inserted by mailing list daemons into the outgoing message which they send. Unrelated to the other thing I mentioned the other day (i.e. a scheme now beeing cooked up to try to thwart junk E-mail more directly) I would like to find out as much as I can about these mailing-list-specific headers because that knowledge might be of benefit to my ongoing work on my junk E-mail filter. So... What specialized headers are inserted into outgoing mailing list traffic by commonly used mailing list daemons? I am most particularly interested in getting more information about the Sender: and X-Sender: headers, since I have noticed that one or the other of these frequently appear in mailing list traffic. Which list manager packages create these? Is there anything approximating a standard with regard to the usage of these particular headers in conjunction with mailing lists in particular? I ask because there doesn't seem to be a whole heck of a lot of consistancy in the test data (mail message) that I have been looking at. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 27 01:31:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id AAA04287; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 00:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA04245 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 00:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA06407; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:36:16 -0600 (CST) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Delayed Messages (Was: Re: "spamgard". sheesh.) References: <349F6DE9.602@execpc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 27 Dec 1997 02:36:16 -0600 In-Reply-To: Gillam Kerley's message of Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:53:13 -0600 Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "GK" == Gillam Kerley writes: GK> Can anyone explain why the *list-managers* list, of all lists, does GK> this? The message triggered an administrivia filter and had to be approved by the list owner. GK> Shouldn't the list-managers list, having access to the sum total of all GK> of the list-management talent out there in cyberland, be the list GK> *least* likely to do strange things like this? Who can say? The nature of the subscribers doesn't make any difference; it still requires the free time of a list owner. - J< From list-managers-owner Sat Dec 27 08:13:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id IAA00623; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.44]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id IAA00590 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15675 invoked by uid 500); 27 Dec 1997 16:06:50 -0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Mailing list headers References: <7583.883165814@monkeys.com> From: Russ Allbery In-Reply-To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"'s message of Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:50:14 -0800 Date: 27 Dec 1997 08:06:50 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 53 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ronald F Guilmette writes: > So... What specialized headers are inserted into outgoing mailing list > traffic by commonly used mailing list daemons? qmail and its associated mailing list package is probably the most advanced in this regard; it inserts a Mailing-List header that identifies the originating mailing list for all traffic, including administrative traffic, and then refuses to accept any requests that contain a Mailing-List header. qmail with ezlm, or qmail with majordomo and my mjinject mail sending script (as opposed to having majordomo use the standard sendmail emulation that qmail provides) adds a Delivered-To header pointing to the list address, which will prevent qmail from accepting the same message again for the same list (qmail will reject any message if delivering it would create a duplicate Delivered-To header). This, of course, relies on the other mailing list not stripping arbitrary headers from messages when resending them. > I am most particularly interested in getting more information about the > Sender: and X-Sender: headers, since I have noticed that one or the > other of these frequently appear in mailing list traffic. Which list > manager packages create these? A standard configuration of majordomo will add a Sender header pointing to the list owner address, which is conventionally owner-listname or listname-owner but could be whatever the person running the list so desires. Most listproc and listserv lists that I've been on also add Sender headers, but I'm not familiar with the content they generally use. SmartList, a list management package that works with procmail, adds a Resent-Sender header; I'm not sure what other headers it adds, but that's the one that seems to be reliable and the one that I use for mail filtering. > Is there anything approximating a standard with regard to the usage of > these particular headers in conjunction with mailing lists in > particular? Not overly much so, although looking at my mail splitting rules for identifying mail from mailing lists, nearly every one of them is keying on Sender for a string that's either owner-listname or listname-owner. Note that in attempting to secure mailing lists against these sorts of attacks, you do have to allow for a configuration where smaller sub-lists are subscribed to a main list; this is commonly used to optimize distribution for extremely large lists, and despite the fact that it does cause a number of management headaches, it's also pretty much a necessity in some circumstances. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 30 10:20:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id JAA26661; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from post.aecom.yu.edu (post.aecom.yu.edu [129.98.1.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id JAA26405 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [199.240.82.242] (pmppp242.aristotle.net [199.240.82.242]) by post.aecom.yu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17685 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:54:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712280911.BAA08776@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:38:09 -0600 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: Mailing list headers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >Date: 27 Dec 1997 08:06:50 -0800 >From: Russ Allbery >Subject: Re: Mailing list headers > >Ronald F Guilmette writes: > >> So... What specialized headers are inserted into outgoing mailing list >> traffic by commonly used mailing list daemons? > Ron, You may also want to look at the work of the following group, which is trying to get lists to use standard headers to make things like subscribing and unsubscribing easier. I think the following from the list's monthly help file will give you enough information: List Specification Working Group list-header@arpp.carleton.ca QUICK INSTRUCTIONS To post a message to the list (all subscribers) send it to list-header@arpp.carleton.ca To "subscribe" to or "unsubscribe" from the list, send a message to list-header@arpp.carleton.ca with the subject set to one of the commands: subscribe or unsubscribe _______________ ABOUT THIS LIST This is a discussion list specifically for discussing methods for identifying and describing electronic mailing list commands. Please review the full discussion document before posting to this list. Kent S. "Kip" Larsen II; KLarsen@panix.com or KLarsen@NorthSouth.com (work). Pass the SPAM ban! Ask your Congressperson to support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 30 19:29:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id SAA06536; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id SAA06527 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:47:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.190]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id SAA01541 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 18:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d47.dial-2.met.ma.ultra.net [209.6.4.174]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with SMTP id VAA05864 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 21:33:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971226023422.00d302c4@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 21:34:22 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Directed attacks on mailing lists (?) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >...and can be processed quite nicely as well. A Perl script to go and pull >out the blocks of headers from this king of archive should be under 20 >lines long (look for \nFrom:, save until you get to \n\n, repeat). ^ Space, not colon, after that From. The "From:" (with colon) may appear anywhere in the headers (and almost always appears *after* the Received: headers needed to chase spam). But since \nFrom may appear in messages, using formail (part of the free procmail package) to get the headers will likely do the best job. (In non-UNIX-mbox-format mailboxes, you may need to replace the method of finding start of message headers, whether using perl or not. However, many non-UNIX systems/clients also adopt this format.) Cheers, Stan From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 30 21:00:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id UAA29590; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id SAA06628 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (mcs.anl.gov [140.221.9.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id GAA22581 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 06:18:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mcs.anl.gov (obie-3.mcs.anl.gov [140.221.3.7]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA10269; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 08:20:26 -0600 Message-Id: <199712261420.IAA10269@antares.mcs.anl.gov> To: Gillam Kerley cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Delayed Messages (Was: Re: "spamgard". sheesh.) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:53:13 CST." <349F6DE9.602@execpc.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 08:20:25 -0600 From: Gene Rackow Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk You didn't give enough info to really point out where a problem may be in your getting those posts. Your message arrived today, and it appears that the greatcircle machines were the source of the delay. >Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay4.UU.NET with ESMTP > (peer crosschecked as: honor.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.44]) > id SRdvoh29985; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:53:02 -0500 (EST) >Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id XAA27264; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:21:39 -0800 (PST) >Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id XAA27249 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:21:36 -0800 (PST) >Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.16.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id AAA24622 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:21:12 -0800 (PST) --Gene Gillam Kerley made the following keystrokes: >Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > >What's important is not what he wrote but when he wrote it and when I >received it. > >This post was dated 12/16, and I just received it (and another >list-managers post by Dave Wolfe on the same thread) in the wee hours of >12/23. Other lists I subscribe to (and there are now more than a dozen) >get messages to my mailbox within a few minutes to a few hours. > >Can anyone explain why the *list-managers* list, of all lists, does >this? Is it doing this to everyone, or just to me? (After all, just >because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) ;-) > >Shouldn't the list-managers list, having access to the sum total of all >of the list-management talent out there in cyberland, be the list >*least* likely to do strange things like this? > >GK > > From list-managers-owner Tue Dec 30 21:15:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id VAA06792; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) id SAA06610 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (SKIGO.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with SMTP id EAA16325 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 04:37:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by skigo.graphics.cornell.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA09160; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 07:39:36 -0500 Message-Id: <9712261239.AA09160@skigo.graphics.cornell.edu> To: Gillam Kerley Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@graphics.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Delayed Messages (Was: Re: "spamgard". sheesh.) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Dec 97 01:53:13 CST." <349F6DE9.602@execpc.com> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 97 07:39:35 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth X-Mts: smtp Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >What's important is not what he wrote but when he wrote it and when I >received it. > >This post was dated 12/16, and I just received it (and another >list-managers post by Dave Wolfe on the same thread) in the wee hours of >12/23. Other lists I subscribe to (and there are now more than a dozen) >get messages to my mailbox within a few minutes to a few hours. > >Can anyone explain why the *list-managers* list, of all lists, does >this? Is it doing this to everyone, or just to me? (After all, just >because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) ;-) Yes, I've been seeing the same thing for a few weeks now. Very odd. >Shouldn't the list-managers list, having access to the sum total of all >of the list-management talent out there in cyberland, be the list >*least* likely to do strange things like this? No, why should it? It's only managed by one list-manager, just like any other list, one presumably as human as the rest of us. What we might perhaps expect to be different about list-managers is to have the most well-clued subscribers who are least likely to jump to faulty assumptions or panic when something does go wrong. And less instances of "uns*bscribe me" posted to the list. :-) Not to suggest you were panicing or jumping to faulty assumptions, just responding to your expectation of perfection for this list's management. Yours is the first mention I've seen of the problem, so the list-managers list manager may well have been unaware of it until now. (Yes, I noticed it a few weeks ago and said nothing. Sorry, been busy and expected someone else would have mentioned it sooner. I suppose that makes me guilty of expecting more perfection on the part of this list's subscribers! Guess I'm not the only busy one around here.) What seems peculiar is that the delayed messages always seem to come out in bunches. I.e. nothing for a few days and then several all at once. And they're anywhere from a few days to a weeks old. Hope that's enough clues for the list-managers list manager to track it down. -Mitch -- "Families can't trust Disney" From list-managers-owner Wed Dec 31 12:00:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id LAA06730; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 11:43:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.bsdi.com (austin.BSDI.COM [205.230.232.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with ESMTP id LAA06673 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 11:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from austin.bsdi.com ({TTyVhIg84lB/k0CvcEgnfs8vfQZ0aezP}@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by austin.bsdi.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA13255 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 12:45:50 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199712311945.MAA13255@austin.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Mailing list headers In-reply-to: List-Managers-Digest's message of Wed, 31 Dec 1997 01:01:05 PST. References: <199712310901.BAA14696@honor.greatcircle.com> From: Tony Sanders Organization: earth.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 12:45:49 -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Kent S. Larsen II" writes: > List Specification Working Group > list-header@arpp.carleton.ca > > > QUICK INSTRUCTIONS > > To post a message to the list (all subscribers) send it to > list-header@arpp.carleton.ca > > To "subscribe" to or "unsubscribe" from the list, send a message to > > list-header@arpp.carleton.ca No! That would send it to the list (unless they have filters, but it would still be generally annoying). The instructions state: Send all commands to the list's command address: list-header-request@arpp.carleton.ca