From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 1 20:27:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA03873; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id UAA03862 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from electra.znyx.com (electra.znyx.com [209.0.10.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA21571 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from c843116-a (c843116-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.1.69.17]) by electra.znyx.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA19047 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:54:17 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com> X-Sender: alan@znyx.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:47:34 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Alan Deikman Subject: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am convinced that nobody lasts long in the mailing list game with a "why me" attitude. Can anyone top this? >From: RWPFL@aol.com >Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:21:23 EST >To: alan@znyx.com >Subject: parent-teen list >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 > >I AM LOOKING FOR A MAILING LIST OF 15-16 YEAR OLD TEENS IN THE STATE OF NEW >YORK FOR A BULK MAILING. CAN YOU HELP? >THANKS, >BOB PROECHEL >RWPFL@AOL.COM > ----------------------- Alan.Deikman@znyx.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 1 22:08:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA05179; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 22:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA05172 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 22:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.1/8.9.0/best.sh) id WAA24438; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 22:04:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 22:04:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901020604.WAA24438@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com> (message from Alan Deikman on Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:47:34 -0800) Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:47:34 -0800 From: Alan Deikman Can anyone top this? >Subject: parent-teen list >I AM LOOKING FOR A MAILING LIST OF 15-16 YEAR OLD TEENS IN THE STATE OF NEW >YORK FOR A BULK MAILING. CAN YOU HELP? *Sheesh* that is pretty bad. Definately tops the parade of grade through high school students I get asking me to do their homework for them ("Please tell me how the immune system works")...half of them write back to tell me what an awful ungiving person I am when I politely tell them to bother a (paid) librarian instead. I've also had a couple chemical manufacturers write me asking me to post job notices...my list is for people with multiple chemical sensitivities (duh!). I think you win :-)) Thanks for the chuckle. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 1 23:38:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA06214; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA06205 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 23:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA11336; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA03573; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:30:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:30:31 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Alan Deikman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Alan Deikman's subscriber wrote: > I AM LOOKING FOR A MAILING LIST OF 15-16 YEAR OLD TEENS IN THE STATE > OF NEW YORK FOR A BULK MAILING. CAN YOU HELP? I'd say clueless. On my own list at the moment, I'm having trouble explaining to my subscribers that they can't grab a copyrighted news articles from the web and past it to the mailing list... I can't give them permission to steal a news article anymore than I can give them permission to rob the corner liquor store. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 2 10:49:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA18533; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA18504 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA13767 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:37:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990102133713.A13748@gsp.org> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:37:13 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. References: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com>; from Alan Deikman on Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 09:47:34AM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 09:47:34AM -0800, Alan Deikman wrote: > I am convinced that nobody lasts long in the mailing > list game with a "why me" attitude. Can anyone top this? Nope. But I'd suggest compiling a list of addresses of the form: postmaster@ root@ and giving it to him for free. The ensuing backlash ought to enough to discourage him from trying that again. ;-) ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 3 19:43:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA10832; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 19:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA10824 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 19:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.portal.ca (shell.portal.ca [204.174.35.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA20052 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by shell.portal.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA19879; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:55:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:55:48 -0800 (PST) From: Christine Code To: Alan Deikman cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981229094734.00f8074c@znyx.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Alan Deikman wrote: > I am convinced that nobody lasts long in the mailing > list game with a "why me" attitude. Can anyone top > this? I can certainly tie it with examples from extremely clueless people who've subscribed to my list over the years. How about this one: Along comes a subscriber who uses a one-word alias instead of his name, confidentially mentioning that this is because he's so important in his extremely serious profession that his life would be at risk if he used his real name on the Net. (My "we have an idiot" bells start going off at this point.) Anyway, Mr Important posts some regular stuff, but then goes and posts a message that clearly violates the list guidelines. Since this is a moderated list, his posting is not approved for distribution. Mr Important has a hissy fit, demands he be unsubscribed. In response, he gets a polite letter which includes the "how to unsubscribe" directions. Ah, but he doesn't want to unsubscribe himself - he's far too important for that! So instead he he mail-bombs the list with about 100 massive messages (all forwards of previous digests with nasty notes attached) and gets quite pissed off when his ISP tells him he'd better stop violating their user services agreement. :-) His hissy-fit letters to me are quite hilarious, especially the ones with subject lines like LEGAL NOTICE! in which he tries to sound as frightening as possible, and threatens to sue me if I don't unsubscribe him. I filtered his mail to trash and ignored him completely after that. I assume he finally unsubscribed himself. cmc Christine Code Aquafolia ornatis, Vancouver, Canada Tempus hoc hilaritatis cmc@ferret.net Vestes claras induamus, http://www.ferret.net/cmc Cantilenas nunc promamus. From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 3 19:58:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA10769; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 19:28:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA10759 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 19:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from randomc.com (cluster1.nbank.net [207.15.208.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA16669 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 07:57:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from RICK.randomc.com (pm-atl-1-59.nbank.net [209.195.11.59]) by randomc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA19287 for ; Sat, 2 Jan 1999 11:00:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990102104632.01453370@mail.randomc.com> X-Sender: rjaggers@mail.randomc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 10:46:32 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Rick Jaggers Subject: Rix [FAQ]s In-Reply-To: <199901020900.BAA07502@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:30:31 -0500 (EST) > From: murr rhame > Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. > > I'd say clueless. On my own list at the moment, I'm having trouble > explaining to my subscribers that they can't grab a copyrighted news > articles from the web and past it to the mailing list... I can't give > them permission to steal a news article anymore than I can give them > permission to rob the corner liquor store. I maintain several mailing lists, and I use Eudora to schedule [FAQ]s to drop every other day or so. Each [FAQ] is different, and appears no more than twice a month. Here is the one I use, and you are welcome to steal freely from it: SUBJECT: [FAQ]- Quoting []========================================================[] Can I copy another message into [RixPlace]? []========================================================[] Bringing another message into [RixPlace] for discussion is a tricky proposition. First, you may NOT just cut-and-paste an entire message You must respect the author's privacy and ownership of their message. Copyright (c) infringement may become an issue. For example, the CO Digest has double protection for messages reprinted there. First, it *IS* copyright by CO Digest. Next, there is a disclaimer that NO message may be reproduced without the author's permission. Even newsgroups are a touchy situation. While it appears on the surface to be a free-wheeling newsgroup, whoever wrote a message ultimately "owns" it. Your best bet? Copy *ONLY* the paragraph (or two) that interests you the most. Begin your message with these words: "I found the following message at (on)..." > "Then quote and indent to clearly identify that the > words belong to someone else." After that, explain why you think it should be talked about by the [RixPlace] subscribers. [END]===================================================[END] FWIW, here is ANOTHER one which I keep queued up! Again, feel free to steal and use as you see fit: SUBJECT: [FAQ] Alerts & Hoaxes []========================================================[] "I just heard something absolutely unbelievable..." []========================================================[] Please do not use [RixPlace], [RixPlace:Hottub]*, or [RixPlace:Humor] to pass along alarming news and alerts UNLESS you verify the information YOURSELF, first! If the story you've received seems particularly alarming, you might use these web sites as a resource and reference to make sure you are not passing along junk as truth: You can begin your tour with a government site: http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACChainLetters.html http://ciac.llnl.gov/ These site focuses on urban legends & stories http://urbanlegends.tqn.com These sites focuses on computer virus hoaxes http://www.kumite.com/myths http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/bulletins/h-05.shtml And the new master site: http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Mythology_and_Folklore/Urban_Legends/ I strongly urge you to visit, AND BOOKMARK, these web sites. Please refer to them whenever YOU receive an alert but before you send it along. []========================================================[] NOTICE: I am not saying to not share information. What I *AM* saying is to personally research and verify it before you post it! Read on... []========================================================[] Something to ponder: ... "Think about it. In the digital age, information can be instantaneously reproduced at the click of a mouse button. When I forward an email message to you, I cause an exact duplicate of a piece of information I've received to appear in your mailbox. I do not communicate the information to you, I simply transfer it. The information is thus autonomous -- "untouched by human hands," as it were -- which, by the curious logic of hyperreality, actually heightens its air of authenticity. "It also negates the concept of accountability, because even though I can pass the same piece of information on to you and a hundred other people by clicking 'send,' I am in no practical sense its 'source.' ..."Our only recourse is to fall back on the concept of personal responsibility. Each of us, as information passes through our hands, has the opportunity to jump out of the chain of unaccountability and CHECK THE FACTS OURSELVES -- in effect, to become a source and be held accountable." Quoted from: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa081097.htm ............................................................ Only For Fun: http://www.snopes.com/spoons/legends/legends.htm []========================================================[] * Actually, I suppose it is OK to post a story/legend to the [HotTub] as long as you identify it as a story and not send it as an alert! [END]===================================================[END] Comments are appreciated: Rick Jaggers or Rick Jaggers I have many others which I'm willing to share, if anyone is interested... -- Rick From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 06:56:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA21574; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA21567 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25022 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08491 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:46:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:46:50 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. You may run the best durn mailing list on the net. If the person receiving your fine mailing list doesn't want it, it's still junk-mail. I don't care if they willingly asked for the $ubscription. I don't care if they refuse to read the instructions. When they want out, I punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on request, is no better than a common spammer. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 09:43:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA23186; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:28:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA23179 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22464; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:29:37 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA28427; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:29:33 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199901041729.LAA28427@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests To: murr@vnet.net (murr rhame) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:29:33 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "murr rhame" at Jan 4, 99 09:46:50 am Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk murr rhame wrote: > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > the attempt is made. I generally do the same. In my experience not doing so tends to cause problems for everybody else on the list, and I consider it part of the duties of running a list and keeping the peace on it. (It might take a day or two until I get around to making a manual maintenance pass, if it's going to be longer than that, such as when I'm on the road and just checking my e-mail every day or two, I'll generally drop a note telling the person I'll take care of it when I return.) I will also treat a note saying things like 'you guys all suck' as a request to unsubscribe, and also put that address on the 'do not process requests' list, though I don't put that address in my personal kill file, because on occasion it turns out that the inappropriate message was forged. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 10:11:59 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA23768; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA23759 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from aum (ip08.proper.com [165.227.249.8]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15320; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:05:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990104095527.027df6c0@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 09:58:43 -0800 To: murr rhame , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:46 AM 1/4/99 -0500, murr rhame wrote: >I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly >the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the >clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. >You may run the best durn mailing list on the net. If the person >receiving your fine mailing list doesn't want it, it's still junk-mail. >I don't care if they willingly asked for the $ubscription. I don't >care if they refuse to read the instructions. When they want out, I >punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my >humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on >request, is no better than a common spammer. I agre with Murr up to the last sentence. In my opinion, a list admin is not *required* do this service, but it is nice when she/he does. And any admin who gets a personal message that says "I tried to unsubscribe but can't" really, really should unsubscribe the user. If a userhas lost access to a previous mail account, telling them to forge that account's name on a message to unsubscribe is possbily telling them to break the law. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 11:25:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA24472; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:14:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA24465 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:14:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA02487 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:16:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990104141609.A2469@gsp.org> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:16:09 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests References: <19990104140320.A1935@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19990104140320.A1935@gsp.org>; from Rich Kulawiec on Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 02:03:20PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 02:03:20PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > solicited mail from it. That removes the "B" in "UBE" (unsolicited bulk Oops. s/B/U/. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 11:55:26 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA24887; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA24880 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa23708; 4 Jan 99 11:49 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 04 Jan 99 11:07:29 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Jan 99 10:59:46 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk murr rhame writes: > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. I write them off immediately as well, but for a different reason entirely. I am less interested in the inalienable rights pertaining to and holy sanctity of the mailbox of a dud than in ridding us of someone too dumb to know or to learn how to perform the simplest navigation. I remember someone here was so invested in the education of idiots that he set up a separate list and maintained the flounders on it until they read the simple instructions of how they might help themselves. I marvel at that level of patience. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 12:11:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA24896; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:48:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA24889 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa23714; 4 Jan 99 11:49 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Mon, 04 Jan 99 11:24:04 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Mon, 04 Jan 99 11:08:17 PST Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Christine Code writes: > Along comes a subscriber who uses a one-word alias instead of his > name, confidentially mentioning that this is because he's so > important in his extremely serious profession that his life would > be at risk if he used his real name on the Net. This is a staple, I believe. Remember that the old cliche of the online male adolescent with poor social skills is not a myth; there really are plenty of them out there. I have had this sample of rising-testosterone-without-accompanying-accomplishment panic to exactly the degree you describe. One would not reveal his true ID because "half the people in the Nosh would recognize it." Another is a genius and somehow that would affect the perceptions of others were they to learn how brilliant he is (which indeed we would never know of if were his writing the only clue). One of the great online features is the ability to be whoever you want to be. General acceptance of that role is not always so easy. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 12:25:56 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA25366; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from cybercorp.net (www.cybercorp.net [207.112.30.80]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA25349 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rhiggins@localhost) by cybercorp.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA24351; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:20:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:19:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" Reply-To: "Dr. Rob Higgins" To: murr rhame cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: CyberCorp Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my > humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > request, is no better than a common spammer. Oh sure! I'm a spammer. Thank you. Your philosophy is correct and a bunch of us are common spammers. Gee, pretty hard to focus on the real spammers if you're going to confuse the issue like that. Why are mailing lists are automated? Answer: because otherwise they would absorb too much human time and therefore many of them could not be offered as a free public service. ---rob--- %% virted, soho-can & webmaster-l list facilitator %% Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. | ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~ CyberCorp Inc. | GymVCOW - http://www.cybercorp.net/COW rhiggins@cybercorp.net | GymVMOO - http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO http://www.cybercorp.net | GymVCourses - http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 15:25:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA27480; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:11:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcmail2.liv.ac.uk (pcmail2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.252.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA27473 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:10:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [138.253.134.32] (helo=ts134032.dial.liv.ac.uk) by pcmail2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zxJ9x-0000Po-00; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:11:42 +0000 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:10:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Thew To: Tim Bowden cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: The University of Liverpool X-X-Sender: qq11@pop1.liv.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Tim Bowden wrote: > murr rhame writes: > > > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the > > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. > > > I remember someone here was so invested in the education of idiots that > he set up a separate list and maintained the flounders on it until they > read the simple instructions of how they might help themselves. I > marvel at that level of patience. > > I thought this was punishment not education :-) Alan From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 15:40:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA27500; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:11:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA27493 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA26585 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23970 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:12:34 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I figured that I was going to take some heat for my "punt at first site" policy, particularly when I added the "no better than a common spammer" bit. I don't show them the exit only because I don't want to send trash their mail box. I'm also protecting my list from noise and conserving my personal time. I'm amused by the admins who have all the time in the world to conduct private email flame wars while attempting to force the clueless to un$ubscribe themselves... Quick-punting takes the least time. If someone wants to waste their efforts trying to educate and or punish the clueless, press on. I've got better things to do. Un$ubscribing folks on request consumes only a tiny fraction of my admin time. If you don't have enough time to un$ubscribe the clue impaired, do you really have enough time to properly administer a mailing list? I doubt it. Get an assistant admin or two if you need help. Relax. Stop doing things the hard way. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 17:21:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA28978; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA28963 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:06:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA18108 ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:10:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:04:15 -0800 To: Tim Bowden , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM -0800 1/4/99, Tim Bowden wrote: > and holy sanctity of the mailbox of a dud than in ridding us of someone > too dumb to know or to learn how to perform the simplest navigation. Try running a mailing list with a few hundred thousand net-naive users. They're not too dumb. They may not be experienced, but they're not dumb. I have to say that blaming the users is use as tunnel-visioned as Murr's whitewash of administrators that don't match up with his personal values. Both are overly simplistic and don't match reality very well. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 17:50:43 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA28979; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA28965 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA23214 ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:10:27 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:01:57 -0800 To: murr rhame , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:46 AM -0500 1/4/99, murr rhame wrote: > Even the > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. Of course, they signed up for the list. It's NOT unsolicited. They may have decided they don't want it any more, but that's not unsolicited. > In my > humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > request, is no better than a common spammer. At some level, I actually agree with you. But half the trick is to build systems easy enough to use so that these issues don't actually come up very often. I've found that using a message footer, and a digest unsubscribe block, as well as some of the other make-easy tools I've added (like -unsubscribe addresses with mailto: links) has pretty much removed this as an issue for me, even with the exceptionally large numbers of very naive list users I deal with at Apple. Now, I'm trying to work on making the subscription process easier to drop that bar further, since we find the mailback validation setup a necessary evil, but one which causes some significant dropout during the subscription process (my numbers are about 40% of the folks who send the subscribe drop out and never send the auth -- but that once they get over THAT hump, only about 1% actually have problems with the authorization process itself...) And in practice, with very large lists like I run, you end up having a couple of choices -- fixing the problems for people who CAN'T make things work, or taking care of those who haven't bothered trying. Guess which one gets my priority? -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 19:06:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA00455; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA00448 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA05315 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990104215122.A5291@gsp.org> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:51:22 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from murr rhame on Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 06:12:33PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 06:12:33PM -0500, murr rhame wrote: > I'm amused by the admins who have all > the time in the world to conduct private email flame wars while > attempting to force the clueless to un$ubscribe themselves... Oh, I don't bother with private email flame wars. If the offense is sufficiently egregious, I simply report the miscreant for abuse to their ISP/organization. That usually gets their attention. > Quick-punting takes the least time. For *you*, sure. But then all you have effectively done is teach these idiots that (a) mailbombing the entire list or (b) pestering the list admin *works*, instead of teaching them the right way. This means that future list admins will have to deal with the problem *you* have conveniently shifted onto their shoulders. Personally, I have higher regard for my colleagues, and so I try to educate when possible and punish when necessary in order to try to spare them (my colleagues) the effort. > If someone wants to waste their > efforts trying to educate and or punish the clueless, press on. If you want to take the expedient way out instead of doing the right thing, that's your priviledge. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 4 19:20:45 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA00714; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA00707 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:03:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA22474 ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:07:56 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:03:16 -0800 To: murr rhame , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:12 PM -0500 1/4/99, murr rhame wrote: Funny that Murr ends with: > Stop doing things the hard > way. Because earlier, he says: > I'm also protecting my list from noise and > conserving my personal time. I'm amused by the admins who have all > the time in the world to conduct private email flame wars while > attempting to force the clueless to un$ubscribe themselves... I don't have those wars. I don't have the noise on the lists, either. That's because I put time into building the list server to handle these things. The server protects the lists from common administrative blunders by users, and also works really hard to help users get where they want to go. Arguably, the way Murr does it is the hard way, because he's not fixing the problem, he's trying to minimize how long he spends treating the symptom. > Quick-punting takes the least time. I'd argue that. first, by quick-punting, you never take the time to figure out why the users are doing the wrong thing, which means you never take the time to fix the REAL problem. Me, I'll spend some more time up front, because it's meant a real reduction in REPEATED problems. Maybe I spend more time on a few users, but it means in the long run that there are hundreds of users I never have to solve that problem for later. Penny-wise, pound foolish, Murr. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 01:39:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA03024; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from beat.kiss.fi (beat.kiss.fi [193.65.198.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA03017 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 00:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by beat.kiss.fi (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02708 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:43:52 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: beat.kiss.fi: tuupola owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:43:51 +0200 (EET) From: Mika Tuupola To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests 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 Mon, 4 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. > You may run the best durn mailing list on the net. If the person > receiving your fine mailing list doesn't want it, it's still junk-mail. > I don't care if they willingly asked for the $ubscription. I don't > care if they refuse to read the instructions. When they want out, I Net would be _much_ better place without cloobies who simply refuse to read the intructions. Its true that it would be nice from list-maintainer if he/she removed subscribers address if the subscriber simply is stoopid enough not to understand how to do it for him/herself. This was _not_ the case Christines mail. > humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > request, is no better than a common spammer. Eh? -- Mika Tuupola tuupola@appelsiini.net Appelsiini Networks http://www.appelsiini.net/ From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 04:28:56 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA08623; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 04:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id EAA08616 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 04:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6336 invoked by uid 10086); 5 Jan 1999 12:16:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 06:16:53 -0600 (CST) From: Ray Jones cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the So do I. > I don't care if they willingly asked for the $ubscription. I don't > care if they refuse to read the instructions. When they want out, I > punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my I do the same UNLESS they send me nasty notes demanding that I take them off, etc. In the latter case, I let them sweat for a while. I know I'm a "bad person," but I just can't help it. (g) -- Regards, "Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide ICQ UIN 1473313 Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans" ISBN 0-02-862303-7 Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending: subscribe noml To: majordomo@communique.net /"\ \ / X ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail / \ From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 06:26:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA09757; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA09749 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:49:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03496 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:50:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA24549 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:50:25 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:50:24 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: <19990104215122.A5291@gsp.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > ... If the offense is sufficiently egregious, I simply report the > miscreant for abuse to their ISP/organization. ... If a luser trashes your list or commits some other major offense out of the blue, so be it. Take the matter up with their sysadmin. On the other hand, bating a newbie into a flame war which results in getting his account yanked is not my idea of a worthwhile endeavor. > For *you*, sure. But then all you have effectively done is teach > these idiots that (a) mailbombing the entire list or (b) pestering > the list admin *works*, instead of teaching them the right way. > This means that future list admins will have to deal with the > problem *you* have conveniently shifted onto their shoulders. Apparently, some of you presume that I do nothing to help people un$ubscribe themselves. This is not true. I send un$ubscribe instructions in the welcome message. I post instructions periodically to my lists. On my Lyris lists, every article and digest includes un$ubscribe instructions in the signature. I do my part inform and train $ubscribers how to remove themselves from the list. When I explain something in plain and simple terms and they still don't get it, I don't consider it worth my while to start a personal dialog. > Personally, I have higher regard for my colleagues, and so I try > to educate when possible and punish when necessary in order to try > to spare them (my colleagues) the effort. I am proud of you. How many times have you successfully trained a luser? How many times have you only sparked a flame war with an idiot? Years ago, I regularly attempted to give private lessons to lusers on how to un$ubscribe. Damned few of them were even slightly interested in learning anything. In my experience, I have found that private lessons are not a useful expenditure of effort. A very small percentage of my $ubscribers have difficulty leaving. The majority of un$ubscribes are automated removals of addresses which can not be reached. Dead accounts, filled mail boxes, missconfigured machines, etc. Of those who actively choose to leave, most un$ubscribe themselves with no problem. The few remaining who have trouble un$ubscribing themselves have made it clear by their actions that they are either unwilling or unable to learn. Why forestall the inevitable? Punt them and be done with it. Some list admins would rather spend their time arguing with a brick wall. Then they complain loudly about the time they have wasted. I choose not to beat my head against the wall. I simply open the door when someone asks. > If you want to take the expedient way out instead of doing the > right thing, that's your priviledge. I am doing the right thing for my lists. I'm also saving everyone involved a lot of grief. You are at liberty to do what you believe is right for your lists. I you want to argue with brain-dead $ubscribers and attempt to train them, be my guest. You may win a few converts. - murr - From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 08:10:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA10984; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA10975 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 07:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa09732; 5 Jan 99 7:41 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Tue, 05 Jan 99 07:36:13 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Tue, 05 Jan 99 07:18:24 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > Try running a mailing list with a few hundred thousand net-naive > users. They're not too dumb. They may not be experienced, but they're > not dumb. I have to say that blaming the users is use as > tunnel-visioned as Murr's whitewash of administrators that don't > match up with his personal values. Both are overly simplistic and > don't match reality very well. Do you administer IQ tests to your "few hundred thousand" users? To those who come over to my lists? Do you know what they say about the intelligence of any animal which is given the tools and yet cannot perform a simple task up to borderline low standard? The term "dumb" is a release-valve pejorative. When John Madden says ol' Gomer Blycnik pulled a really dumb move in kicking his opponent after the whistle, he is making no final judgment about the man's intelligence. Likewise, I readily admit the few lusers who flail in my region (I have the Reply-To: set to the owner's account so I don't have to pick out the inevitable "hey d00d get me outta hear!"s) may know something about D&D or scifi mags which requires a bit of application. Yet in the one area that counts, the one that intersects with my own transit, thus the only encounter I shall (I hope) ever have with them, they are dumb as slugs. They have the clues, yet they remain clueless. For all intents and purposes, they are dumb, and a listowner had best proceed on that basis. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 13:11:25 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA14086; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA14079 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa02508; 5 Jan 99 12:19 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Tue, 05 Jan 99 12:10:22 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Tue, 05 Jan 99 11:52:40 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk murr rhame writes: > I am proud of you. How many times have you successfully trained a > luser? Ah, here's the essence, right here. Ann Landers years ago gave an answer to a question about the pesky panhandler. She said, were I panhandled, I should take the gentleman to the nearest restaurant, pay the mai-tre d', and thus insure the gentleman did not use my contribution for drugs. She was serious. I'm seeing here a possible evidence of Liftoff Liberalism. I can't diagnose it yet, but I smell it. This is the type of fly-over functionary who has noble intentions and honorable mentions - and he also ain't down in the dirty. I can't make a living hosting a free forum, so I have to do something else most days. I wonder how someone who has thousands and thousands of visiters to their well-kept plantations can take the time and spend the energy educating all the lost, lorn lusers who pass his way? And, again, what are the results? Roses and sunshine and a bounce in the Net IQ of twenty points? I think someone without direct hands-on duties may perhaps be promoting ideals instead of publishing history. Polemics and platitudes in place of performance. I don't know, but I suspect strongly. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 5 17:13:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA18289; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA18282 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA32214 ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:57:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:53:29 -0800 To: Tim Bowden , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM -0800 1/5/99, Tim Bowden wrote: > I wonder how someone who has thousands and thousands > of visiters to their well-kept plantations can take the time and > spend the energy educating all the lost, lorn lusers who pass his > way? And, again, what are the results? Roses and sunshine and > a bounce in the Net IQ of twenty points? I come pretty close to this ideal. And my results are pretty good. The number of users I have to write of as the kind of luser people are complaining about is much smaller than the number of users who get into problems and help figuring things out by a large percentage. Good tools goes a low way towards keeping people from becoming lusers or trolls in the first place. So does a good attitude. My *job* is building systems that net-naive people can figure out. I have a ways to go, but we've made great strides. Ask me again in january 2000, and we'll see how my next couple of generations of improvements go. > I think someone without direct hands-on duties may perhaps be promoting > ideals instead of publishing history. Polemics and platitudes in place > of performance. I don't know, but I suspect strongly. While Murr is too busy and other people guess, I research this stuff. and if I try something that doesn't work, I throw it out and try something else. I don't blame the users. We've put a lot of custom work in around majordomo in terms of documentation, issue-directed help files, content filters and the like, things that specifically deal with issues users see, in ways users can use to resolve them. I'm not guessing when I open my mouth and start babbling. and no, none of this is written up yet. But once I get my staff, I'll make sure as much of it as I can does get out where others can chew on it. Unfortunately, right now, I'm still stuck in too-busy-writing-it mode. I spent the latter part of December building a list system that handles volume in the mid hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and is expected to triple its size this year, at least. These things might be rhetorical or philosophical issues for people like Murr. For me, it's the difference between doing my job right and drowning in the anguished screams of the users my systems screw over... Because I *do* read every piece of postmaster mail that comes in, and if it needs an answer, I answer it. And my systems are set up to cater to new users -- as Apple noted today at Macworld, hundred of thousands of iMacs are being sold by Apple to people who've never used the Internet before, and using them to get on the internet. And those are a key part of the audience of the lists I run for Apple. I can't afford intellectual snobbery, IQ tests before allowing these folks to sign up, or telling people to stick it if I don't like their attitude. They're customers, and this ain't a hobby. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 6 04:41:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA27968; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA27961 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA19011 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 06:54:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990106065411.A19005@gsp.org> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 06:54:11 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests References: <19990104215122.A5291@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from murr rhame on Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 08:50:24AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 08:50:24AM -0500, murr rhame wrote: > If a luser trashes your list or commits some other major offense out > of the blue, so be it. Take the matter up with their sysadmin. On > the other hand, bating a newbie into a flame war which results in > getting his account yanked is not my idea of a worthwhile endeavor. I don't bait people into flame wars because (a) I have better things to do with my time and (b) it's not fair. > Apparently, some of you presume that I do nothing to help people > un$ubscribe themselves. I presume nothing; I simply take what you have written here at face value, and no more. > I am doing the right thing for my lists. I'm also saving everyone > involved a lot of grief. I don't think that's true. I think you are simply postponing and shifting the grief, because the errant subscriber will do it again, inflicting the problem on other lists and other list managers. > You are at liberty to do what you believe is > right for your lists. I you want to argue with brain-dead $ubscribers > and attempt to train them, be my guest. You may win a few converts. Do I "want to"? No. I'm a busy person. So I don't "argue", per se. But I have a larger view than just my few lists, so I try to (as I said) to educate when possible and punish when necessary in order to solve the problem (subscriber ignorance) at the place and time when it manifests itself, instead of taking your approach, which is to bury it under the carpet and leave it for someone else to deal with. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 6 07:44:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA00140; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA00105 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 07:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa07824; 6 Jan 99 7:20 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 06 Jan 99 07:18:34 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Wed, 06 Jan 99 06:57:39 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > I come pretty close to this ideal. And my results are pretty good. > The number of users I have to write of as the kind of luser people > are complaining about is much smaller than the number of users who > get into problems and help figuring things out by a large percentage. Oh, I certainly agree that's true, from my own experience. I hope it's understood I have no reference to the needy neophyte. I have had compliments over the years for my earnest and eager assistance in the primary stages. A luser is after all a dedicated moron, a deliberate delinquent who breaks rules because they can't be truly enforced on the wires. I have as much patience as anyone for those willing to learn. I go back far enough (maybe some here have gritted teeth in about 1987 when I was one of those yearning yearlings bursting onto their systems) to realize some of my very best users today were flailers in the beginning. As were we all. I also mean no offense with my good-humored ribbing. > My *job* is building systems that net-naive people can figure out. > They're customers, and this ain't a hobby. It's like the Mars/Venus colloquy; we sometimes are at cross purposes because our objectives and the nature of the game differ. Some run systems with only a tech interest in the proceedings and no involvement in the actual subject matter of their lists, and others are treating with customers and it's a professional encounter, a job, whereas for me it's a private and very elaborate garden party where new friends and old are supposed to be tuned into the central event we convened to share. There's no wonder we disagree on the process. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 07:00:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA08473; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 06:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from cantec.com (ns1.cantec.com [206.31.250.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA08466 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 06:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from www ([206.31.250.15]) by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 3718200 ; Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:38:28 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990108143344.00f6e66c@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: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:33:44 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Dave Bigham Subject: List Server resource requirements Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I am looking for information on the resource requirements for various list managers. I am interested in what is needed for a fairly high volume list server in terms of hardware and operating system. What I would really like is to see comparisons of through-put, machine cycles, disk requirements and general operating schemes for the software itself. I would really like to see things along the lines of "X" list server can process "Y" number of 8K messages per hour using "Z" percent of the available machine cycles on a 300MHZ machine. It needs "A" megabytes of disk space to do this and requires "B" megabytes of main memory. This, rather than "M" list server really flys on a 300MHZ machine! Any help or direction is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dave Bigham From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 11:26:59 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA11521; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA11514 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:57:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 670139 invoked by uid 3995); 8 Jan 1999 18:59:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13974.21891.782856.560604@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:59:15 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Sill To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Server resource requirements In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19990108143344.00f6e66c@cantec.com> References: <2.2.32.19990108143344.00f6e66c@cantec.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Norwegian" XEmacs Lucid Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M wrote: > >I am looking for information on the resource requirements for various list >managers. I am interested in what is needed for a fairly high volume list >server in terms of hardware and operating system. What I would really like >is to see comparisons of through-put, machine cycles, disk requirements and >general operating schemes for the software itself. I don't think anyone's done a good, quantitative comparison of list servers. It would be a lot of work, and the market for that information is pretty small. Heck, I've never seen a good comparison of MTA's--which would be about the same size job, but with a much larger market. >I would really like to see things along the lines of ... I would really like somebody to give me a few thousand dollars. That's the price range for the kind of information you're looking for. >... "X" list server can >process "Y" number of 8K messages per hour using "Z" percent of the >available machine cycles on a 300MHZ machine. It needs "A" megabytes of >disk space to do this and requires "B" megabytes of main memory. This, >rather than "M" list server really flys on a 300MHZ machine! Good luck finding those numbers. However, for most list servers, delivery performance and resource utilization is dominated by the performance and resource utilization of the MTA used to send the messages. I.e., the MTA selection is more important than the list server selection. Fast MTA's include: qmail, Postfix (beta), exim, and LSMTP ($). -Dave From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 13:09:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA13021; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from server1.fsonline.com (server1.fsonline.com [206.196.80.93]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA13014 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:50:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from fsonline.com ([206.196.80.94]) by server1.fsonline.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.56) with ESMTP id 383; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:04:25 -0600 Message-ID: <36966FFE.89663AE7@fsonline.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 14:52:14 -0600 From: "Jim O'Quinn" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5C-Caldera [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Bigham CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List Server resource requirements References: <2.2.32.19990108143344.00f6e66c@cantec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I would really like to see things along the lines of "X" list server can > process "Y" number of 8K messages per hour using "Z" percent of the > available machine cycles on a 300MHZ machine. It needs "A" megabytes of > disk space to do this and requires "B" megabytes of main memory. This, > rather than "M" list server really flys on a 300MHZ machine! See: http://www.dev-null.com/lyris/bench I was able to manage 140k per/hr with dual P-II 233mhz. Don't have any recent benchmarks other than it takes 5 hours to mail 450k messages to the same list (the list has grown quite a bit) and the web server sits on the same system (takes about 1m hits per day). Jim > > Any help or direction is greatly appreciated. > > Thanks in advance. > > Dave Bigham From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 15:39:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15248; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15214 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.queernet.org (queernet.queernet.org [140.174.78.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA25494 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:26:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by queernet.queernet.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA22426 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:26:48 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Tim Bowden cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Clueless, Chutzpa, or both? You decide. 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 Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Tim Bowden wrote: > Christine Code writes: > > > Along comes a subscriber who uses a one-word alias instead of his > > name, confidentially mentioning that this is because he's so > > important in his extremely serious profession that his life would > > be at risk if he used his real name on the Net. > > This is a staple, I believe. Remember that the old cliche of the online > male adolescent with poor social skills is not a myth; there really are > plenty of them out there. And yet, and yet... I have had closeted several government employees, elected officials, and clergy on lists run here; I respect their wishes, and others', for this level of anonymity, as long as their identities, reasons for anonymity, and good intentions are known to ME. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG urgent: rogerk-page@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 +1 415 ALL-ARFF "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 15:54:11 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15201; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15190 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA24361 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:01:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA02180 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:03:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990104140320.A1935@gsp.org> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:03:20 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from murr rhame on Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 09:46:50AM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 09:46:50AM -0500, murr rhame wrote: > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. Do the clueless have a right to mailbomb fellow list members with misdirected "unsubscribe" requests? > In my humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > request, is no better than a common spammer. That's complete, total, utter nonsense. Users who have *subscribed* to a mailing list have, by definition, solicited mail from it. That removes the "B" in "UBE" (unsolicited bulk email, the correct technical term for spam) and means mailing list traffic sent to them is most assuredly not UBE. Internet users who cannot handle the procedures for subscribing and unsubscribing to mailing lists should avoid using them until such time as they learn. Those procedures are simple, incredibly well documented, and frequently presented to them in the footers of *every* *single* *message* sent to a mailing list. If they cannot cope with that, then they are too stupid to use the Internet and fully deserve whatever inconvenience trying to do so causes them. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 16:24:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15364; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:07:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15356 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA11345 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:12:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 99 11:15:23 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: why me? Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9901051115.aa24701@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Sigh. Sorry, I just had to forward this one along. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html ----- Forwarded message # 1: Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 10:28:46 -0500 From: some user X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer Subject: Re: ERROR: Your mail to the Info-LabVIEW mailing list References: <9901051023.aa24272@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------36B1EBC52F2A9EC91CD5EAAE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------36B1EBC52F2A9EC91CD5EAAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So in other words I have to reconfigure my email program to suit your list? When are you planning on fixing this problem? Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer wrote: > Your mail, submitted to the Info-LabVIEW mailing list, is being returned > to you. It was trapped by one of our list filters - in this case, one which > noted the presence of a 'vcard' in your message. > > Please reconfigure your mailer (almost certainly Netscape) to NOT send > these attachments and resubmit your msg to info-labview@pica.army.mil. > > If you feel you have received this automated response in error, please send > a note to the address below for assistance. > > Thanks! > > Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer > > http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html [snip] ----- End of forwarded messages From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 16:39:30 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15280; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15254 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rina.torah.org (rina.torah.org [207.239.101.206]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA25775 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (brozen@localhost) by rina.torah.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id PAA32707; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:54:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 22:54:00 +0200 (IST) From: Brock Rozen Reply-To: Brock Rozen To: murr rhame cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Backup: Disable X-URL: http://www2.torah.org/~brozen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk My question is why a list admin, who provides a free service, and subscribed the clueless willingly, has an obligation to put in more time to unsubscribe that person? One could make an argument saying that if the list admin doesn't have time to handle these requests, they shouldn't run a list. My response would be to say that the clueless should think twice before subscribing. Rather than saying it's an obligation of a list admin to take people off, I'd say it's a nice thing to do. Note, this is only when the list is free for subscription and the person has willingly subscribed. I think my argument is only stronger when the list admin is overworked. On my site we've actually hired somebody to handle these requests (and we're a non-profit org) -- but I would certainly say that we're not required to do that. BR On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. > You may run the best durn mailing list on the net. If the person > receiving your fine mailing list doesn't want it, it's still junk-mail. > I don't care if they willingly asked for the $ubscription. I don't > care if they refuse to read the instructions. When they want out, I > punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my > humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > request, is no better than a common spammer. > > > - murr - > -- Brock Rozen brozen@torah.org Director of Technical Services (410)358-9800 Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 16:54:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15571; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15561 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy6.izzy.net (izzy6.izzy.net [206.84.176.178]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA11703 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:32:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy6.izzy.net (8.8.8/8.6.9) id XAA05722 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 23:33:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy6.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to dbsmith@atbbs.com using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.970109) id AA03375; 06 Jan 99 23:33:32 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 06 Jan 99 21:32:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Message-ID: <483_9901062333@atbbs.com> References: <19990104215122.A5291@gsp.org> <19990106065411.A19005@gsp.org> Organization: American Tune BBS * Ypsilanti Twp MI To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk \RK>From: Rich Kulawiec RK>Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests RK>> You are at liberty to do what you believe is RK>> right for your lists. I you want to argue with brain-dead $ubscribers RK>> and attempt to train them, be my guest. You may win a few converts. RK>Do I "want to"? No. I'm a busy person. So I don't "argue", per se. RK>But I have a larger view than just my few lists, so I try to (as I said) RK>to educate when possible and punish when necessary in order to solve the RK>problem (subscriber ignorance) at the place and time when it manifests RK>itself, instead of taking your approach, which is to bury it under RK>the carpet and leave it for someone else to deal with. I think it comes down to what one believes is the real purpose of the list. Take my "Deathlaw" list, for example. The purpose of the list is discussion of laws relating to death. I'm sure there are lists that have as their purpose teaching people how maillist technology works. But that's -not- the purpose of my list. Extended debates with folks about how they oughta be doing their own un$ubscribing doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of the relationship between death and law. Teaching folks how to use the list, however laudable, doesn't either. The discussion is -the- purpose of the list. I would prefer that the users deal with those mechanisms themselves. But if doing it for them (from time to time) prevents interference with the purpose of the list, then that's what I'll do. If asked nicely, I'll explain. If not, I'd just as soon cut them off myself. * SLMR 2.1a * We'll find the good in you yet Angelique... = Pixie -- >> 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 From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 17:09:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15300; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15289 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rapidnet.com (ns1.rapidnet.com [205.164.216.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA29813 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from neatnettricks.com (pt7-26.rapidnet.com [208.142.248.89]) by rapidnet.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA23547; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:08:05 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <369173FE.2590006A@neatnettricks.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 19:07:58 -0700 From: Jack Teems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dr. Rob Higgins" CC: murr rhame , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I believe I'd have to come down on Rob's side on this one. When we subscribe to mail lists as (mostly) intelligent adults, we take on the responsibility of knowing how to remove ourselves from the same list, along with a few other simple commands that are available to us by the automated list server. Beyond that argument, I think those who will readily agree to do everything for the subscriber manually are likely owners of a fairly small list and can devote the time to each such request. Try to be that generous when you have 27,000+ readers on the line. I will still unsub manually but only after they show me they've exerted a fairly reasonable adult effort to do it for themselves. Dr. Rob Higgins wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > > > punt them immediately. No questions asked. No silly games. In my > > humble opinion, a list admin who doesn't un$ubscribe someone on > > request, is no better than a common spammer. > > Oh sure! I'm a spammer. Thank you. > Your philosophy is correct and a bunch of us are > common spammers. Gee, pretty hard to focus on the real > spammers if you're going to confuse the issue like that. > > Why are mailing lists are automated? > > Answer: because otherwise they would absorb too much > human time and therefore many of them could not > be offered as a free public service. > > ---rob--- %% virted, soho-can & webmaster-l list facilitator %% > > Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. | ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~ > CyberCorp Inc. | GymVCOW - http://www.cybercorp.net/COW > rhiggins@cybercorp.net | GymVMOO - http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO > http://www.cybercorp.net | GymVCourses - http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv -- - NEAT NET TRICKS is a light-hearted not too technical collection of computer and internet tips, distributed free twice-monthly by EMail. To subscribe, Email majordomo@neatnettricks.com and indicate 'subscribe neatnettricks' in the message (without quotes.) Visit the web site at http://www.neatnettricks.com for more information. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 17:24:15 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16971; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16964 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.1/8.9.0/best.sh) id QAA05601; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:44:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:44:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901090044.QAA05601@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (rogerk@QueerNet.ORG) Subject: Anonymity Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:26:48 -0800 (PST) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" > Christine Code writes: > > Along comes a subscriber who uses a one-word alias instead of his > > name, confidentially mentioning that this is because he's so > > important in his extremely serious profession that his life would > > be at risk if he used his real name on the Net. And yet, and yet... I have had closeted several government employees, elected officials, and clergy on lists run here; I respect their wishes, and others', for this level of anonymity, as long as their identities, reasons for anonymity, and good intentions are known to ME. Good point, though somewhat of a different subject. I think Christine was speaking about people who make a point of telling everyone on the list (or at least the listowner) how great and important they are. Ego fix, etc. There certainly are legit reasons for anonymity. I encourage people on my lists to post from free-email accounts or otherwise hide their full identity if they choose. I only care about someone's real identity in the case of severe harressment, threats, etc (very rare but it has happened). Some of my subscribers are involved in lawsuits against their employers or various companies or agencies. Some are trying to get workers comp cases settled or disability insurance payouts. They need to be able to be anonymous, and I allow it. The flip side is that some of my subscribers are company "spies" (one known case of this--a manager on the list to see what several employees who had been poisoned at work were saying about their health and workplace) and certainly others are from government agencies, companies, etc. It's fairly easy to tell the difference between true and fake reasons for anonymity though... The true cases merely post without giving their full (or real) name. Sometimes they'll mention it in the course of a post (often to apoligize for not giving the name of their employer, for example) but they don't dwell on it. The fake cases brag about being anon and make a huge deal about how impressed you would be if you only knew who they were. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 17:39:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15182; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15172 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA24174 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:46:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.1/8.9.0/best.sh) id KAA14710; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:47:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:47:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901041847.KAA14710@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (message from murr rhame on Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:46:50 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Murr, I agree with you in principle. I'll give someone who asks to be unsubscribed the directions but, if they can't handle them, I'll manually unsubscribe them. My list is for disabled people and a lot of them have the symptom of "brain fog" or cognitive processing problems. I do try to walk them through the directions because I believe that will help them in the future (if they understand basic computer info they'll be better equiped to understand the next mailing list system they come across...and it's a service to other list owners as well). BUT, I'm on Christine's side with her case of "Mr. Important." I've known people like that. Had them on my list. I do not unsubscribe people who demand to be removed from my horrible list because because they're mad at a decision I made. Most of them never leave...they calm down and become productive subscribers again. The few that don't, unsubscribe themselves. I often spend much more time explaining the unsubscription process to one person than I would in just unsubscribing everyone who asked. But I consider it time well spent. I don't mind helping people who want the help. And I don't cater to people who don't bother to learn techincal information because it's somehow beneath them. Nor do I choose to pander to people who could unsubscribe themselves but tell (not ask) me to because they are making a grand statement. No thanks. I provide clear directions upon request. The same directions go out automatically with every new subscription. Differently worded, but also clear, directions are on my website (linked directly from the main page). Unsubscribe directions are at the bottom of every post (along with the website URL and my email address). And anyone who writes me with a question gets my help (even the Mr. Importants of the world). I really don't see how anyone could construe this in a negative light. You can be helpful (even way beyond helpful) without sucking up your pride and taking orders from the Mr. Importants. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 17:54:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15317; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15306 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA00512 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA23304; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 23:51:37 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990104205129.036a9e90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:51:29 -0800 To: Alan Thew From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Un$unsubscribe Requests 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 11:10 PM 1/4/99 +0000, Alan Thew is said to have written: >On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Tim Bowden wrote: > >> murr rhame writes: >> >> > I manually un$ubscribe anyone who asks to leave, no matter how poorly >> > the attempt is made. Unwanted email is unwanted email. Even the >> > clueless have a right not to get unsolicited junk in their mail box. The clueless have figured out how to get on to a mailing list that takes a two step process to get on. My general finding is that someone will tell me, "I've tried unsubscribing five times, and it has never worked." I log all mail to majordomo and all aliases of majordomo. I frequently look at these logs and find that these folks are liars. The typical person has tried unsubscribing once, misspelled the word "unsubscribe", and can't be bothered to work out anything else. I get tired of liars and I get tired of idiots who abuse the lists I run. One person simply started forwarding entire digests to the list because, as she put it, in private e-mail, "posting big stuff always gets me kicked off of lists I'm no longer interested in - it is easier than figuring out how to unsubscribe." It is stuff like this that makes running mailing lists for nothing so rewarding. I put a click on URL in every header that will format the unsubscribe mail for them if their mailer supports body=unsubscribe on a mailto URL, and manual instructions in every footer. If someone can follow the two step majordomo instructions to subscribe, but can't follow the much simpler instructions to unsubscribe, I have little sympathy for them. I consider unsub requests posted to the list rude and abusive, and I filter them and ignore them. I will answer requests for info or help with changed e-mail addresses to the -approval aliases, but I consider the comment that "it might be illegal to forge e-mail from an old address that you are still getting mail forwarded to you from" to be ludicrous. If the mail is still being forwarded to them, it is still their e-mail address. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 18:09:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA15113; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id PAA15103 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:03:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA20405 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 05:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id GAA23430; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:33:03 -0700 (MST) From: "Tom Neff" To: Subject: Re: aliases and leave requests Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:33:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000001be37e6$d0878260$037b7b0a@patroon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199901040900.BAA14499@honor.greatcircle.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Christine Code , in an article with whose general tenor I otherwise agree, says: > Along comes a subscriber who uses a one-word alias instead of his > name, confidentially mentioning that this is because he's so > important in his extremely serious profession that his life would > be at risk if he used his real name on the Net. (My "we have an > idiot" bells start going off at this point.) It may be a bit lame to insist on a CB-type "handle" as your alias, but I do know people who don't want their real identities visible on the Net for legitimate reasons. Let's put it this way, when you read in the paper how a Tom Hanks or a Chelsea Clinton or [insert prominent person here] is either "just discovering" email and the Net, or surfs and chats and sends all the time, or whatever - of course they are using aliases. And there are people who "borrow" their Net fix off their temp jobs, who need to do some whistle blowing at their toxic waste plant, etc. Sometimes you have to use an alias. Then you decide to join the Begonia Growers list so your wife can download growing tips, and some little tinpot listserv autocrat tells you "We insist on real names only here on Begonia Growers!" :) Right. Hand me the obituary page hon... > Mr Important has a hissy fit, demands he be unsubscribed. In > response, he gets a polite letter which includes the "how to > unsubscribe" directions. Ah, but he doesn't want to unsubscribe > himself - he's far too important for that! So instead he he > mail-bombs the list with about 100 massive messages (all forwards > of previous digests with nasty notes attached) and gets quite > pissed off when his ISP tells him he'd better stop violating > their user services agreement. :-) I get those too, and of course if someone listbombs for any reason it's the instant death penalty - but after a lot of experience, I do tend to remove people who ask for it, even if they should have remembered how. My lists have a -leave alias, which isn't generally going to be transferrable to other lists, so it's not like I'm doing them any big favor in life by shipping them more instructions when they just want off. I do a nightly roster on all my lists, and pass each one through a filter than makes a little private web page listing all the addresses, with two buttons next to each address: Mailto and Unsub. If someone wants off (or earns it), they're gone in one click. There are Web based mailing list management interfaces out there that give the same effect. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 21:24:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA21368; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA21361 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:15:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA40248 ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:21:11 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001be37e6$d0878260$037b7b0a@patroon> References: <199901040900.BAA14499@honor.greatcircle.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:09:49 -0800 To: "Tom Neff" , From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: aliases and leave requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:33 AM -0500 1/4/99, Tom Neff wrote: > It may be a bit lame to insist on a CB-type "handle" as your alias, but I do > know people who don't want their real identities visible on the Net for > legitimate reasons. Fine. Go get a hotmail account, and use that to read/post to the list. There's absolutely no reason you have to, as a list admin, make special dispensation to someone to keep their ID private. They can do that themselves. In fact, they do, without telling you in the first place. Now, having said that, my policy is simple -- my subscription lists are private and avaialble to nobody. Which means nobody will know you're on the list until you post on the list and say so, because I and none of my other admins will give out that information. But if you want to post anonymously, then go get a hotmail or juno or yahoo, or.... (name any of a dozen remailers) account and use that. Of course, if I catch someone doing that and shilling for something, that's a different fight, and one the person involved won't like. There's nothing quite so slimy in my mind as someone who hides their identity to flog an agenda of some sort, where if it was known who was doing it their attachment to that agenda would be known. > alias. Then you decide to join the Begonia Growers list so your wife can > download growing tips, and some little tinpot listserv autocrat tells you > "We insist on real names only here on Begonia Growers!" :) Fine. so make up a name, attach it to your hotmail account, and give it to the admin. If necessary, hack your voicemail with the fake name and have him call your phone number to verify it. It's false security, folks. (actually, if I were admin, I don't care who your name is. I care that I can actually track you down if I need to through your admins, which is why I allow hotmail postings and not juno postings or anonymous remailer postings. But if I did insist on real names, I can't see a case like Chelsea where I wouldn't in a blink approve a fake ID in this case. But honestly, that I'll make an exception for this doesn't mean a thing. 90% or more of the "demands" for this are bogus, and the primary uses of these "tools" are to flame, troll and abuse. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 21:40:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA21316; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from msa.attmil.ne.jp (ns.misawa.attmil.ne.jp [165.76.26.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA21292 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:12:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from msw0.attnet.or.jp (41.pool1.misawa.attmil.ne.jp [165.76.27.56]) by msa.attmil.ne.jp (8.8.8+Spin/3.6Wbeta7-CONS(12/07/98)) id OAA10344; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:14:26 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:14:11 +0900 From: Leif Gregory X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.19) S/N 90798968 Reply-To: Leif Gregory Organization: VBOK X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18593.990109@biogate.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re[2]: Un$ubscribe Requests References: <19990104140320.A1935@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rich, Comments interpolated with quoted message. A 10K brain attached to a 9600 baud mouth. ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- | Leif Gregory | Virtual Book Of Knowledge web site | | Editor, VBOK newsletter | | | Moderator, TBUDL | ICQ UIN: 216395 | ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- | VBOK is a free newsletter for newbies and the advanced user with | | articles, web site/software reviews, security, news and much more! | -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tuesday, January 05, 1999, at 4:03 AM you wrote: -- Begin Quote -- RK> Do the clueless have a right to mailbomb fellow list members with RK> misdirected "unsubscribe" requests? I totally agree with you here. I had one guy whose sole purpose in subscribing was to post racist remarks, and then he tried to bail (it was a long story). Of course he was trying to unsubscribe incorrectly even though each message coming from the list explicitly stated how to unsubscribe. He then tried flooding the list with garbage messages, so I filtered his posts to trash, while leaving him subscribed. When he finally apologized, I removed him from the list. I do not have any problems with removing people from my lists when they seem to be unable to do so themselves, as long as they are polite! If you're an ass, you'll get no help from me. RK> That's complete, total, utter nonsense. RK> Users who have *subscribed* to a mailing list have, by definition, RK> solicited mail from it. That removes the "B" in "UBE" (unsolicited RK> bulk email, the correct technical term for spam) and means mailing RK> list traffic sent to them is most assuredly not UBE. Again, I agree with you (with exception to removal of 'B' as opposed to 'U') . RK> Internet users who cannot handle the procedures for subscribing RK> and unsubscribing to mailing lists should avoid using them until RK> such time as they learn. Those procedures are simple, incredibly RK> well documented, and frequently presented to them in the footers RK> of *every* *single* *message* sent to a mailing list. If they cannot RK> cope with that, then they are too stupid to use the Internet and RK> fully deserve whatever inconvenience trying to do so causes them. I do disagree with you here though. Everyone is a newbie at one time or another, whether it be in fixing cars, subscribing to MLs, or even tying your shoes! At one time, someone probably helped you learn and most likely bailed you out when you really got stuck (such as triple knotting your tennies .) Like I stated above, if a person is polite and is really 'trying' to learn I'll bend over backwards for them, but if you're an ass, you might as well just cancel your ISP subscription. RK> Rich Kulawiec RK> rsk@gsp.org -- End Quote -- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 8 22:12:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA22071; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA22040 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:00:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA18120 ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:05:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <483_9901062333@atbbs.com> References: <19990104215122.A5291@gsp.org> <19990106065411.A19005@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:49:57 -0800 To: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:32 PM -0500 1/6/99, David B. Smith wrote: > Extended debates with folks about how they oughta be doing their own > un$ubscribing doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of the > relationship between death and law. Teaching folks how to use the list, > however laudable, doesn't either. The discussion is -the- purpose of > the list. That's why I do all of this via private mail, and if it pops up on a list, take it private as quickly as I can. I also step heavily on these meta-topics, which sometimes upsets folks, but you're right. Lists are for the topic, not meta-discussions about the list the topic is for. And I get the occasional REAL idiot who insists on answering my private e-mail ON the list, but those trolls prove themselves out really quickly. And I have, in fact, been known to delete a person's POSTING priviledge while we contintue to discuss fine points of netiquette privately. But you have to be a really nasty troll for me to pull that one. That's not my normal operation. > I would prefer that the users deal with those mechanisms themselves. > But if doing it for them (from time to time) prevents interference with > the purpose of the list, then that's what I'll do. > > If asked nicely, I'll explain. If not, I'd just as soon cut them off > myself. My policy is really simple. My lists are self-protected from the usual administrivia. A user has to work REALLY hard to actually get one of those requests through to the list. usually, one of my filters catches it and sends a nice note back on how to do it right. Most of the time, the next thing I see on my system is the proper unsub command, and it's all over. If it *does* in fact get through, amusingly enough, each message has the unsub instructions on it. Most users who haven't noticed those instructions BEFORE then notice them on that instruction, and that's it (I find that an interesting side effect, by the way. But in general, putting the information in a footer has more or less made this problem go away for me. I have very little administrative thrashing any more) If they send mail to postmaster/etc, they get a mailbot back that points out this isn't how unsubs are done, gives them the info on how to do it, and tells them what to do if they can't make it work right. In my case, the "secret password" is including copies of the attempt to unzubscribe (or whatever) and the returned messages, so I can see what's going on. If I just get the blind "unzubscribe", I let the mailbot answer it. If the user includes the attempt, I'll generally take care of it for them. Ditto if the user is clearly upset/angry/frustrated, because I'm here to be helpful, not anal about following instructions. This seems like a solid tradeoff between encouraging users to help themselves and turning this into a trivia contest with the users freedom as the prize. It also gives me wonderful feedback on where users are getting sideways in the system, confused by the daemon, lost in the documentation, or whatever. So if I start seeing trends in the errors, I can focus on improving THAT problem and make it go away. It's been quite useful in cutting error rates, although I'm not done. Right now, my servers are averaging between 1,500 and 2,000 successful subscriptions for every "this server is too damn hard to use" complaint, and that's not a bad percentage. I've got three major projects left in the server make-it-easy projects, and then I think it'll be about as easy as I can make it based on what I know now. FWIW, here are what I think are the key improvements people can make to reduce user hassle. Unfortunately, this more or less requires the ability to whack at the daemon level. If you just admin a list that's run on a server managed by someone else, a lot if out of your control here. My daemon is majordomo, and it's effectively vanilla. A couple of minor patches, but I've consciously avoided whacking at the source. Instead, I've built around it. 1) listname-zubscribe and listname-unzubscribe addresses. On my system, these actually talk to perl scripts that suck the email address out of the header and format mail commands FOR the user -- so that a blank mailto: message is okay. Cut out the zubscribe jargon completely. On the plus side, it makes the web interface pretty simple, "click this link and send the message to subscribe". It assumes that they (or *someone*) has configured their mail client correctly. I find this to be a LOT more reliable than asking them what their address is. Really. 2) unzubscribe-all address. Basically, a panic button. Very useful. Very simple. Just remaps into an "unzubscribe *" request for the address it was mailed from. The only bad side of this is that "unzub *" is amazingly expensive computationally. I've experimented with alternative front ends, but they're not much better so far. My answer right now is to stuff these into a special sendmail queue so only one is being processed at a time so they don't clog my other processing. 3) unzub/help info in the footer of every message, and header of ever digest. I don't even bother with monthly help files or other regular postings any more; my user studies have shown pretty conclusively they're useless. Users tune them out, so I don't waste bandwidth any more. 4) Every list alias (and the majordomo alias itself) is front-ended by procmail, where I've scripted a whole bunch of safety checks and other tests. I've got pretty solid protection against vacation messages and mail-loops-from-hell, I have certain naughty word restrictions (and some of them turn out to be non-trivial. Just ask Igor Livshits). I have a blackhole, a greyhole (the difference being whether you get a polite "go away" or not), and a no-posting test. And the administrivia tests. And a bunch of other stuff. But basically, all of the common stuff that ought to be trapped out of the lists is, to keep it off the lists. 5) situational-specific help files. The only thing I've found is *more* useless to the typical user than the "monthly help file" is to send a message to the daemon, get it wrong, and get sent back a 10K "help file" where the user (who's already confused, lost, naive, irritated, frustrated or all of the above) has to guess where in the help file the answer to his question is. So I've simply written a bunch of filters that catch as many of these errors as possible, and say "here's what you did wrong. Here's how you should do this. Here's where the help files are for more information. here's how to contact a human being" (One could argue that if I'm smart enough to catch it, I ought to fix it and do it for them. this is a religious argument, and both sides are probably right. Religiously, I'm on the "give the man a fish and he'll starve next week, teach them to fish and he'll invite you over to dinner for some nice halibut" school. I won't argue. No need to fight with me on this, I won't change my mind, you don't need to change yours) I can't over-emphasize the situational stuff enough. If the user knew the answer, they wouldn't need help. And simply tossing the majordomo help file at them isn't answering their question. they probably got that already, and it didn't help them the first time. And if you can teach your list serer to ANSWER their question, you don't have to. But you have to answer the question, not just toss a big glob of help text at them. The two biggest problems I have these days are changed (and third party) addresses, and the majordomo mailback authorization stuff. These are intertwined -- users want to zubscribe aliases, hotmail addresses, etc to lists, but it's a fine line between this and allowing spammers to forge-zubscribe other addresses. Right now, I'm taking a fairly strict line on this (and it only affects under 1% of my users, based on the complaints I get), because I'm real sensitive to the spam issues, thanks to the well-meaning but truly brain-cramped Apple supporters who thinks the answer to every guy who says "macs suck" on IRC is subscribe them to a hundred pro-Macintosh lists. No thanks, I get tired of cleaning up after the kids. The biggest single problem *I* have today is that 40% of my potential subscribers never respond to the mailback validation request. If they *do* respond, the error rate is quite low (about 2%), but that's too many dropouts for my taste. so I'm designing systems that'll be secure, but easier to use. And which, as a side effect, will completely allow the alias and hotmail addresses without opening up spamholes. (bad news for some, it'll be both mac-based and web-based. Good news for me, there's so little no-web-based subscription traffic for my stuff now that this isn't a problem....) That and the endless (it seems) need to keep revising documentation to keep ahead of the typoes that seem to magically creep in at night.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 9 06:27:08 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA01902; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA01895 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 05:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA01036 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA12507 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:57:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:57:29 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Anonymity In-Reply-To: <199901090044.QAA05601@shell7.ba.best.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Assuming a list admin doesn't formally investigate the identity of every subscriber, in most cases it would be fairly easy to $ubscribe anonymously. I'll wager that on typical lists, anyone who offers a plausible real name would be admitted. Rather than choosing a conspicuous handle like "Captain Zork" you can just as easily choose a a more realistic alias like "Fred Harrison" or "Jane Stokes". I'm sure there are a few lists which require confirmed identities. For typical mailing lists, it's fairly easy to obtain some masking of you true identity. In some cases, real names can raise an eyebrow. For example, my real name is John Murr Rhame, Jr. I go by Murr both off line and on the net. Didn't make it up. Murr is on my birth certificate. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 10 00:14:03 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA14685; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:36:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA14677 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 23:35:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA22048 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:00:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA18130 ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:05:49 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990104205129.036a9e90@127.0.0.1> References: Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:56:30 -0800 To: Nick Simicich , Alan Thew From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$unsubscribe Requests Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:51 PM -0800 1/4/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > The clueless have figured out how to get on to a mailing list that takes a > two step process to get on. > > My general finding is that someone will tell me, "I've tried unsubscribing > five times, and it has never worked." This is why I ask for copies of the errors. It's a way of forcing them to actually DO it, without actually having to point out I keep logs (I'm even more anal about logging mail traffic than Nick is) and getting in their faces. I don't HAVE to accuse them of lying, so we can (usually) avoid most of the confrontation. Confronting users doesn't create anything positive. I've (finally) learned that life is too short to get too worked up about this stuff. Lots of times allowing someone to save a little face saves a huge amount of hassle, because most of these folks aren't trolls, they're lost, frustrated and already embarassed. > One person simply started > forwarding entire digests to the list because, as she put it, in private > e-mail, "posting big stuff always gets me kicked off of lists I'm no longer > interested in - it is easier than figuring out how to unsubscribe." That's why my filters trap this stuff and simply sends it back with a polite note. Automatically -- and it doesn't get onto the list to annoy my users, ad doesn't get to me where it annoys me. My mailbots don't get annoyed, so we don't CARE how ofte they send that stuff to them. I've seen users try this up to about half a dozen times before figuring it out. Usually if they get that far, the next message gets caught by my naughty word filter, and the other users STILL never know anything's going on. It's amazing how much work some users will put into so they can be lazy about this stuff. But that doesn't mean you have to cooperate. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 10 18:46:48 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA29716; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA29709 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA15524; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:33:30 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990110213158.03a2ee50@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:31:58 -0500 To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: why me? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <9901051115.aa24701@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Well, vcards is one of the many bits of mime cruft that demime trashes. http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html At 11:15 AM 1/5/99 EST, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer wrote: >Sigh. Sorry, I just had to forward this one along. > > Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer > > http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html > >----- Forwarded message # 1: > >Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 10:28:46 -0500 >From: some user >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer >Subject: Re: ERROR: Your mail to the Info-LabVIEW mailing list >References: <9901051023.aa24272@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="------------36B1EBC52F2A9EC91CD5EAAE" > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >--------------36B1EBC52F2A9EC91CD5EAAE >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >So in other words I have to reconfigure my email program to suit your list? When are you planning on fixing this problem? > >Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer wrote: > >> Your mail, submitted to the Info-LabVIEW mailing list, is being returned >> to you. It was trapped by one of our list filters - in this case, one which >> noted the presence of a 'vcard' in your message. >> >> Please reconfigure your mailer (almost certainly Netscape) to NOT send >> these attachments and resubmit your msg to info-labview@pica.army.mil. >> >> If you feel you have received this automated response in error, please send >> a note to the address below for assistance. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer >> >> http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html >[snip] >----- End of forwarded messages > -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 10 20:28:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA00680; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA00672 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:55:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from rina.torah.org (rina.torah.org [207.239.101.206]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA06342 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (brozen@localhost) by rina.torah.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id PAA11085; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:05:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:05:10 +0200 (IST) From: Brock Rozen Reply-To: Brock Rozen To: murr rhame cc: List Managers Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Backup: Disable X-URL: http://www2.torah.org/~brozen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, murr rhame wrote: > > My question is why a list admin, who provides a free service, and > > subscribed the clueless willingly, has an obligation to put in > > more time to unsubscribe that person? > > The point I was trying to make is that it takes less time to simply > punt on request than it takes to attempt to train the cluefree. It's even easier to just hit the "delete" key. Thus, the cluefree will either become "clueful" or stay on the list. No time involved on my end. > Your post to the list-managers was probably filtered for including the > word "unsubscribe". Apparently, Majordomo scans the entire post for > command words. I'm well aware, thanks. Actually, I think filters like this should be disabled for lists where such words are expected to be used. I'll live with having my message hit the filter and requiring the list-owner to approve it manually. It's not that my message is like news or anything requiring immediate approval. ;-) -- Brock Rozen brozen@torah.org Director of Technical Services (410)358-9800 Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 11 00:14:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA03382; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA03375 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27300 ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:02:52 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:14:49 -0800 To: Brock Rozen , murr rhame From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests Cc: List Managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:05 PM +0200 1/9/99, Brock Rozen wrote: > I'm well aware, thanks. Actually, I think filters like this should be > disabled for lists where such words are expected to be used. Or the list mom should realize this and be timely in approving things. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 11 17:57:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA19025; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id QAA19015 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.252.88.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA24220 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29519 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:53:00 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990104205129.036a9e90@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:53:47 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Un$unsubscribe Requests Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 00:56 -0500 01/09/99, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone: >At 8:51 PM -0800 1/4/99, Nick Simicich wrote: > >> The clueless have figured out how to get on to a mailing list that takes a >> two step process to get on. >> >> My general finding is that someone will tell me, "I've tried unsubscribing >> five times, and it has never worked." > >This is why I ask for copies of the errors. It's a way of forcing >them to actually DO it, without actually having to point out I keep >logs (I'm even more anal about logging mail traffic than Nick is) and >getting in their faces. Yes, I have [long ago] found the same thing. I usually include something to the effect that "if there is a problem, I really need to know about it so I can fix it" (yeah, like Lyris suddenly stopped recognizing the word "unsubscribe"). I usually receive one of two responses to that request: 1. "Hey, waddya know -- it worked this time!" 2. (but with a successful unsubscribe) It's much more effective (and productive) than telling the person that he never submitted a request. Seems to work like a charm. Another useful artifice is a filter that I have deployed across all of my discussion lists, which looks for the usual variations of unsubscribe requests in the subject line and in the body of the message (two separate filters there, since the syntax is slightly different), and rejects such posts with a message explaining how to properly unsubscribe. So far, it has been 100% successful -- no misses to date, and no one has come back to us saying that he can't figure out how to unsubscribe. (I have to thank one of my co-listmoms for that -- he wrote the reply message that includes the explanation.) __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Boy & His Sabre: vince@humournet.com Stop Internet Spam! From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 12 11:16:25 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA04500; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:02:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA04492 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.cru.fr (home.cru.fr [195.220.94.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA04254 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.cru.fr (IDENT:aumont@localhost.cru.fr [127.0.0.1]) by home.cru.fr (8.9.1a/jtpda-5.2) with ESMTP id KAA01923 ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:10:32 +0100 Message-Id: <199901110910.KAA01923@home.cru.fr> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Dave Bigham , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: aumont@cru.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: List Server resource requirements In-reply-to: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:33:44 -0500. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:10:31 +0100 From: Aumont - Comite Reseaux des Universites Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hi, > > I am looking for information on the resource requirements for various list > managers. I am interested in what is needed for a fairly high volume list > server in terms of hardware and operating system. What I would really like > is to see comparisons of through-put, machine cycles, disk requirements and > general operating schemes for the software itself. > > I would really like to see things along the lines of "X" list server can > process "Y" number of 8K messages per hour using "Z" percent of the > available machine cycles on a 300MHZ machine. It needs "A" megabytes of > disk space to do this and requires "B" megabytes of main memory. This, > rather than "M" list server really flys on a 300MHZ machine! We are using sympa (http://listes.cru.fr/sympa/). On Bi PII-300mz with 256K ram (linux) we need 6 minutes to distribute a mail of 20Ko to 17 K-subscribers. Sympa is tunned to limit its own performences so network and computer remain availible evjen during big distribution process. Sympa containt a quite sophisticated set of parameters : -maximum number of smtp process -maximum number of recepients per process -maximun number of different domains for each process -sort order for e-mail -priority order between lists - etc We probably can tune sympa for better performence with the same machine but we are limited by our poor network connection. Sympa's author says that we can improve by a 10 factor sympa performence using Postfix insteed of sendmail :-) Serge Aumont PS : you can look at http://www.cru.fr/listes/apropos/robots.html this is a list of robots From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 12 11:30:03 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA04552; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA04544 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:04:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA23097 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.1/8.9.0/best.sh) id VAA09598; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:49:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:49:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901120549.VAA09598@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (message from Vince Sabio on Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:53:47 -0500) Subject: Re: Un$unsubscribe Requests Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:53:47 -0500 From: Vince Sabio ** Sometime around 00:56 -0500 01/09/99, Chuq Von Rospach sent everyone: >This is why I ask for copies of the errors. It's a way of forcing >them to actually DO it, without actually having to point out I keep logs Yes, I have [long ago] found the same thing. I usually include something to the effect that "if there is a problem, I really need to know about it so I can fix it" (yeah, like Lyris suddenly stopped recognizing the word "unsubscribe"). I usually receive one of two responses to that request: 1. "Hey, waddya know -- it worked this time!" 2. (but with a successful unsubscribe) It's much more effective (and productive) than telling the person that he never submitted a request. Seems to work like a charm. Well I must have a different subscriber base from you all cause when I ask for copies of the attempts, or what the server gave back for the attempt, I get them. In fact, I can't think of a time when I asked for one and got back a response that showed they didn't bother trying. I even get them without asking (it's in the info file and other notes). Thinking about this...yes, I've had people who didn't make an attempt, but then their requests for help always say that ("I don't know where to start"). Mind you, most of the attempts were ones that proved they didn't bother to read the directions, regardless of having successfully subscribed as recently as a few days earlier. Occaisionally it's even the server's fault. Though, as I've said, my lists are for disabled people whose symptoms include temporary cognitive dysfunction, severe fatigue, "brain fog," and etc. So I cut them some extra slack. Well, not too much if they didn't even *try* to read the directions. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 17 12:19:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA07448; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA07438 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.portal.ca (shell.portal.ca [204.174.35.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA23629 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by shell.portal.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA22125; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:59:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:59:44 -0800 (PST) From: Christine Code To: List Mgrs Subject: If Paul had used email (humour) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thought this might amuse some of you. God knows list owners could use a laugh, after all the silly email they get. :-) >"IF THE APOSTLE PAUL HAD SENT HIS EPISTLES BY E-MAIL..." > >Subject: The Third E-mail to the Corinthians >Date: 24/03/65 21:07:33 ROMAN standard time >From: Apostle Paul >To: congregation@corinth.org >File: Epistle3.txt (104201 bytes) > >[Only the first part of this message is displayed. The >entire message has been turned into a text attachment, >encoded in 128-bit MIME and can only be read if you have an >obscure program that you won't have heard of.] > >Paul, an apostle of Christ and a slave of the Lord, to the >brothers in Corinth who are using e-mail accounts other than >AOL. I will send a separate message to those using AOL >accounts, knowing how primitive their e-mail service is at >the present time. > >This is the third e-mail I am sending to you. Did you >receive my other two? I have had no reply from you yet, and >a "fatal delivery" error message for the second e-mail, in >which I wrote about love, faith and hope. I will send it again, >just in case. > >I sent my second message to the congregations throughout the >whole of Asia Minor, but my service provider considered this >to be spamming and closed down one of my accounts. > >To those who are using Web based e-mail accounts, I will >send Timothy to you with my message on foot. It will get there >quicker. > >Philemon and Titus send you their love. I found their >e-mails amidst a flood of junk mail and get-rich-quick >messages, in which there is no real profit. > >Look - I hope you don't mind, but I think I'll stick with >the parchments next time. >Anyway, I wanted to write to you on the important subject of > >-----------end of message---------- From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 20 17:56:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA11804; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:42:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA11796 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA27432 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA22794 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:45:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:45:42 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Yet another virus alert Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have a complaint which was forwarded to me by a list admin on my server. One of his $ubscribers claims to have been infected by a virus sent via a mailing list. Are there any email programs which automatically decode and run attachments without human intervention? ... Sounds like something only a Micro$oft programmer would do. Is there any way to get a virus via email without some significant clueless efforts on the part of the recipient? On a tangential note, I noticed a significant increase in my spam rate shortly after my recent postings to list-managers. I hope it's only a coincidence. - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 21 03:11:35 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA19711; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:58:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz40.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA19704 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from torres.gf1.internal (mail@isdn216-68.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.216.68]) by mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 103HsF-0005iK-00; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:02:07 +0100 Received: from janeway.gf1.internal ([192.168.130.31]) by torres.gf1.internal with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 103Hs0-0002kD-00 for List-Managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:01:52 +0100 From: Marc.Haber-lists@gmx.de (Marc Haber) To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:50 GMT Organization: posting from University of Karlsruhe, Germany 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: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:45:42 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >virus sent via a mailing list. Are there any email programs which >automatically decode and run attachments without human intervention? >... Sounds like something only a Micro$oft programmer would do. Is >there any way to get a virus via email without some significant >clueless efforts on the part of the recipient? There is a way to have arbitrary code executed on the client computer with HTML and a buffer overflow happening in some M$ and Net$cape mail clients. I believe that there are security fixes available. I have my mailing lists set in a way that they neither accept HTML nor attachments. >On a tangential note, I noticed a significant increase in my spam rate >shortly after my recent postings to list-managers. I hope it's only a >coincidence. I have started to receive spam to my list address that I only use for mailing lists. I suspect that there is a "open" majordomo somewhere out there. No idea where. Greetings Marc --=20 -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! = ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im = Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32= 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31= 29 From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 21 11:45:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA27671; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk (mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk [193.61.22.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA27658 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:25:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from psychology.bbk.ac.uk by mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <23042-0@mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk>; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:30:48 +0000 From: Pete Watts To: Marc Haber Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:28:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.3 Build (39) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:01:50 GMT Marc Haber wrote: > > I have my mailing lists set in a way that they neither accept HTML nor > attachment Hello Marc, list Can you tell me how I can configure my LISTSERV list so that it will not accept HTML or attachments? Pete ---------------------- "Never name the well from which you will not drink." - Marion Zimmer Bradley PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST: http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 21 17:43:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03135; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03127; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate3-22.cyberlink.ch [195.246.74.92]) by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA31528; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:28:13 +0100 Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA02177; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 03:29:17 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 03:29:17 +0100 Message-Id: <199901220229.DAA02177@quill.thinkcoach.com> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: postmaster@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: (Marc.Haber-lists@gmx.de) Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert References: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I have started to receive spam to my list address that I only use for > mailing lists. I suspect that there is a "open" majordomo somewhere > out there. No idea where. It's right here.. I've just verified experimentally that it is indeed possible for anyone who knows how to use the EXPN SMTP command to easily obtain all subscriber e-mail addresses for the lists at GreatCircle.COM -- Norbert. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 21 19:44:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04897; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mg2.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04888; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA23067; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:37:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (brent@166-93-39-87.rmi.net [166.93.39.87]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA18875; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:37:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (brent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA03176; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:27:10 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:27:10 -0700 (MST) From: Brent Sims X-Sender: brent@localhost.localdomain To: Norbert Bollow cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, postmaster@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: <199901220229.DAA02177@quill.thinkcoach.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk An honest man... You keep this up and you might end up being observed by psychotatrists. Thanks, Brent Sims On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Norbert Bollow wrote: ->> I have started to receive spam to my list address that I only use for ->> mailing lists. I suspect that there is a "open" majordomo somewhere ->> out there. No idea where. -> ->It's right here.. I've just verified experimentally that it is indeed ->possible for anyone who knows how to use the EXPN SMTP command to ->easily obtain all subscriber e-mail addresses for the lists at ->GreatCircle.COM -> ->-- Norbert. -> From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 21 21:27:43 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA06039; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA06019 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:59:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gerald@localhost) by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA32194; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:03:11 -0500 Message-ID: <19990122000304.B31508@impressive.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:03:04 -0500 From: Gerald Oskoboiny To: Marc Haber , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: ; from Marc Haber on Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:01:50AM +0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:01:50AM +0000, Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:45:42 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >virus sent via a mailing list. Are there any email programs which > >automatically decode and run attachments without human intervention? > >... Sounds like something only a Micro$oft programmer would do. Is > >there any way to get a virus via email without some significant > >clueless efforts on the part of the recipient? > > There is a way to have arbitrary code executed on the client computer > with HTML and a buffer overflow happening in some M$ and Net$cape mail > clients. I believe that there are security fixes available. There's a patch for sendmail at: ftp://ftp.sendmail.org/pub/sendmail/sendmail.8.9.1a.patch.README (though this isn't sendmail's fault.) > >On a tangential note, I noticed a significant increase in my spam rate > >shortly after my recent postings to list-managers. I hope it's only a > >coincidence. > > I have started to receive spam to my list address that I only use for > mailing lists. I suspect that there is a "open" majordomo somewhere > out there. No idea where. This list's subscriber list is open. (to subscribers, anyway.) -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 22 23:41:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27950; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id WAA27942 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from MAINE.maine.edu (maine.maine.edu [130.111.39.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id GAA23899 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:06:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.umpi.maine.edu [130.111.208.87] by MAINE.maine.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 310) via TCP with SMTP ; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:08:36 EST Received: from POLARIS/SpoolDir by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.43); 21 Jan 99 09:10:13 EST Received: from SpoolDir by POLARIS (Mercury 1.43); 21 Jan 99 09:09:51 EST Received: from albert (130.111.208.84) by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.43); 21 Jan 99 09:09:49 EST From: "Anthony J. Albert" Organization: University of Maine at PI To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:09:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: <199901210900.BAA17632@honor.greatcircle.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <85A506F3F33@polaris.umpi.maine.edu> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:45:42 -0500 (EST) >From: murr rhame >Subject: Yet another virus alert > >I have a complaint which was forwarded to me by a list admin on my >server. One of his $ubscribers claims to have been infected by a >virus sent via a mailing list. Are there any email programs which >automatically decode and run attachments without human intervention? >... Sounds like something only a Micro$oft programmer would do. Is >there any way to get a virus via email without some significant >clueless efforts on the part of the recipient? > >On a tangential note, I noticed a significant increase in my spam rate >shortly after my recent postings to list-managers. I hope it's only a >coincidence. Indeed, it is possible, depending on the type of virus. Microsoft's Outlook does have a problem with some, specifically constructed email messages, and I seem to remember hearing about something of the sort - in which it would automatically decode and execute attached executable files. Other email clients which allow the launch of attached files (though perhaps not automatically) would also allow an infection to spread. This is the problem at my site; we have users who will get MS Word or MS Excel documents by email, and view them, and this will infect their computer with a macro virus. The other problem we see, near holidays, is that people will send our users executable programs (*.exe) which they will run, unknowing, and get a cute Christmas scene or such... and a virus. We try to educate our users, including (especially) publication of each incident in which someone gets burned by this... but it only marginally seems to help. :-/ Anthony J. Albert ============================================================== Anthony J. Albert albert@polaris.umpi.maine.edu Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle Attention: the next meeting of the Time Travellers' Society will be last Tuesday. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 07:15:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA08073; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA08060 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA06934 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA10735 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:54:55 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:54:55 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm familiar with nasty macros embedded in documents and spreadsheets. Sad to hear that someone has written a mail reader which will blindly execute programs, macros and such without human intervention. "Where do you want to go today?" ;-) - murr - From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 11:43:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11920; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA11910 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from enterprise.netgravity.com (enterprise.netgravity.com [209.117.136.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA21789 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from andromeda ([209.117.136.164]) by enterprise.netgravity.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with SMTP id AAA52B3 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:53:41 -0800 Message-Id: <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:39:03 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Brown Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: References: <199901220229.DAA02177@quill.thinkcoach.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal emails. In fact, some people from webtv.net have complained that they are off the list and want to kow why and I can't even respond to them. Is the a common practice? How do you deal with this? How can I respond to people's requests for info? Bob From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 12:11:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11937; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA11929 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id WAA27596; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:05:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901230605.WAA27596@honor.greatcircle.com> From: mcb@greatcircle.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:05:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <199901220229.DAA02177@quill.thinkcoach.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Cc: Norbert Bollow , postmaster Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Norbert Bollow writes: > > I have started to receive spam to my list address that I only use for > > mailing lists. I suspect that there is a "open" majordomo somewhere > > out there. No idea where. > > It's right here.. I've just verified experimentally that it is indeed > possible for anyone who knows how to use the EXPN SMTP command to > easily obtain all subscriber e-mail addresses for the lists at > GreatCircle.COM The open lists hosted at GreatCircle.COM (including List-Managers and the Majordomo-{Users,Workers} lists) have always been considered public and neither the contents nor the identities of the posters are considered confidential. The Majordomo "who" and "which" commands for these lists remain open, which I believe is still the default in the config file in the Majordomo distribution. (I.e., you don't need to be crafty with SMTP EXPN to see who's on the list.) (We do use subscribe-confirm and restrict postings to list members to prevent abuse and spam, of course.) Attempting to hide the e-mail addresses of contributors to the lists would be a very difficult burden, since not only would some useful features of Majordomo be disabled, we would also have to disable features of sendmail, and most importantly, it would require that the entire archives (including both those hosted here and those maintained and indexed by third parties) be redacted to remove author e-mail addresses. I don't think it's worth it. In the 6+ year history of List-Managers I believe this is the first time this issue has been brought up. -- Michael C. Berch Postmaster and List Manager, Great Circle Associates mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 14:13:33 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14010; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:57:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.190]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14003 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d152.dial-2.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.65.152]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id RAA32245; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:01:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990123220243.0069275c@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: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:02:43 -0500 To: Bob Brown From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:39 AM 1/22/99 -0800, Bob Brown wrote: >For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and >refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal >emails. In fact, some people from webtv.net have complained that they are >off the list and want to kow why and I can't even respond to them. > >Is the a common practice? How do you deal with this? How can I respond to >people's requests for info? Can't answer why they might have blocked your domain--it is their right to do so, of course, but probably an unwise decision (or buggy spam domain recognition). But you might at least be able to reply to any subzcribers who inquire, by using one of those free web-based accounts (yahoo, juno, hotmail, etc.). Maybe one of them can then carry the inquiry further within webtv.net (if any of them are sufficiently savvy). Also you should write postmaster@webtv.net... and if that bounces, try from a free account as well. Cheers, Stan From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 16:44:47 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA16352; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA16345 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:29:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (pem-31.swva.net [208.140.224.143]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA11618 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:33:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:33:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 22 Jan 99, at 9:39, Bob Brown wrote: > For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and > refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal > emails. Probably not your discussion group. They've probably decided not to accept email from 'pobox.com'. > Is the a common practice? Yes, in this vigilante-justice world, sysops can and do refuse email from various sources for almost any [and often no] reason. > .. How do you deal with this? As a rule you can't. A sysop doesn't have to accept email from anyone or any site they don't feel like. You can try to complain [e.g., by emailing to them from a different email address that can get through], but you'll always get the same answer: "we're getting spam from so we're refusing *all* mail from that site. That we may be blocking email from hundreds of thousands of people because of the [alleged] activities of a few isn't our problem" As as with the best of style of terrorists who're holding hostages, they'll be happy to tell you that your problem isn't with the sysop but with the spammers. [and if you point out that you've never sent any spam and it isn't the spammers that are blocking your email, you'll get a nasty tirade back..:o)] > .. How can I respond to > people's requests for info? You can't, by and large. Best you can try to do is find another [unblocked] email address and explain the situation. But even if *THEY* complain (and this time it'll be their own customers complaining to them) it won't do any good. The sysops will just reply "complain to the folks who run and tell them to clean up their act". /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 19:29:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA18461; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA18454 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA01128; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:10:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA23587; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:15:10 -0800 To: Bob Brown cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:39:03 -0800. <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:15:09 -0800 Message-ID: <23585.917147709@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost>, Bob Brown wrote: >For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and >refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal >emails. In fact, some people from webtv.net have complained that they are >off the list and want to kow why and I can't even respond to them. What do the bounce messages say, exactly? Have you even looked at them? Do they perhap point you at the home page of the MAPS RBL or some such thing? >Is the a common practice? How do you deal with this? How can I respond to >people's requests for info? Get a Hotmail account and send them whatever you need to send them from there. This isn't rocket science. You could also use any one of the many anonymous E-mail forwarding services on the net, and just sign your name to the mails (thus giving up the anonymity aspect of the forwarding). -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 20:00:30 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA18900; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA18893 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA01702 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA25114 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:59:08 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:33:21 -0500. <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:59:07 -0800 Message-ID: <25112.917150347@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net>, bernie@fantasyfarm.com wrote: >On 22 Jan 99, at 9:39, Bob Brown wrote: >> Is the a common practice? > >Yes, in this vigilante-justice world, sysops can and do refuse email from >various sources for almost any [and often no] reason. Ah... excuse me... Examples please? If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail from people for no reason, please present it. I realize that in the ``whimp-justice'' world, no spammer or spam source ever gets denied the ability to spam, and spam again, and again, and again, but out here in the real world, some of us _do_ know where the spam is coming from, _and_ which ISPs (and freebie mail serrvices) are supporting it and/or condoning it. >> .. How do you deal with this? > >As a rule you can't. A sysop doesn't have to accept email from anyone or >any site they don't feel like. You can try to complain [e.g., by >emailing to them from a different email address that can get through], >but you'll always get the same answer: > > "we're getting spam from so we're refusing *all* mail > from that site. That we may be blocking email from hundreds of > thousands of people because of the [alleged] activities of a few > isn't our problem" Would you care to back _that_ up with some actual evidence? Somehow I think that this interpretation is more a product of the man from Fantasy Farm's vivid imagination than it is an actual or clear reflection of what anyone has ever said about any spam blocking that might be in place anywhere. >As as with the best of style of terrorists who're holding hostages... Oh plueezzzzzz! We wouldn't by any chance be over-dramatizing just a tad now would we? Naw. You wouldn't do that! >they'll be happy to tell you that your problem isn't with the sysop but >with the spammers. [and if you point out that you've never sent any spam >and it isn't the spammers that are blocking your email, you'll get a >nasty tirade back..:o)] Please provide proof or retract. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 21:29:48 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA19936; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:13:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mg1.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA19918 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10629; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:17:20 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (root@166-93-38-102.rmi.net [166.93.38.102]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA21327; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:17:17 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (brent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA12058; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:01:41 -0700 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:01:40 -0700 (MST) From: Brent Sims X-Sender: brent@localhost.localdomain To: Bob Brown cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: <23585.917147709@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Robert, I could be wrong. Thats why I waited so long to say this but... I really doubt that pobox.com domain has been banned. Odds are that your setup is causing the problem. I've had this happen to me many times and each time I managed to get though by tweaking my setup. What I've learned can be summed up quite simply: Your machine either needs to be named localhost.localdomain or must use a fully qualified domain name. You can't do the me.pobox.com bs and expect it to work on the big, paranoid domains, even though it should work. Sendmail has to be setup correctly too. It needs to use a quailified domain name, and odds are the masquerade envelop thingy needs to be set too. Simply, spam filters look for signs of a machine which appears to be trying to present itself as some other machine. Thus, to get past them all one really needs to do is present themselves as who they really are. As simpilistic as that may sound, the policy has long worked for me. my 2 cents... Brent Sims -> ->In message <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost>, ->Bob Brown wrote: -> ->>For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and ->>refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal ->>emails. In fact, some people from webtv.net have complained that they are ->>off the list and want to kow why and I can't even respond to them. -> From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 22:14:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA20426; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA20419 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:54:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17682 ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:02:42 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <23585.917147709@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:39:03 -0800. <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:45:57 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , Bob Brown From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:15 PM -0800 1/23/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > This isn't rocket science. No, but one purpose of these lists is for those that DO have the experience to help those that don't YET have the experience, without being demeaning about it. Not everyone's been doing this for 20 years, Ronald. It's no reason to insult them. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 23 23:15:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA20953; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA20946 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA03643 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00476 for ; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:59:58 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:45:57 -0800. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:59:57 -0800 Message-ID: <474.917161197@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 7:15 PM -0800 1/23/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >> This isn't rocket science. > >No, but one purpose of these lists is for those that DO have the >experience to help those that don't YET have the experience, without >being demeaning about it. Not everyone's been doing this for 20 >years, Ronald. It's no reason to insult them. That wasn't an insult, just a statement of fact. You haven't even _seen_ me insult anybody, I don't think. Don't worry. You'll definitely know when I do. It won't be ambiguous at all. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 24 11:50:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01105; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA01097 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA15499; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA07520; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA15898; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:32:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:32:30 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: "Michael C. Berch" cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com, Norbert Bollow , postmaster@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: Concealed $ubscribers In-Reply-To: <199901230605.WAA27596@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, 22 Jan 1999, Michael C. Berch wrote: > Attempting to hide the e-mail addresses of contributors to the > lists would be a very difficult burden, since not only would some > useful features of Majordomo be disabled, we would also have to > disable features of sendmail, and most importantly, it would require > that the entire archives (including both those hosted here and those > maintained and indexed by third parties) be redacted to remove author > e-mail addresses. I don't think it's worth it. I'm surprised to hear that this server has open $ubscriber lists. It is true that concealing the identities of those who post would be difficult... at least impractical with most mailing list software packages. When I make a post to a public mailing list, I accept the risk that my return address may be harvested by a spammer. If a spammer takes the time to $ubscribe or sift through the archives, there is not much I can do about it. On the other hand, most mailing lists have many more lurkers than active participants. As a courtesy to those who choose not to make a public post, I set up all mailing lists to conceal the $ubscriber list as a default. The admins are at liberty to change to an open $ubscriber list if they choose to do so. I have seen many inquiries sent to my sever asking for all $ubscriber data on all public lists. While I know I can't stop address harvesting all together, I'm not going to hand them thousands of valid email addresses on a silver plater. I would never leave all of my lists open to such inquires as the default set up. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 24 12:04:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01328; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01321 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17682 ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:50:42 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <474.917161197@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Sat, 23 Jan 1999 21:45:57 -0800. Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:41:24 -0800 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:59 PM -0800 1/23/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > That wasn't an insult, just a statement of fact. Oh. Silly me. > You haven't even _seen_ me insult anybody, I don't think. Oh, yes I have. Whether you recognized it as such, I can't guess. > Don't worry. You'll definitely know when I do. It won't be ambiguous > at all. ambiguous isn't one of your faults. I'll give you that. Are you going into another cycle of your ranting on this list? If so, I'll just go away until you're done and save us both the irritation. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 24 12:49:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01822; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:31:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA01815 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14929 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01710 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:40:46 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:41:24 -0800. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:40:45 -0800 Message-ID: <1708.917210445@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Are you going into another cycle of your ranting on this list? If so, >I'll just go away until you're done and save us both the irritation. I dunno. Are _you_ going to go through another cycle of gratuitous personal insults? If so, please _do_ go away. (It would be nice if you stayed away too until you learned the difference between on-topic and off-topic for mailing lists. Hint: Your personal animosity towards me is not particularly on-topic for this list.) -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 24 16:05:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA04481; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04474 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA29822 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27399 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:48:55 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:48:54 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Concealed $ubscribers - Use Anonymity! In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990124152504.00d22100@mail.io.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Ballew Kinnaman wrote: > While I do have access to the "$ubscriber list" turned off on all > my lists, I must disagree with this part of MURR's statement: > > >is true that concealing the identities of those who post would be > >difficult... at least impractical with most mailing list software > >packages. If you have the resources to modify your software for anonymity and have a good reason to do so, go for it. All I said was that this is impractical with most software packages. Implied was "standard" mailing list software packages. If you roll your own software or use a high-end software package like Lyris (others?), no problem. - murr- From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 24 19:28:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA07382; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from boofura.swcp.com (boofura.swcp.com [198.59.115.28]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA07375 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by boofura.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id UAA10840 for list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:17:24 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:17:24 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Message-ID: <19990124201723.A10573@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com References: <199901220229.DAA02177@quill.thinkcoach.com> <199901230605.WAA27596@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <199901230605.WAA27596@honor.greatcircle.com>; from Michael C. Berch on Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:05:56PM +0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:05:56PM +0000, Michael C. Berch wrote: > The open lists hosted at GreatCircle.COM (including List-Managers and the > Majordomo-{Users,Workers} lists) have always been considered public > and neither the contents nor the identities of the posters are > considered confidential. The Majordomo "who" and "which" commands > for these lists remain open, which I believe is still the default > in the config file in the Majordomo distribution. It may be the default in the 1.94.4 distribution but that doesn't mean it's the correct setting *now*, sixteen months after that distribution was released. Spammer harvesting of mailing lists is a bigger problem now than ever; I would like to strongly suggest that the lists on greatcircle.com be properly secured against this particular form of abuse. I get enough junk mail as it is. > (We do use subscribe-confirm and restrict postings to list members to > prevent abuse and spam, of course.) Well then, why don't you close off "who" access as well? It's as big a potential source of problems as nonmember posting -- more so, in fact, because you can always turn off nonmember posting if a list becomes a target that way, but once the spammers get the addresses of all the subscribers to a list, there's no way to close the gate anymore. > Attempting to hide the e-mail addresses of contributors to the > lists would be a very difficult burden, since not only would some > useful features of Majordomo be disabled, we would also have to > disable features of sendmail, and most importantly, it would require > that the entire archives (including both those hosted here and those > maintained and indexed by third parties) be redacted to remove author > e-mail addresses. I don't think it's worth it. Because could always break into your house through a window, you don't want to lock the front door? -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com this message powered by sparks - plagiarism -- From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 02:08:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA13411; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:45:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from beat.kiss.fi (beat.kiss.fi [193.65.198.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA13398 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by beat.kiss.fi (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15771 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:50:04 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: beat.kiss.fi: tuupola owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:50:03 +0200 (EET) From: Mika Tuupola To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: Correct setup In-Reply-To: <19990124201723.A10573@swcp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Lazlo Nibble wrote: > It may be the default in the 1.94.4 distribution but that doesn't > mean it's the correct setting *now*, sixteen months after that "Correct"? Like mentioned in RFC or something? There is not such thing as correct setupt. Everyone configures their software to suit their own taste and needs. -- Mika Tuupola tuupola@appelsiini.net Appelsiini Networks http://www.appelsiini.net/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 05:46:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA17873; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:20:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA17858 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:20:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA21659; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA03545; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:24:48 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:24:48 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Mika Tuupola cc: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Correct setup 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 Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Mika Tuupola wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Lazlo Nibble wrote: > > > It may be the default in the 1.94.4 distribution but that doesn't > > mean it's the correct setting *now*, sixteen months after that > > "Correct"? Like mentioned in RFC or something? There is not such > thing as correct setupt. Everyone configures their software to > suit their own taste and needs. There is no RFC or similar rule for concealing $ubscriber lists. On the other hand, leaving all of your $ubscriber lists open to public query effectively aids and promotes spam. I know that spammers have many other techniques for collecting addresses. I'll be damned if I'm going to politely hand over every $ubscriber address, server wide. Individual mailing lists may choose to have open $ubscriber data if they wish. Open $ubscriber info is not uncommon for small private lists. In my humble opinion, setting up an entire list server for open $ubscriber list inquiries is foolhardy at best. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 11:48:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA23413; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk (mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk [193.61.22.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA23404 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from psychology.bbk.ac.uk by mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <06442-0@mail1.ccs.bbk.ac.uk>; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:35:21 +0000 From: Pete Watts To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Subject: List focus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:33:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.3 Build (39) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi All Is this list only for majordomo mangers? I asked a question abt listserv and got only a "I dont know" answer. If this list isnt for listserv owners, I dont need it. (I have enough flame wars on my own list to be going on with). Pete ---------------------- "Never name the well from which you will not drink." - Marion Zimmer Bradley PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST: http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 13:34:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA24741; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from enterprise.netgravity.com (enterprise.netgravity.com [209.117.136.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA24728 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from andromeda ([209.117.136.164]) by enterprise.netgravity.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with SMTP id AAA19DD for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:11:25 -0800 Message-Id: <4.1.19990125125937.013512b0@mailhost> X-Sender: bbrown@mailhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:01:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Bob Brown" Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: References: <23585.917147709@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I didn't keep the returned mail but running mailq on the box shows something like this: mailq Mail Queue (1 request) --Q-ID-- --Size-- -----Q-Time----- ------------Sender/Recipient------------ UAA15355 118 Thu Jan 21 20:21 (Deferred: 443 Blocked for spam - see http://www.webtv.net/an) At 10:01 PM 1/23/99 -0700, Brent Sims wrote: >Robert, > > I could be wrong. Thats why I waited so long to say this but... > > I really doubt that pobox.com domain has been banned. Odds are >that your setup is causing the problem. I've had this happen to me many >times and each time I managed to get though by tweaking my setup. > > What I've learned can be summed up quite simply: > > Your machine either needs to be named localhost.localdomain or >must use a fully qualified domain name. You can't do the me.pobox.com bs >and expect it to work on the big, paranoid domains, even though it should >work. > > Sendmail has to be setup correctly too. It needs to use a >quailified domain name, and odds are the masquerade envelop thingy needs >to be set too. > > Simply, spam filters look for signs of a machine which appears to >be trying to present itself as some other machine. Thus, to get past them >all one really needs to do is present themselves as who they really are. >As simpilistic as that may sound, the policy has long worked for me. > > my 2 cents... > > Brent Sims > >-> >->In message <4.1.19990122093547.01d58840@mailhost>, >->Bob Brown wrote: >-> >->>For some reason, webtv.net has decided that my discussion group is spam and >->>refuses all email from my domain --- both majordomo and my own personal >->>emails. In fact, some people from webtv.net have complained that they are >->>off the list and want to kow why and I can't even respond to them. >-> From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 23:31:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA01408; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA01401 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) id XAA11906; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:16:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901260716.XAA11906@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:16:36 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List focus Cc: Pete Watts Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Pete Watts writes: > Is this list only for majordomo mangers? I asked a question abt listserv > and got only a "I dont know" answer. If this list isnt for listserv owners, > I dont need it. (I have enough flame wars on my own list to be going on > with). This is neither a list for Majordomo nor Listserv managers (nor any other list management package), but a forum to discuss the type of issues (policy, platforms, technology, tips and techniques, legal issues, etc.) that are common to most or all Internet lists. A list specific to Majordomo issues is also hosted at GreatCircle.COM; send a message to majordomo-users-request@greatcircle.com for more information. There are a number of lists for LISTSERV managers hosted at lsoft.com; for a list, go to http://www.lsoft.com/catalist.html and select the link for "Mailing lists of interest to list owners" near the bottom of the page. -- Michael C. Berch List-Managers list manager mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 25 23:46:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA01799; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.telephonet.com (ns.telephonet.com [207.252.88.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA01791 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.252.88.49] (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by ns.telephonet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA25913; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:27:48 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:30:05 -0500 To: Pete Watts , list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: List focus Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 14:33 -0500 01/25/99, Pete Watts sent everyone: >Hi All > >Is this list only for majordomo mangers? I asked a question abt listserv >and got only a "I dont know" answer. If this list isnt for listserv owners, >I dont need it. (I have enough flame wars on my own list to be going on >with). The list is supposed to be independent of any particular MLM platform; however, the reality is that it is hosted by the nice folks at GreatCircle, which just sorta draws a healthy Majordomo crowd. Stick around, though; they are a great bunch and you'll learn a lot. And if you're concerned that no one seems to be answering your questions, just post a short description of why you are for or against Reply-To munging ... On a slightly more serious note, it is important to recognize that the list-managers' list charter is for discussion that is independent of any particular MLM platform. Questions that are specific to a particular platform -- e.g., "What's this "sizelim" thingy for?" -- should be addressed to the mailing list for that platform, usually hosted by the developer. In the case of LISTSERV(tm), you should refer your questions to LSTOWN-L: To: LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Body: subscribe LSTOWN-L Pete Watts LSTOWN-L is a great list with a lot of very experienced, very helpful, and very patient LISTSERV users. Enjoy ... - Vince From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 00:01:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA01743; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA01735 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:25:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from deliverator.io.com (deliverator.io.com [199.170.88.17]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04268; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.io.com (IDENT:root@mx2.io.com [199.170.88.18]) by deliverator.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28035; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:29:54 -0600 Received: from ponlysrv (as1-dialup-08.io.com [206.224.82.8]) by mx2.io.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA01673; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:34:19 -0600 Message-Id: <4.1.19990124152504.00d22100@mail.io.com> Message-Id: <4.1.19990124152504.00d22100@mail.io.com> X-Sender: kinnaman@mail.io.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:29:45 -0600 To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com From: Ballew Kinnaman Subject: Re: Concealed $ubscribers - Use Anonymity! Cc: Norbert Bollow , postmaster@honor.greatcircle.com, murr rhame , Allergy@Immune.Com In-Reply-To: References: <199901230605.WAA27596@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear List Manager Folks, While I do have access to the "$ubscriber list" turned off on all my lists, I must disagree with this part of MURR's statement: >is true that concealing the identities of those who post would be >difficult... at least impractical with most mailing list software >packages. I manage health/medical-related mailing lists. PRIVACY is quite important for people to speak freely about these most intimate details. There are serious health, insurance and financial risks, not to mention embarrassment, if individual's reveal facts about themselves. So, for four years now, I've been welcoming and encouraging ANONYMOUS, on-topic posts. When I review an anonymous message, I'm merely looking for SPAM, lapse of rules for that list, or encroachment of non-charter material. When an anonymous message conforms to the charter and is on-topic, it is distributed promptly and indexed in the archives. I find no impracticality in this procedure, and on my most "private" list I have a link to one anonymous e-mail site to ease members into using anonymity to conceal their identity, even as active, posting members of the list. The Welcome message asks members to choose a pseudonym identity and to sign each anonymous message. Pax, Ballew Kinnaman 512/442-8963 Discussion list owner: Allergy - Arthritis - PCHealth - Rubber - Thyroid Allergy LISTSERV list ---> http://www.Immune.Com/allergy From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 02:02:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA04174; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:49:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA04156 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate4-0.cyberlink.ch [195.246.74.100]) by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24874; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:53:32 +0100 Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01499; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:34:23 +0100 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:34:23 +0100 Message-Id: <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: moderators@surrogacy.org Subject: How do AOL's spam filters work? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello, does anyone know how AOL's spam filters work? (Could it be that in some circumstances perfectly legitimate messages might be silently discarded, with no non-delivery notification or anything?) The reason why I'm asking is that a number of AOL subscribers to mailing lists at surrogacy.org have problems with receiving list traffic. The maillog indicates that the messages are accepted for delivery by AOL's servers, but the people tell us they're not getting them. There are no non-delivery notifications. -- Norbert. From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 02:31:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA04581; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA04574 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:11:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [195.40.150.140] (ivan.netnames.co.uk [195.40.150.140]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA10604; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:13:06 GMT X-Sender: ivan@human.netnames.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <25112.917150347@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:33:21 -0500. <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:18:17 +0100 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>Yes, in this vigilante-justice world, sysops can and do refuse email from >>various sources for almost any [and often no] reason. > >Ah... excuse me... Examples please? > >If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail >from people for no reason, please present it. > >I realize that in the ``whimp-justice'' world, no spammer or spam source >ever gets denied the ability to spam, and spam again, and again, and again, >but out here in the real world, some of us _do_ know where the spam is >coming from, _and_ which ISPs (and freebie mail serrvices) are supporting >it and/or condoning it. We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the supplier into the US for our ISP. What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ address on a piece of spam. Note, they didn't use our mail servers to send or receive any mail - they placed an email address in the return field. This had the effect of cutting of thousands of clients from effective access to the Web. In essence, the story was: you agree to our definition of acceptable behaviour in the world or we will destroy your business. I felt we had no choice but to accept. However, I generally find fundamentalism of any stripe to be unpleasant, and I don't see that I should be forced to accept the arbitary standards of any private individual. Of course, you will say that any ISP is entitled to impose any rules it wants - and in the main you would be right. But, these rules are arbitary and we are now adhereing to them out of fear rather than belief. Ivan Pope Founder & CEO, NetNames International Ivan Pope ivan@netnames.com NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY http://www.netnames.com UK Freephone 0800 269049 180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK +44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax It's not about building a better mousetrap, it's about redefining the mouse. From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 07:11:35 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA09990; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:56:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA09983 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (Uucp1.mcs.net [192.160.127.93]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA05881; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:00:41 -0600 (CST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13085; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:00:40 -0600 (CST) Received: (from david@localhost) by midrange.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA01421; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:35:41 -0600 From: David Gibbs Message-Id: <199901261435.IAA01421@midrange.com> Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? To: nb@thinkcoach.com (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:35:41 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, moderators@surrogacy.org In-Reply-To: <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com> from "Norbert Bollow" at Jan 26, 99 11:34:23 am 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 > does anyone know how AOL's spam filters work? They don't. From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 11:51:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA14363; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:24:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14356 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05838; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05711; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:34:42 -0800 To: Norbert Bollow cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:34:23 +0100. <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:34:41 -0800 Message-ID: <5709.917379281@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com>, Norbert Bollow wrote: > does anyone know how AOL's spam filters work? (Could it be that >in some circumstances perfectly legitimate messages might be silently >discarded, with no non-delivery notification or anything?) Yes, it could be the case. No, I am _not_ just saying that that this is a mere theoretical possibility. Sorry, but I am not at liberty to say anything more than what I have just said about this. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 12:55:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA15237; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:39:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA15230 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate4-25.cyberlink.ch [195.246.74.125]) by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28671; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:43:51 +0100 Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA04645; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:45:03 +0100 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:45:03 +0100 Message-Id: <199901262145.WAA04645@quill.thinkcoach.com> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moderators@surrogacy.org In-reply-to: <199901261858.MAA11748@mail.xnet.com> (message from Adam Bailey on Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:58:09 -0600) Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? References: <199901261858.MAA11748@mail.xnet.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Adam Bailey wrote: > If the headers have even minor problems, they will be relegated to > /dev/null without warning. If that is true, it makes AOL one of the worst e-mail providers in the world, since it puts them in the class "intentionally unreliable". I'm not against spam filtering, but first accepting a message for delivery and then discarding it without warning is outright evil. It's also a violation of a clear MUST NOT in RFC1123: 5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility seriously, i.e., it MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, e.g., because the host later crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage. If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message. > * Mail servers in the Received headers which do not respond to > reverse DNS lookups properly. What happens in case of a timeout during the reverse DNS lookup? -- Norbert. From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 26 15:26:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA17048; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcmail2.liv.ac.uk (pcmail2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.252.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA17041 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [138.253.134.30] (helo=ts134030.dial.liv.ac.uk) by pcmail2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 105HS9-0003Zr-00; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:59:25 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:58:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Thew To: Norbert Bollow cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? In-Reply-To: <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com> Message-ID: Organization: The University of Liverpool X-X-Sender: qq11@pop1.liv.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One of the lists I run has all mail rejected now and again for no apparent reason by AOL... looks like server overload from here. -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442 On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hello, > does anyone know how AOL's spam filters work? (Could it be that > in some circumstances perfectly legitimate messages might be silently > discarded, with no non-delivery notification or anything?) > > The reason why I'm asking is that a number of AOL subscribers to mailing > lists at surrogacy.org have problems with receiving list traffic. The > maillog indicates that the messages are accepted for delivery by AOL's > servers, but the people tell us they're not getting them. There are no > non-delivery notifications. > > -- Norbert. > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 00:18:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA24115; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA24108 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA34308 ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:21:34 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199901261034.LAA01499@quill.thinkcoach.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:59:36 -0800 To: Alan Thew , Norbert Bollow From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:58 PM +0000 1/26/99, Alan Thew wrote: > One of the lists I run has all mail rejected now and again for no apparent > reason by AOL... looks like server overload from here. And I run mailing lists where 30% of my subscribers are AOL, and run to multiple hundreds of thousands of subscribers total, and I have no troubel with AOL at all. Go figure. I find AOL quite stable and reliable, a lot more so than a dozen services or ISPs I could name (my bleah list starts with usa.net, FWIW. By a mile) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 01:32:15 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA25351; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id AAA25344 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1410 invoked from network); 27 Jan 1999 08:55:55 -0000 Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (206.109.2.48) by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 1999 08:55:55 -0000 Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA23723 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:55:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from arielle) From: Stephanie da Silva Message-Id: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Egroups To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:55:52 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Is egroups encouraging their listowners to spam? Their FAQ on promoting lists says this: Promoting Your E-Mail Group Here are our top tips on how to increase membership in your e-mail group: [...] Post to Newsgroups. Invite subscriptions, when appropriate, in Usenet groups or e-mail lists. Be careful! Invitations can be considered spam if not "on topic" or without respect to the policies of each group. You can also invite individual posters based on their specific message topics. > From teletubbies-merchandise-return-inv-arielle=taronga.com@egroups.com Tue Jan 26 19:52:27 1999 > Date: 27 Jan 1999 01:51:57 -0000 > Message-ID: <19990127015157.30590.qmail@findmail.com> > Mailing-List: contact teletubbies-merchandise-owner@egroups.com; run by eGroups.com > Precedence: list > From: "eGroups User" > Subject: Please join teletubbies-merchandise@egroups.com > Reply-To: teletubbies-merchandise-req-s1f643@egroups.com > To: arielle@taronga.com > > This is the eGroups.com service. > > The moderator of the teletubbies-merchandise@egroups.com group would like to > invite you to join the group. To join, YOU MUST REPLY to this > message. > > If you join, you can read group messages in your e-mail in-box or on > the Web. [...] > To accept this invitation, please use the "Reply" function of your > e-mail program and send back a blank message. > > Or you can accept by going to this Web location: > > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe?list=teletubbies-merchandise&vcode=1f643 > > If you do not wish to join, please just ignore this invitation. > > If you have questions, please feel free to contact the moderator of > this group at sales@character-warehouse.com or visit > > http://www.egroups.com/info/help.html > > Thanks! > > The eGroups.com Team > --- > FREE Web-based e-mail groups! > http://www.egroups.com > > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 02:01:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA26602; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:24:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA26589; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 01:24:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (daemon@localhost) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.8.8/Main-STAT-mailer) id KAA15717; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:28:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from vaden(129.132.146.136), claiming to be "vaden.math.ethz.ch" via SMTP by frege, id smtpdAAAa003pZ; Wed Jan 27 10:28:22 1999 Received: (bollow@localhost) by vaden.math.ethz.ch (8.6.12/D-MATH-client) id KAA28313; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:29:02 +0100 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:29:02 +0100 Message-Id: <199901270929.KAA28313@vaden.math.ethz.ch> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: postmaster@aol.net Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moderators@surrogacy.org, majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com Reply-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, moderators@surrogacy.org, majordomo-workers@greatcircle.com Subject: Open letter to AOL Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Greetings I have written to you recently about a number of messages of perfectly legitimate mailing list traffic which were accepted for delivery by AOL's mailservers, but which were never delivered (and there were no non-delivery notifications either). Since this affects lists which are support groups and the lifeline for many people, quite a few of them have written to us in concern about the missing messages. In the meantime I have heard from other list-managers who say that in order to reduce the amount of UBE, AOL has a policy of relegating to /dev/null _without_warning_ all messages which satisfy certain criteria. I find this policy completely unacceptable, and a clear violation of section 5.3.3 in RFC1123. I'm not against spam filtering, but I would propose that there must be a way in which legitimate mailing list servers can be authenticated and then be allowed to bypass your spam filters. What is your position concerning this? Yours sincerely, Norbert Bollow -- Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: NB@POBOX.COM From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 06:05:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA01933; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from msa.attmil.ne.jp (ns.misawa.attmil.ne.jp [165.76.26.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA01915 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from msw0.attnet.or.jp (12.gate0.misawa.attmil.ne.jp [165.76.26.43]) by msa.attmil.ne.jp (8.8.8+Spin/3.6Wbeta7-CONS(12/07/98)) id WAA07775; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:31:42 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:30:37 +0900 From: Leif Gregory X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.19) S/N 90798968 Reply-To: Leif Gregory Organization: VBOK X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <5937.990127@biogate.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Prices for advertising. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello fellow List-managers, I publish the VBOK e-zine on a monthly basis to a little over 1100 subscribers. I've decided to allow advertisements in my newsletter, but I really have no idea on what to charge. Publication frequency: Monthly Subscriber base: 1100+ The e-mail version is plaintext, but I also convert it to an HTML version which gets placed on the VBOK web site permanently. 1. How much should I charge for text advertisements somewhere towards the middle of the newsletter? 2. How much should I charge for text advertisements at the top of the newsletter? 3. How much should I charge for HTML banner advertisements somewhere towards the middle of the newsletter? (remember that these are *permanently* placed on the website.) 4. How much should I charge for HTML banner advertisements at the top of the newsletter? (remember that these are *permanently* placed on the website.) 5. How much should I charge extra for sole sponsorship (they are the only advertisements in the newsletter)? I have four offers for advertisements, but I just don't know how much to charge. Thanks for the help. A Jury: 12 people who decide who has the best lawyer ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- | Leif Gregory | Virtual Book Of Knowledge web site | | Editor, VBOK newsletter | | | Moderator, TBUDL | ICQ UIN: 216395 | ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- | VBOK is a free newsletter for newbies and the advanced user with | | articles, web site/software reviews, security, news and much more! | -------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 08:01:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA03489; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:32:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sagarmatha.com (chomolongma.sagarmatha.com [209.110.136.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA03482 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:32:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from james@localhost) by sagarmatha.com (8.8.8/8.8.8.special) id HAA25683 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:35:49 -0800 From: "James C. Armstrong" Message-Id: <199901271535.HAA25683@sagarmatha.com> Subject: Lucent is dead? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:35:48 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: james@sagarmatha.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Has anyone else seen an increase in bounces from lucent.com? I have several subscribers on lists from different hosts, and they've all been bouncing with "connection refused" messages. Is this a lucent problem, or are they just blocking me? -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | "The spin the NBA people want you to james@sagarmatha.com | believe is that the NBA will go on. Of -----------------------------| course it will. Like that horrible Celine Dion song from 'Titanic'" - Tony Kornheiser, Washington Post, on the NBA lockout and Michael Jordan's retirement. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 08:18:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA03223; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub2.liv.ac.uk (mailhub2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.95]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA03216 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from news2.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.112]) by mailhub2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 105WcF-0005fl-00; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:10:51 +0000 Received: (from qq11@localhost) by news2.liv.ac.uk (8.8.7/ajt5) id PAA20956; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:10:40 GMT Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:10:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Thew X-Sender: qq11@news2.liv.ac.uk To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I assume that you are suggesting that it's `my fault' ... AOL says: ... while talking to air-zd01.mail.aol.com.: >>> DATA <<< 554 TRANSACTION FAILED Other net sites have no problem.... -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442 On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 10:58 PM +0000 1/26/99, Alan Thew wrote: >> One of the lists I run has all mail rejected now and again for no apparent >> reason by AOL... looks like server overload from here. > >And I run mailing lists where 30% of my subscribers are AOL, and run >to multiple hundreds of thousands of subscribers total, and I have no >troubel with AOL at all. Go figure. I find AOL quite stable and >reliable, a lot more so than a dozen services or ISPs I could name >(my bleah list starts with usa.net, FWIW. By a mile) > >-- >Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) >Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) >Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) > + > >Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 09:02:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA04439; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA04432 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAB25620 ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:50:40 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:40:26 -0800 To: Alan Thew , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:10 PM +0000 1/27/99, Alan Thew wrote: > I assume that you are suggesting that it's `my fault' ... Nope. Only pointing out that I'm not having any problems, and I'm a high-volume deliverer to AOL. But, IMHO, if problems to AOL were fairly generic, there'd be lots of complaints to the list managers lists about them, because it IS a place where lots of subscriptions come from. More likely, it's that you're in the UK, and either dealing with european networks or European SMTP machines. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 11:22:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06187; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06180 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:27:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (Uucp1.mcs.net [192.160.127.93]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id MAA16997; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:32:25 -0600 (CST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA00409; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:32:24 -0600 (CST) Received: (from david@localhost) by midrange.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA11666; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:26:38 -0600 From: David Gibbs Message-Id: <199901271826.MAA11666@midrange.com> Subject: Re: Egroups To: arielle@Taronga.COM (Stephanie da Silva) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:26:38 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Stephanie da Silva" at Jan 27, 99 02:55:52 am 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 Oh, don't get me started on eGroups... I was involuntarily added to three seperate mailing lists there. When I asked to be removed from the lists, they removed me from ALL lists they host... including the one that I wanted to be on. > > Is egroups encouraging their listowners to spam? > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 11:31:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA05424; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cfw.com (milo.cfw.com [216.12.0.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA05414 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:35:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23735 invoked from network); 27 Jan 1999 17:36:47 -0000 Received: from c1s1m33.cfw.com (HELO cfw.com) (216.12.49.34) by milo.cfw.com with SMTP; 27 Jan 1999 17:36:47 -0000 Message-ID: <36AF4F88.8D166026@cfw.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:40:24 -0500 From: Beth Anderson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Egroups References: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Stephanie, I think you are right about e-groups. I have a person who recently started using their services to begin her own mailing list - in competition for my own..... she obtained a 'who' list from majordomo from my list -- at the time 'who' was open because I had decided to give up ownership and was selling my list, and she used my address list to obtain more members for hers..... she doesn't think she was spamming, but she was........ I've now taken my list back, and fixed my config the way it was before when I managed it, and that is to close my who list's availability. Too little too late, since she's already gotten the list - but I am very sure she spammed folks with her invite to her e-group.... FWIW Beth -- Don't forget to visit http://www.bfpwww.com/rvs for RVS fan pics, rvsfans talkcity chat room, and instructions for the rvsfans mailing list. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 11:48:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06076; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:20:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06025; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:19:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom18.netcom.com [192.100.81.131]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA10123; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:24:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990127095241.009e8880@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:52:41 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM From: SRE Subject: Re: Open letter to AOL In-Reply-To: <199901270929.KAA28313@vaden.math.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:29 AM 1/27/99 +0100, Norbert Bollow wrote: >In the meantime I have heard from other list-managers who say that in >order to reduce the amount of UBE, AOL has a policy of relegating to >/dev/null _without_warning_ all messages which satisfy certain criteria. >I find this policy completely unacceptable, and a clear violation of >section 5.3.3 in RFC1123. I have confirmation from an AOL user that they did filter in the past. Don't know if they are doing it now: > About a year ago AOL did stop newsgroup posts (at least for our majordomo >list) with their SPAM filter but when everybody screamed the problem went >away. Detection was by the owner (not me) who recieved bounces from all the >AOL accounts. > It is possible that the filter has been changed since in my personal >experience, in all cases, I was attempting to post the same message to [snip] > I will ask AOL if the filter has been changed. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 12:02:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA06952; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:22:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub2.liv.ac.uk (mailhub2.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.95]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA06939 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from news2.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.100.112]) by mailhub2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for list-managers@greatcircle.com id 105acK-0001rX-00; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:27:12 +0000 Received: (from qq11@localhost) by news2.liv.ac.uk (8.8.7/ajt5) id TAA25977; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:27:12 GMT Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:27:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Alan Thew X-Sender: qq11@news2.liv.ac.uk To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ignore me, AOL's fine(ish). It wasn't our server but AOL appear to barf on broken MIME headers.... -- Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442 On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Paul Haas wrote: >I've had second hand experience with one of the AOL spam filters. I don't >want to publish "how to avoid AOL spam filters" to list-managers list, >unless its a filter that would tend to affect many legit lists. I imagine >that Alan hit some other filter rule. > >As Chuq pointed out, if the AOL filters hit many lists, we would have >heard about it. > >On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >> At 3:10 PM +0000 1/27/99, Alan Thew wrote: >> > I assume that you are suggesting that it's `my fault' ... > >> Nope. Only pointing out that I'm not having any problems, and I'm a >> high-volume deliverer to AOL. > >> But, IMHO, if problems to AOL were fairly generic, there'd be lots of >> complaints to the list managers lists about them, because it IS a >> place where lots of subscriptions come from. > >A friend ran into an AOL email eating problem. An AOL Postmaster >eventually described the rule that caused the problem. He sent his >newsletter to many recipients with the To: line pointing back to himself. >So From:, From and To: were all the same address. All the AOL recipients >were Bcc:'d. Addressing the email to someone else fixed the problem. > >I personally have had no problems, he just cc:'d me on some of the stuff >tracking the problem down. He was not using any sort of formal mailing >list package. I guess he accidentally ended up using a scheme similar to >what many spammers use. Looking at the spam in my inbox, I did see some >SPAM that would have been eliminated and no legit messages. > > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 12:17:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA07078; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA07071 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04544 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA22302 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:37:02 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:18:17 +0100. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:37:01 -0800 Message-ID: <22300.917465821@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Ivan Pope wrote: >We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from >our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a >reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the >supplier into the US for our ISP. >What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ >address on a piece of spam. I was rather suspicious of Ivan Pope's claims of total innocence in this case, so I did some research on his case. Specifically, I _asked_ him to tell me THE REST OF THE STORY. One thing needs to be clarified here... Neither Paul Vixie nor the other people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were sent. That just does not happen. If it did, Hotmail and *all* of the other free E-mail services would be *permanently* in the MAPS RBL... but if you check, you will find that NONE OF THEM ARE. So this part of Mr. Pope's interpretation, at least, clearly does not ring true. Nor do the MAPS RBL folks EVER put anyone onto the RBL without trying, re- peatedly if necessary, to contact them and to try to get them to correct whatever the problem is on their end. It is only when an ISP absolutely REFUSES to continue to communicate with the MAPS RBL team that the ISP may get RBL'd. (The MAPS RBL project is well know for its conservatism and it careful RELUCTANCE to place people on their list willy-nilly or without giving the party in question an ample chance to respond.) The truth, in the case of Netnames.Com, seems to be that Mr. Pope was, either knowingly or unknowingly, hosting one or more so-called ``spammer drop box'' E-mail accounts, and he was (apparently) refusing to take any action to prevent the relevant spammer from making an illicit profit via that E-mail drop-box, which was hosted by Netnames. (His correspondance to me made it altogether clear that (a) he and his company did not delete this account until AFTER they have been RBL'd and that (b) he and his company were, apparently, making a profit, indirectly, from the spammer and his/her spamming in this case, specifically via the fees that they were charging the spammer for hosting the relevant drop-box account. Unlike Hotmail, Yahoomail, and the many other such free E-mail services now available on the net, it appears that spammer drop-boxes on hosted by Netnames are _not_ free of charge. I infer this from the fact that Mr. Pope's letter to me clearly indicated that Netnames decided NOT to give the spammer ``a refund'' once they finally did take action to delete the relevant E-mail drop-box account.) The use of drop-box E-mail accounts by spammers is, by this time, a pretty well-known and well-established technique, as is the practice of spamming from one ISP while maintaining a spammed-for web site on a different ISP. The idea in either case is to use the actual spam-sending ISP account as a sort of ``throw away'' sacraficial lamb. The spammer usually pays little or nothing for these ``throw away'' accounts, and doesn't even care if they get canceled (by the relevant ISP) the next day, so long as their ``permanent'' Reply-To drop-box accounts or their spammed-for web site account (where they are _actually_ making their ill-gotten gains) remain intact and undisturbed on some _other_ ISP's network. This spammer ``dodge the bullet'' game has been going on for quite some time now, and few people who are actually in the Internet services business are still unaware of it. Certainly Hotmail, Bigfoot, and other suppliers of various type of E-mail services are _not_ unaware of it. Mr. Pope _may_ have been unaware of it, but it now seems quite clear that the MAPS RBL folks tried to explain it to him, and that he reached the conclusion that it was not in the best interests of his own bottom line to either listen or to care. In short, Mr. Pope doth protest too much. It now appears that his state- ment that ``Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ address on a piece of spam'' may not in fact have conveyed a complete picture of what really happened. When I asked him about this incident, he provided me with *no* evidence that would even vaguely suggest that the spammer in this case was anyone other than the very same customer of his who was, apparently, paying him for the Reply-To drop-box in question. Nor did he even hint that he himself had any particular reason to believe that this was, in reality, a frame-up job against his customer. He did however express his clear displeasure at having been called to task, and/or in some way held accountable for his actions (or lack thereof). And this seems to be consistant with his other statements, which make it clear that he really would prefer to play a game of semantics when it comes to the spamming issue and, like the spammers themselves, he wouldn't mind at all employing the old shell game if that means that he too could ``dodge the bullet'' and continue to enjoy his own share of the ill-gotten gains gene- rated by spamming. I quote: >In essence, the story was: you agree to our definition of acceptable >behaviour in the world or we will destroy your business. (Mr. Pope, it seems, would much prefer it if the world used _his_ narrow definition of spamming... a definition which DOES NOT recognize the obvious fact that spammers are using E-mail drop-boxes and ``throw away'' accounts on other providers as a sort-of shell game to preserve their ability to make their ill-gotten profits while ernestly claiming ``Yes, but I didn't spam FROM HERE!'') >I felt we had no choice but to accept. However, I generally find >fundamentalism of any stripe to be unpleasant, and I don't see that I >should be forced to accept the arbitary standards of any private individual. Translation: I'm not happy that there is someone out there who is going to act to prevent _me_ from getting _my_ piece of the spamming pie too. >Of course, you will say that any ISP is entitled to impose any rules it >wants - and in the main you would be right. But, these rules are arbitary >and we are now adhereing to them out of fear rather than belief. So is AGIS. Whatever works Mr. Pope. If you lack the _internal_ ethics necessary to understand or to care about the long term effects of your business and/or your policies on the Internet community as a whole, then other people have every right to protect _their_ system and _their_ networks from the deleterious effects of you and your company's policies. On the other hand, if you somehow begin to recognize that hosting spammer drop-boxes is *directly* contribiting to the spam problem, and that you ought not to be in that business, then you probably won't have a problem with the MAPS RBL folks, or with anyone else on the net for that matter. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 12:29:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA07935; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA07919 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:10:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/best.sh) id MAA05741; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:15:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:15:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901272015.MAA05741@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> (message from Stephanie da Silva on Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:55:52 -0600 (CST)) Subject: Re: Egroups Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From: Stephanie da Silva Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:55:52 -0600 (CST) Is egroups encouraging their listowners to spam? Here are our top tips on how to increase membership in your e-mail group: Post to Newsgroups. Invite subscriptions, when appropriate, in Usenet groups or e-mail lists. Be careful! Invitations can be considered spam if not "on topic" or without respect to the policies of each group. You can also invite individual posters based on their specific message topics. Well this would explain why I sometimes get form letters from specific egroups asking me to join lists. I report them to egroup's abuse address as spam but maybe I'm just wasting my time. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 13:07:07 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA08055; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from siren.shore.net (siren.shore.net [207.244.124.5]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA08033 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:20:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from smoe.org [204.167.97.154] by siren.shore.net with esmtp (Exim) id 105bW9-0001wn-00; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:24:53 -0500 Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-relay2) id PAA16144; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:24:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990127152449.J24255@smoe.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:24:49 -0500 From: Jeff Wasilko To: james@sagarmatha.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lucent is dead? Mail-Followup-To: james@sagarmatha.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <199901271535.HAA25683@sagarmatha.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 In-Reply-To: <199901271535.HAA25683@sagarmatha.com>; from "James C. Armstrong" on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 07:35:48AM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 07:35:48AM -0800, James C. Armstrong wrote: > Has anyone else seen an increase in bounces from lucent.com? I have > several subscribers on lists from different hosts, and they've all been > bouncing with "connection refused" messages. Is this a lucent > problem, or are they just blocking me? It's not you: chmls05# mailq -qRlucent.com -OMaxQueueRunSize=1 Mail Queue (400 requests, only 1 printed) chmls06# mailq -qRlucent.com -OMaxQueueRunSize=1 Mail Queue (498 requests, only 1 printed) -jeff From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 14:46:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA10412; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.idsi.net [208.195.228.60]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id OAA10395 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 16085 invoked by uid 505); 27 Jan 1999 22:31:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Jan 1999 22:31:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:31:39 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: "James C. Armstrong" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Lucent is dead? In-Reply-To: <199901271535.HAA25683@sagarmatha.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, James C. Armstrong wrote: ) Has anyone else seen an increase in bounces from lucent.com? I have ) several subscribers on lists from different hosts, and they've all been ) bouncing with "connection refused" messages. Is this a lucent ) problem, or are they just blocking me? (17:30)root@narnia:~# host lucent.com lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by ihemail1.lucent.com lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by auemail1.lucent.com lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by hoemail1.lucent.com (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet ihemail1.lucent.com 25 Trying 192.11.222.161... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet auemail1.lucent.com 25 Trying 192.11.223.161... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused (17:31)root@narnia:~# telnet hoemail1.lucent.com 25 Trying 192.11.226.161... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused (17:31)root@narnia:~# -- Daniel Reed As I said before, I never repeat myself... From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 15:47:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA11292; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sagarmatha.com (chomolongma.sagarmatha.com [209.110.136.129]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA11285 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from james@localhost) by sagarmatha.com (8.8.8/8.8.8.special) id PAA29147; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:28:17 -0800 From: "James C. Armstrong" Message-Id: <199901272328.PAA29147@sagarmatha.com> Subject: Re: Lucent is dead? To: djr@narnia.n.ml.org (Daniel Reed) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:28:16 -0800 (PST) Cc: james@sagarmatha.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Daniel Reed" at Jan 27, 99 05:31:39 pm Reply-To: james@sagarmatha.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Daniel Reed is alleged to have written: -> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, James C. Armstrong wrote: -> ) Has anyone else seen an increase in bounces from lucent.com? I have -> ) several subscribers on lists from different hosts, and they've all been -> ) bouncing with "connection refused" messages. Is this a lucent -> ) problem, or are they just blocking me? -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# host lucent.com -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by ihemail1.lucent.com -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by auemail1.lucent.com -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by hoemail1.lucent.com -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet ihemail1.lucent.com 25 -> Trying 192.11.222.161... -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet auemail1.lucent.com 25 -> Trying 192.11.223.161... -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused -> (17:31)root@narnia:~# telnet hoemail1.lucent.com 25 -> Trying 192.11.226.161... -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused -> (17:31)root@narnia:~# It surprises me that they've been refusing connections for 4 days now... -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | "The spin the NBA people want you to james@sagarmatha.com | believe is that the NBA will go on. Of -----------------------------| course it will. Like that horrible Celine Dion song from 'Titanic'" - Tony Kornheiser, Washington Post, on the NBA lockout and Michael Jordan's retirement. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 17:46:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA12796; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:34:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA12787 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:33:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA16257; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:39:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA02825; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:38:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:38:49 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Stephanie da Silva cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Egroups In-Reply-To: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Stephanie da Silva wrote: > Is egroups encouraging their listowners to spam? > > > Their FAQ on promoting lists says this: > > Promoting Your E-Mail Group > > Here are our top tips on how to increase membership in your e-mail group: > [...] > Post to Newsgroups. Invite subscriptions, when appropriate, in > Usenet groups or e-mail lists. Be careful! Invitations can be > considered spam if not "on topic" or without respect to the > policies of each group. You can also invite individual posters > based on their specific message topics. As written, I wouldn't call this spam. For example, I run a mailing list for special effects. I take no offense when people announce related mailing lists on topics such as theatre control systems, stagecraft, film making, etc. I'd get ticked if the announcement was huge or if it were posted too often. In general, modest announcements of other forums which closely relate to the topic are fine with me. I don't post to usenet at all anymore. At one time, I did post some announcements about my special effects list in a few closely related newsgroups. Was I spamming? I don't think so. - murr - From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 19:32:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA14514; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id TAA14507 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:12:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2500 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1999 03:17:28 -0000 Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (206.109.2.48) by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 1999 03:17:28 -0000 Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA10370 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:16:25 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from arielle) From: Stephanie da Silva Message-Id: <199901280316.VAA10370@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: Egroups To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:16:25 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "murr rhame" at Jan 27, 99 08:38:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > Post to Newsgroups. Invite subscriptions, when appropriate, in > > Usenet groups or e-mail lists. Be careful! Invitations can be > > considered spam if not "on topic" or without respect to the > > policies of each group. You can also invite individual posters > > based on their specific message topics. > > As written, I wouldn't call this spam. I received this in email. The only place I've posted recently has been the Scary Devil Monastery (where I suspect they chew up and spit out teletubbies for lunch). Peter got a copy too. Hell, I don't even know what teletubbies *are*. I don't know. I don't like how egroups encourages their list owners to send mail to random strangers, and apparently assists them in doing so. Would I react the same if the contact were relevant? Probably. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 20:15:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA15235; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA15225 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:43:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA13073 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cliff.concentric.net ([206.173.119.90]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(98/12/15 5.12)) id MAA07624; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:53:58 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Received: from wildchild (ts003d39.tul-ok.concentric.net [206.173.148.147]) by cliff.concentric.net (8.9.1a) id MAA19048; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:53:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901261753.MAA19048@cliff.concentric.net> From: "Angus" Organization: Down On DaFarm To: list-managers@honor.greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:53:56 -0600 Subject: Re: List focus Reply-to: angus1@cris.com References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01a) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is this list only for majordomo mangers? I asked a question abt listserv > and got only a "I dont know" answer. If this list isnt for listserv I think this underlines a continuing subscriber problem .. that still amazes me when I see it come from a listowner! People do NOT read the welcome and info files they get when they subscribe to lists.. :((( This list's purpose was clearly defined in those messages! Listowners for sure should know better and thus not waste subscriber time and space with these kind of posts.. and the famous "unsub" or "how do I unsub" type posts .. Telling subscribers from the git go that they are responsible for knowing the info in those files doesn't seem to help.. and when you see listowners do the same thing.. it makes you wonder if there is any way at all to make it clear? I can excuse newbies of this kind of mistake .. but oldtimers and listowners.. ??? ...Cleo angus1@cris.com From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 20:34:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA15279; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA15267 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from llama.swcp.com (llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14555 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:38:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by llama.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id MAA17192 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:43:28 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:43:28 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Message-ID: <19990126124327.A16998@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net> <25112.917150347@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Ivan Pope on Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:18:17AM +0100 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:18:17AM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote: > >If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail > >from people for no reason, please present it. > > We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from > our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a > reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the > supplier into the US for our ISP. > What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ > address on a piece of spam. I hardly think that providing a safe home for spammers to collect responses to their spam is "no reason" for refusing to connect to your system. By offering a drop box, your site was actively assisting these lowlifes in their abuse of the network. Why should people feel obligated to help you help the spammers by connecting to you? -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 20:45:37 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA15093; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:40:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberq.quality.org (cyberq.quality.org [199.181.80.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA15075 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:39:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (help@localhost) by cyberq.quality.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id WAA08880 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:45:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:45:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)" To: List Managers List Subject: Re: Lucent is dead? In-Reply-To: <199901272328.PAA29147@sagarmatha.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Rather than grumbling, I sent your message to the lucent.com administrator for comment. Bill On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, James C. Armstrong wrote: > Daniel Reed is alleged to have written: > -> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, James C. Armstrong wrote: > -> ) Has anyone else seen an increase in bounces from lucent.com? I have > -> ) several subscribers on lists from different hosts, and they've all been > -> ) bouncing with "connection refused" messages. Is this a lucent > -> ) problem, or are they just blocking me? > -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# host lucent.com > -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by ihemail1.lucent.com > -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by auemail1.lucent.com > -> lucent.com mail is handled (pri=10) by hoemail1.lucent.com > -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet ihemail1.lucent.com 25 > -> Trying 192.11.222.161... > -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused > -> (17:30)root@narnia:~# telnet auemail1.lucent.com 25 > -> Trying 192.11.223.161... > -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused > -> (17:31)root@narnia:~# telnet hoemail1.lucent.com 25 > -> Trying 192.11.226.161... > -> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused > -> (17:31)root@narnia:~# > > It surprises me that they've been refusing connections for 4 days > now... > -- > James C. Armstrong, Jr. | "The spin the NBA people want you to > james@sagarmatha.com | believe is that the NBA will go on. Of > -----------------------------| course it will. Like that horrible > Celine Dion song from 'Titanic'" - Tony Kornheiser, Washington Post, > on the NBA lockout and Michael Jordan's retirement. > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 21:00:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA15249; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA15241 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:43:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA13915 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id MAA11748; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:58:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199901261858.MAA11748@mail.xnet.com> Subject: Re: How do AOL's spam filters work? Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:58:09 -0600 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998 From: Adam Bailey To: cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 1/26/99 4:34 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote... > does anyone know how AOL's spam filters work? (Could it be that >in some circumstances perfectly legitimate messages might be silently >discarded, with no non-delivery notification or anything?) Below is a message I just sent to L-Soft's LSTOWN-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM only yesterday. It answers your question. AOL has VERY strict rules on what it will accept in a message, in an attempt to weed out UBE[1]. If the headers have even minor problems, they will be relegated to /dev/null without warning. In my years as working AOL support, both officially and unofficially, I've run across a number of common problems: * Faulty or missing domain in From or Reply-To headers (including spam blocks, or just listing the username without a FQDN). * Mail servers in the Received headers which do not respond to reverse DNS lookups properly. * Messages which pass through a *common* server that doesn't originate from the same server's dialup (ie: PSInet). * Messages which are relayed through a mail server hosted on a common dialup (ie: the aforementioned PSInet). Additionally, certain mailing list servers try to deliver to too many addresses in one connection for AOL's tastes, making AOL believe it is an attempt to spam. However, I do not believe LISTSERV has ever been known to trip this particular filter. That covers 90% of the problems I run across which are actually AOL's doing. Again, I don't know if it has anything to do with the problem you are reporting, but it's worth checking into. If you are convinced that this is AOL's fault, and want to perform further tests, contact me off-list. [1] Considering AOL members still get hit with a *massive* amount of UBE, it frightens me to wonder just how much they'd be getting if it weren't for these measures. -- Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with adamkb@aol.com | confidence." - George Bernard Shaw Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 22:15:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17028; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mg2.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA17019 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25193 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:01:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (brent@166-93-39-165.rmi.net [166.93.39.165]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA07094 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:01:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (brent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03559 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:00:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:00:38 -0700 (MST) From: Brent Sims X-Sender: brent@localhost.localdomain To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: <19990126124327.A16998@swcp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Greetings, Not long ago I had the plug pulled on me because someone had subscribed to a very low traffic, subscription confirmation required, mailing list that I run. They received one mailing, which consisted of exactly what they were told they would get, but because they forgot they had subscribed a complaint was issued to my ISP who yanked the plug in order to avoid ending up on someone's black list. The point and I believe the point of the original message in this thread is that sometimes those of us who actually play by the rules get nailed because some crazed lunatic doesn't have anything better to do with their time than run a blacklist. And therein lies the problem. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to stop spam go after the source - the people who send it. Brent Sims On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Lazlo Nibble wrote: ->On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:18:17AM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote: -> ->I hardly think that providing a safe home for spammers to collect responses to ->their spam is "no reason" for refusing to connect to your system. By offering ->a drop box, your site was actively assisting these lowlifes in their abuse of ->the network. Why should people feel obligated to help you help the spammers ->by connecting to you? -> From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 22:33:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA17442; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:19:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA17435 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gerald@localhost) by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA28758; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:24:08 -0500 Message-ID: <19990128012407.B28678@impressive.net> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:24:07 -0500 From: Gerald Oskoboiny To: Beth Anderson , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Egroups References: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> <36AF4F88.8D166026@cfw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <36AF4F88.8D166026@cfw.com>; from Beth Anderson on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:40:24PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:40:24PM -0500, Beth Anderson wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > I think you are right about e-groups. I have a person who recently started > using their services to begin her own mailing list - in competition for my > own..... she obtained a 'who' list from majordomo from my list -- at the time > 'who' was open because I had decided to give up ownership and was selling my > list, and she used my address list to obtain more members for hers..... she > doesn't think she was spamming, but she was........ How is any of this Egroups' fault? It sounds like your list was misconfigured, and someone (an individual, not egroups) took advantage of it. -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 22:46:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA17672; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cfw.com (milo.cfw.com [216.12.0.11]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA17665 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10727 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1999 06:33:25 -0000 Received: from c1s1m25.cfw.com (HELO cfw.com) (216.12.49.26) by milo.cfw.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 1999 06:33:25 -0000 Message-ID: <36B0058B.C4DAC22F@cfw.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:37:00 -0500 From: Beth Anderson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gerald Oskoboiny , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Egroups References: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> <36AF4F88.8D166026@cfw.com> <19990128012407.B28678@impressive.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Gerald, Sorry - no, not e-groups fault, but I had read the faq since this person retrieved the who list - off my list, and so I believe they are encouraged to "spam" by inviting folks to join, and she took advantage of the situation, since I had put the config back the way I first received it from the company -- which was a default of "open" for a who listing. Seems like the default should have been no, but anyway -- as it stands, she did retrieve it, and 'yes' after reading egroups faq, I believe they are encouraged to do spam......... See ya Beth -- Don't forget to visit http://www.bfpwww.com/rvs for RVS fan pics, rvsfans talkcity chat room, and instructions for the rvsfans mailing list. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 23:01:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA17467; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:20:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA17457 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gerald@localhost) by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA28752; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:22:03 -0500 Message-ID: <19990128012203.A28678@impressive.net> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:22:03 -0500 From: Gerald Oskoboiny To: Stephanie da Silva , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Egroups References: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2 In-Reply-To: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com>; from Stephanie da Silva on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:55:52AM -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:55:52AM -0600, Stephanie da Silva wrote: > Is egroups encouraging their listowners to spam? > > Their FAQ on promoting lists says this: > > Promoting Your E-Mail Group > > Here are our top tips on how to increase membership in your e-mail group: > [...] > Post to Newsgroups. Invite subscriptions, when appropriate, in > Usenet groups or e-mail lists. Be careful! Invitations can be > considered spam if not "on topic" or without respect to the policies > of each group. You can also invite individual posters based on > their specific message topics. This seems fairly responsible to me. I would remove the first sentence ("Post to Newsgroups."), but aside from that it looks about right. (I like the way Egroups does things, in general; I wish I had started something like this years ago.) -- Gerald Oskoboiny http://impressive.net/people/gerald/ From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 27 23:30:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA17050; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA17043 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA13302 ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:05:22 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901271826.MAA11666@midrange.com> References: <199901270855.CAA23723@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Stephanie da Silva" at Jan 27, 99 02:55:52 am Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:55:42 -0800 To: arielle@Taronga.COM (Stephanie da Silva) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On a related front, anyone else find out that they've magically had their lists added to something called ListZone? (see bottom of this message for one of many I got). First, Stephanie, I'm guessing, and I think it's a good guess, that they're setting thigns up by taking PAML and typing it into their databases. did they ask permission? Anyway, these people honked me off on any number of levels. First, they didn't offer me their service, they simply put me in their service and then told me to come fix any typoes. Well, the FIRST list they mailed me about has been dead about a year. The second one I checked, and there were significant typos in the dataset. And much of the site is password protected and many of the links don't work, so I can't find out who these people are and what their hack is. Anyway, i've written them and told them to take all of my lists out -- they can't get the data right, and they didn't ask first, and that's enough for me to say "no, thanks". So far, they've ignored that request, so I'm probably going to send a formal cease and desist soon (I'll give them another week). anyone else lucky enough to be offered this service? Were your entries right? Sheesh. Anyway, be warned we seem to have another wonderful list-index service doing things for you, with or without you actually knowing it. --- Hi Chuq, We have selected your Pit-Penguins mailing list for the Internet's new premier mailing list portal, The List Zone. Our mission is to improve the experience for both list administrators and subscribers through an innovative new web-based service which will be launching shortly. We would appreciate your assistance in helping us categorize Pit-Penguins. We have created a web page for you at the following URL: http://ynterweb.com/shellcgi/lzupdate.pl?listID=3067&listName=Pit%2dPenguins Please visit this link to ensure that we have accurately described your list. You can correct and add to descriptions by simply entering them into the form at the link above. Thanks again for your time and help. We would appreciate any feedback on how we can serve you and your subscribers better! Best Regards, Peter McColgan Director List Owner Relations The List Zone, Inc. Add An Email List To Listzone: http://ynterweb.com/shellcgi/addlist.pl --- -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 11:35:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA28959; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA28952 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA21109 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:48 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id NAA07329 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:47 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600 (CST) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <22300.917465821@monkeys.com> from "Ronald F. Guilmette" at Jan 27, 99 11:37:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ron Guilmette wrote, | Neither Paul Vixie nor the other | people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on | the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is | forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were | sent. That just does not happen. I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If they won't do it to someone Vixie already hates, they won't do it to total strangers. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 11:48:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA29114; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA29107 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:06:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA21741 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:11:18 -0600 (CST) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id NAA07625 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:11:17 -0600 (CST) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199901281911.NAA07625@Jupiter.mcs.net> Subject: Re: ListZone Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:11:17 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 27, 99 09:55:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq wrote, | On a related front, anyone else find out that they've magically had | their lists added to something called ListZone? (see bottom of this | message for one of many I got). I received an invitation from them, but when I went to the URL for my list's entry, it was blank, waiting for me to fill it out. As I could have remained unlisted by simply not visiting the site or by not filling out the forms, I didn't have the same reaction as Chuq. Had it already been filled out, forcing me to take action to get it out of there if I didn't want it there, I'd have felt as he did. | Anyway, i've written them and told them to take all of my lists out | -- they can't get the data right, and they didn't ask first, and | that's enough for me to say "no, thanks". So far, they've ignored | that request, so I'm probably going to send a formal cease and desist | soon (I'll give them another week). If you still have the URL and can go there to fix typos, why don't you go there and delete it all? You can leave just one comment: "Subscriptions may not be requested via List Zone." | anyone else lucky enough to be offered this service? | Were your entries right? My entries were correct because I entered them myself. As long as they do not make a clickable subscribe-me-now link (and they said they don't intend to do that by default when they finally get around to doing it), there's nothing on that page that I don't voluntarily post to Usenet every month. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 12:00:57 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA29079; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA29072 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:03:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/best.sh) id LAA26022; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:08:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:08:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901281908.LAA26022@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:55:42 -0800) Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:55:42 -0800 From: Chuq Von Rospach On a related front, anyone else find out that they've magically had their lists added to something called ListZone? (see bottom of this message for one of many I got). Yes, I was. First, Stephanie, I'm guessing, and I think it's a good guess, that they're setting thigns up by taking PAML and typing it into their databases. did they ask permission? There are tons of lists of lists around. I'm on more than I can count (my list has been active for over 8 years so if I look for my list info in a search engine, I get 100's of matches). I don't know how listzone got their lists. Anyway, i've written them and told them to take all of my lists out -- they can't get the data right, and they didn't ask first, and that's enough for me to say "no, thanks". So far, they've ignored that request, so I'm probably going to send a formal cease and desist soon (I'll give them another week). I find that to be a serious problem. Ignoring your requests to be removed is totally unethical. I don't feel the way you do about being added without being asked first though. I look at it as free advertising of a public resource. But I understand that my opinion is not shared by everyone. I'd be ticked off if they put a private list of mine up. Lots of places add my list at its old address which is just annoying because I have to track down these sites and fix them (if they respond to the request). anyone else lucky enough to be offered this service? Were your entries right? There was a typo in the subscription directions (they said to say "subsingl" when one should say "subsingle"). Otherwise I think it was okay (don't remember). Sheesh. Anyway, be warned we seem to have another wonderful list-index service doing things for you, with or without you actually knowing it. I would like to hear more about ListZone. If they are unethical or sleezy I don't want my list there either. Though, as I said, I publizize my list info so I am happy when it ends up someplace else (if it's correct). It's when places try to archive my list's posts that I become quite upset. Oh, as an aside, back umpteen years ago when Stephanie started her list of lists, I was added to it and then asked regularly to correct any errors in the information. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure I was never asked to join. I had no problem with this and still don't. After all, if I make a link to a website I don't ask permission (unless it's a personal page). I also don't ask permission to list mailing lists on my website (again, unless it's a personal-looking list). Would you object if I put a pointer to one of your lists on your website without asking first? (serious question) Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 13:59:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA00782; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA00775 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:25:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA299879065; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:31:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199901282131.AA299879065@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:31:05 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Anyway, i've written them and told them to take all of my lists out > -- they can't get the data right, and they didn't ask first, and > that's enough for me to say "no, thanks". So far, they've ignored > that request, so I'm probably going to send a formal cease and desist > soon (I'll give them another week). > anyone else lucky enough to be offered this service? Were your entries > right? Sigh. Yes, I got one of these, too. I wrote back over a week ago that I wanted my list removed but no response and it's still there. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 18:04:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03469 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA24568 ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:31:50 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901281911.NAA07625@Jupiter.mcs.net> References: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 27, 99 09:55:42 pm Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:23:44 -0800 To: "David W. Tamkin" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: ListZone Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:11 PM -0600 1/28/99, David W. Tamkin wrote: > If you still have the URL and can go there to fix typos, why don't you go > there and delete it all? You can leave just one comment: "Subscriptions may > not be requested via List Zone." I may still do that -- but since they've listed something like 30 or more lists of mine, going in and "fixing" each one is a royal PITA. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 18:16:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03484; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03468 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:24:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17208 ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:32:22 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901281908.LAA26022@shell7.ba.best.com> References: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:55:42 -0800) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 -0800 To: cnorman@best.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Cc: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:08 AM -0800 1/28/99, Cyndi Norman wrote: > First, Stephanie, I'm guessing, and I think it's a good guess, that > they're setting thigns up by taking PAML and typing it into their > databases. did they ask permission? > > There are tons of lists of lists around. True, but my lists aren't on tons of lists, unless they've been added there without my knowledge. Which is, of course, possible. I generally have a good idea where my lists are advertised, especially when sites break the pointers. > I find that to be a serious problem. Ignoring your requests to be removed > is totally unethical. Agreed. However, I'll cut them a little slack for removing it, since I'm sure they're busy. That's why I'll wait a little longer before getting nasty. They're in startup mode, and I understand how that goes. > Oh, as an aside, back umpteen years ago when Stephanie started her list of > lists, I was added to it and then asked regularly to correct any errors in > the information. Actually, Stephanie is running something I started many mega-umpteen years ago, handed off to Gene Spafford after a while, and ended up being run by her... (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 18:36:34 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03390; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA03382 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from cr864798-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com (cr864798-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.22.167]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA17637 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkage.com (catonium.thinkage.on.ca [192.168.0.199]) by dognose.com (8.9.0/dognose981021-8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA20083; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:35:04 -0500 Message-ID: <36B0052D.62317A4E@thinkage.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:35:25 -0500 From: "Ken D." Organization: Thinkage Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert References: <199901240033.TAA11618@ctc.swva.net> <25112.917150347@monkeys.com> <19990126124327.A16998@swcp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Lazlo Nibble wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:18:17AM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote: > > > >If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail > > >from people for no reason, please present it. > > > > We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from > > our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a > > reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the > > supplier into the US for our ISP. > > What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ > > address on a piece of spam. > > I hardly think that providing a safe home for spammers to collect responses to > their spam is "no reason" for refusing to connect to your system. By offering > a drop box, your site was actively assisting these lowlifes in their abuse of > the network. Why should people feel obligated to help you help the spammers > by connecting to you? also, it should be pointed out that paul vixie does not 'lightly' add folks to the blacklist. only after the sysadmins of the questionable site/isp give clear indication they are braindead or dont give a damn. the blacklist helps them give a damn. -ken who uses vixie's list From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 18:51:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03709; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:45:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03661 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/best.sh) id RAA09777; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:47:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:47:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901290147.RAA09777@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: chuqui@plaidworks.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 -0800) Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 -0800 From: Chuq Von Rospach At 11:08 AM -0800 1/28/99, Cyndi Norman wrote: > There are tons of lists of lists around. True, but my lists aren't on tons of lists, unless they've been added there without my knowledge. Which is, of course, possible. I generally have a good idea where my lists are advertised, especially when sites break the pointers. I've lost track of most of them for my list. Every 6 months or so I go on a crusade and track down dozens of sites listing me at ucsd.edu (a dead address) and send them a polite form letter asking them to update my addresses. After hours of this, I give up. Even after more than a year, I find I'm mailing to the same sites most of the time...sigh... > Oh, as an aside, back umpteen years ago when Stephanie started her list of > lists, I was added to it and then asked regularly to correct any errors in > the information. Actually, Stephanie is running something I started many mega-umpteen years ago, handed off to Gene Spafford after a while, and ended up being run by her... (grin) Well then, YOU never asked me for permission (I don't think). But that's okay, I forgive you :-). After all, I had posted the info to USENET. Though of course maybe you did ask me 8 years ago and I just forgot. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 19:15:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03345; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA03335 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rapidnet.com (ns1.rapidnet.com [205.164.216.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA08463 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from neatnettricks.com (pt9-45.rapidnet.com [208.142.248.204]) by rapidnet.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12204; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:45:59 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36AF7ACB.722EB50C@neatnettricks.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:45:00 -0700 From: Jack Teems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leif Gregory , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Prices for advertising. References: <5937.990127@biogate.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I believe advertisers have the right to expect a return on their investment and this Net thing is a relatively new phenomenon (as compared with other advertising media, e.g., print, radio.) The one constant here is the circulation, whether by listeners/viewers, or subscribers for the paper or electronic version of the publication. For the electronic version, a key question is how the advertiser can be assured that his message will get to the claimed number of readers. I have over 30,000 readers and take great care to unsub consecutive bounces to the point that I keep my bounce rate less than 1% (thus, I can confidently state that my publication reaches 29,700 or more.) Circulation figures ARE very important but just as important are the numbers of those who are actually receiving this stuff in their mailboxes. I think another component toward pricing advertising is the demographics of the audience. I suspect a joke list will have a tougher time marketing its ad space because of a loosely-defined market than, say, a list devoted solely to a particular piece of software when the advertiser on that ezine is the producer of that software. I believe we list publishers must be able to provide some meaningful data to advertisers and that's often hard to do. I usually cite some measurable feedback I get from advertisers in my publication; for example, "recent reports from advertisers with hit counters on their web sites show an average of 1,850 hits within 12 hours of distribution of my pub." Even that is not entirely meaningful because, as someone aptly put it,"mileage will vary." Your rates will have to be quite low, methinks, because your numbers are relatively low, but there are other concerns to factor in. Whether or not the placement of an ad on your website would be a thing of value would, again, depend on how much traffic you get on your website. Whether you can charge more for an ad at the top, in the middle, at the bottom of the publication, or as the only ad appearing in the publication, that's debatable and I don't suspect there's a lot of value in placement, except that I do feel a publication can overdo ads. When that occurs, a great many subscribers will exit as it becomes obvious that the publication has become nothing more than a vessel to convey ads. We readers realize that advertising serves to keep subscriptions free, but there is definitely a saturation point beyond which we will look elsewhere for our information. None of this is an exact science, so perhaps the answer to your question is "you charge what you can get." At least that's my humble call on it. Leif Gregory wrote: > Hello fellow List-managers, > > I publish the VBOK e-zine on a monthly basis to a little over 1100 > subscribers. I've decided to allow advertisements in my newsletter, > but I really have no idea on what to charge. > > Publication frequency: Monthly > Subscriber base: 1100+ > The e-mail version is plaintext, but I also convert it to an HTML > version which gets placed on the VBOK web site permanently. > > 1. How much should I charge for text advertisements somewhere towards > the middle of the newsletter? > > 2. How much should I charge for text advertisements at the top of the > newsletter? > > 3. How much should I charge for HTML banner advertisements somewhere > towards the middle of the newsletter? (remember that these are > *permanently* placed on the website.) > > 4. How much should I charge for HTML banner advertisements at the top > of the newsletter? (remember that these are *permanently* placed on > the website.) > > 5. How much should I charge extra for sole sponsorship (they are the > only advertisements in the newsletter)? > > I have four offers for advertisements, but I just don't know how much > to charge. > > Thanks for the help. > > A Jury: 12 people who decide who has the best lawyer > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- > | Leif Gregory | Virtual Book Of Knowledge web site | > | Editor, VBOK newsletter | | > | Moderator, TBUDL | ICQ UIN: 216395 | > ------------------------------ ------------------------------------- > | VBOK is a free newsletter for newbies and the advanced user with | > | articles, web site/software reviews, security, news and much more! | > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- NEAT NET TRICKS, a twice-monthly collection of light-hearted not-too-technical computer and internet tips, is read by more than 30,000 in 123+ countries. Subscribe free with email to majordomo@neatnettricks.com and state SUBSCRIBE NEATNETTRICKS . Or, visit the web site at http://www.neatnettricks.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 19:45:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03469 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA24568 ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:31:50 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901281911.NAA07625@Jupiter.mcs.net> References: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 27, 99 09:55:42 pm Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:23:44 -0800 To: "David W. Tamkin" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: ListZone Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:11 PM -0600 1/28/99, David W. Tamkin wrote: > If you still have the URL and can go there to fix typos, why don't you go > there and delete it all? You can leave just one comment: "Subscriptions may > not be requested via List Zone." I may still do that -- but since they've listed something like 30 or more lists of mine, going in and "fixing" each one is a royal PITA. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 19:49:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04491 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14283 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15290 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600. <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.917580152@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net>, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote, > >| Neither Paul Vixie nor the other >| people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on >| the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is >| forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were >| sent. That just does not happen. > >I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that *I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 20:16:48 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03469 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA24568 ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:31:50 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901281911.NAA07625@Jupiter.mcs.net> References: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 27, 99 09:55:42 pm Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:23:44 -0800 To: "David W. Tamkin" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: ListZone Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:11 PM -0600 1/28/99, David W. Tamkin wrote: > If you still have the URL and can go there to fix typos, why don't you go > there and delete it all? You can leave just one comment: "Subscriptions may > not be requested via List Zone." I may still do that -- but since they've listed something like 30 or more lists of mine, going in and "fixing" each one is a royal PITA. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 20:19:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04491 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14283 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15290 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600. <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.917580152@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net>, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote, > >| Neither Paul Vixie nor the other >| people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on >| the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is >| forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were >| sent. That just does not happen. > >I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that *I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 20:46:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04491 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14283 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15290 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600. <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.917580152@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net>, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote, > >| Neither Paul Vixie nor the other >| people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on >| the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is >| forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were >| sent. That just does not happen. > >I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that *I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 20:51:23 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03709; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:45:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03661 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/best.sh) id RAA09777; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:47:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:47:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901290147.RAA09777@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: chuqui@plaidworks.com CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 -0800) Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 -0800 From: Chuq Von Rospach At 11:08 AM -0800 1/28/99, Cyndi Norman wrote: > There are tons of lists of lists around. True, but my lists aren't on tons of lists, unless they've been added there without my knowledge. Which is, of course, possible. I generally have a good idea where my lists are advertised, especially when sites break the pointers. I've lost track of most of them for my list. Every 6 months or so I go on a crusade and track down dozens of sites listing me at ucsd.edu (a dead address) and send them a polite form letter asking them to update my addresses. After hours of this, I give up. Even after more than a year, I find I'm mailing to the same sites most of the time...sigh... > Oh, as an aside, back umpteen years ago when Stephanie started her list of > lists, I was added to it and then asked regularly to correct any errors in > the information. Actually, Stephanie is running something I started many mega-umpteen years ago, handed off to Gene Spafford after a while, and ended up being run by her... (grin) Well then, YOU never asked me for permission (I don't think). But that's okay, I forgive you :-). After all, I had posted the info to USENET. Though of course maybe you did ask me 8 years ago and I just forgot. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 21:17:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04491 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14283 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15290 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600. <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.917580152@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net>, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote, > >| Neither Paul Vixie nor the other >| people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on >| the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is >| forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were >| sent. That just does not happen. > >I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that *I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 28 21:45:44 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA04499; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04491 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA14283 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA15290 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:01:46 -0600. <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:22:32 -0800 Message-ID: <15288.917580152@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901281901.NAA07329@Jupiter.mcs.net>, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: >Ron Guilmette wrote, > >| Neither Paul Vixie nor the other >| people who maintain the MAPS RBL anti-spam system *ever* put anyone on >| the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List just because some spammer out there is >| forging their domain name into the return address of some spams that were >| sent. That just does not happen. > >I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that *I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 06:01:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA09935; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA09926 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA21531 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:31:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990129083140.B21471@gsp.org> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:31:40 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: AOL is horribly broken this morning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a small mailing list (75 members) for the Bethesda Center of Excellence. Sometime between last night and this morning, every single AOL address on that mailing list started bouncing with this message (I've elided the user's name): ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to air-zb03.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND 550 ... User unknown I find it difficult to believe that every single AOL subscriber to this mailing list (there are about 20) have dropped their service in the last 24 hours. My conclusion is that AOL has once again demonstrated its vast incompetence. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 10:39:23 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA13429; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:00:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA13351 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:00:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [195.40.150.140] (ivan.netnames.co.uk [195.40.150.140]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA18883; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:02:37 GMT X-Sender: ivan@human.netnames.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <22300.917465821@monkeys.com> References: Your message of Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:18:17 +0100. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:07:30 +0100 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Oh, spare me from the Zealots. This is a bit boring, but I have to respond to Mr Guilmette: I said: >>We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from >>our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a >>reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the >>supplier into the US for our ISP. >>What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ >>address on a piece of spam. And Mr Guilmette replied (edited for brevity): >Nor do the MAPS RBL folks EVER put anyone onto the RBL without trying, re- >peatedly if necessary, to contact them ... > >The truth, in the case of Netnames.Com, seems to be that Mr. Pope was, either >knowingly or unknowingly, hosting one or more so-called ``spammer drop box'' >E-mail accounts, and he was (apparently) refusing to take any action to >prevent the relevant spammer from making an illicit profit via that E-mail >drop-box ... Well, maybe I was hosting a 'spammer drop-box'. I certainly wouldn't know about it. I certainly wasn't contacted by anyone about it. I don't really see that it is a concern of anyone else what email is sent to my clients. Note, it's not the outgoing mail that we're talking about, but a _return address_. Nothing illegal was occuring and one mans spam is another mans morning reading. Do you try to stop the USP posting to Direct Mail users? >(b) he and his company were, >apparently, making a profit, indirectly, from the spammer and his/her >spamming in this case, specifically via the fees that they were charging >the spammer for hosting the relevant drop-box account. I find this quite amusing coming from someone whose business relies on the existence of so called Spammers. So who is making a profit from the Spammers? So why is this little advert on the end of every email you send out, Mr Guilmette: >-- 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/ >In short, Mr. Pope doth protest too much. It now appears that his state- >ment that ``Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ address >on a piece of spam'' may not in fact have conveyed a complete picture of >what really happened. It is absolutely correct. >He did however express his clear displeasure at having been called to task, >and/or in some way held accountable for his actions (or lack thereof). >I quote: >>I felt we had no choice but to accept. However, I generally find >>fundamentalism of any stripe to be unpleasant, and I don't see that I >>should be forced to accept the arbitary standards of any private individual. > >Translation: I'm not happy that there is someone out there who is going to >act to prevent _me_ from getting _my_ piece of the spamming pie too. I have nothing to do with Spamming. You, on the other hand, have a company that earns money from it. Basically, Mr Guilmette, you are the sort of plonker that gives the Internet a bad name. I have over thirty thousand happy customers. I have been working with the Internet commercially for ten years. I have been there and done that. Vixie's RBL is an attempt to impose arbitary standards on the Internet by force and it should be resisted. Of course, if there was no spam, you would be out of business, but I wouldn't. Ivan Pope Ivan Pope ivan@netnames.com NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY http://www.netnames.com UK Freephone 0800 269049 180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK +44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax It's not about building a better mousetrap, it's about redefining the mouse. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 10:58:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA13679; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberq.quality.org (cyberq.quality.org [199.181.80.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA13672 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (help@localhost) by cyberq.quality.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA04474; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:29:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:29:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Bill Casti (System Admin)" To: Rich Kulawiec cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL is horribly broken this morning In-Reply-To: <19990129083140.B21471@gsp.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk It's been horribly fixed. On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I run a small mailing list (75 members) for the Bethesda Center of Excellence. > Sometime between last night and this morning, every single AOL address on > that mailing list started bouncing with this message (I've elided the > user's name): > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to air-zb03.mail.aol.com.: > >>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND > 550 ... User unknown > > I find it difficult to believe that every single AOL subscriber to this > mailing list (there are about 20) have dropped their service in the last > 24 hours. My conclusion is that AOL has once again demonstrated its > vast incompetence. > > ---Rsk > Rich Kulawiec > rsk@gsp.org > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 11:28:02 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA13967; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA13958 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:58:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA19173; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:03:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from den-co69-38.ix.netcom.com(206.214.78.38) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019140; Fri Jan 29 13:02:49 1999 From: "Tom Rouse" To: , "Rich Kulawiec" Subject: RE: AOL is horribly broken this morning Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:00:14 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01be4bb9$9b26d940$264ed6ce@partagas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <19990129083140.B21471@gsp.org> Importance: Normal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk We've experienced similar difficulties sending to AOL in the past week or so. Most of the mail goes through (about 300 AOL subscribers), but we're getting 30 or 35 AOL bounces per message, higher than normal. We get the same 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND message. No idea what's going on. Spam filters maybe? TR > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM > [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec > Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 6:32 AM > To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM > Subject: AOL is horribly broken this morning > > > I run a small mailing list (75 members) for the Bethesda Center of Excellence. > Sometime between last night and this morning, every single AOL address on > that mailing list started bouncing with this message (I've elided the > user's name): > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to air-zb03.mail.aol.com.: > >>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND > 550 ... User unknown > > I find it difficult to believe that every single AOL subscriber to this > mailing list (there are about 20) have dropped their service in the last > 24 hours. My conclusion is that AOL has once again demonstrated its > vast incompetence. > > ---Rsk > Rich Kulawiec > rsk@gsp.org > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 11:41:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA14132; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eagle.sac.verio.net (eagle.sac.verio.net [207.159.5.20]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14124 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.ns.net [207.159.10.82]) by eagle.sac.verio.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00257; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16465; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:15:06 -0800 To: Ivan Pope cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, paul@vix.com Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:07:30 +0100. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:15:05 -0800 Message-ID: <16463.917637305@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM wrote: >And Mr Guilmette replied (edited for brevity): > >>Nor do the MAPS RBL folks EVER put anyone onto the RBL without trying, re- >>peatedly if necessary, to contact them ... >> >>The truth, in the case of Netnames.Com, seems to be that Mr. Pope was, either >>knowingly or unknowingly, hosting one or more so-called ``spammer drop box'' >>E-mail accounts, and he was (apparently) refusing to take any action to >>prevent the relevant spammer from making an illicit profit via that E-mail >>drop-box ... > >Well, maybe I was hosting a 'spammer drop-box'. I certainly wouldn't know >about it. No. And you apparently made no effort to know. In short, you're not too particular about _where_ exactly your company's revenue comes from, correct? >I certainly wasn't contacted by anyone about it. Wwll, I'm quite sure that *someone* at your place _was_ contacted about it. Maybe it wasn't you personally. Perhaps it was or else or else or else one of the Internic, UKNIC, or RIPE registered contact addresses for either one or more of these domains or else for your IP address block, specifically, one or more of: Have you checked with all of the people to whom E-mail for _these_ addresses is routed to find out if any of _them_ were contacted? If your employees are failing to bring important matters to your attention, that is hardly the fault of the MAPS RBL team. And of course, if you have your postmaster address(es) aliased to /dev/null, _that_ isn't really the fault of the MAPS RBL team either, now is it? >I don't really >see that it is a concern of anyone else what email is sent to my clients. Classic spammer speak. ``We don't see anything wrong with making a profit from hosting people who are actively engaged in destroying any usefulness the Internet once had as a _bidirectional_ interpersonal communications medium!'' >Note, it's not the outgoing mail that we're talking about, but a _return >address_. Call it was it was... A spammer drop-box where the spammer hoped to actually make the profits necessary to support his/her continued spamming. >Nothing illegal was occuring... What a coincidence! All of the spammers seem to say that too. Mr. Pope, this _may_ have eluded your understanding, but there _are_ a few things in this world that are perfectly legal but nonethless unethical. Or perhaps you _did_ understand that, but I gather that ethics is not high on your agenda of business priorities... only avoiding arrest. >... and one mans spam is another mans morning reading. Yet another remarkable coincidence! All of the spammers say _that_ too! ``This isn't spam!'' ``This is an exciting new opportunity!'' ``Now you too can make $500,000 a month selling beautiful hand-crafted Elvis flatware!'' Morning reading? Uh huh. Right. This is just the kind of thing that makes me _lose_ my corn flakes... all over the breakfast table. > Do you try to stop the USP posting to Direct Mail users? You bet your ass I do. But that isn't even relevant to spam (aka `bulk unsolicited junk E-mail') because in THAT CASE at least the suckers who try to send me _that_ crap are paying for the privlege of doing so... and I am paying NOTHING to re- ceive it. But in the case of junk *E-mail*, the spammers are using *my enqipment* and also *my bandwith* that *I* bought and paid for to do *their* advertising... and they are NOT reimbursing me for my costs in this case. This is why many people have labeled spammers as theives.... because in point of fact they are. And when _you_ aid and abet their activities, you become an accomplice. Perhaps we can't get you put in jail for that (which is rather a pity) but we _can_ and _should_ shun both you _and_ your packets... at least until you take responsibility for _your_ role in this ongoing theft of bandwith (and other resources) from untold hundreds of thousands of people. >>(b) he and his company were, >>apparently, making a profit, indirectly, from the spammer and his/her >>spamming in this case, specifically via the fees that they were charging >>the spammer for hosting the relevant drop-box account. > >I find this quite amusing coming from someone whose business relies on the >existence of so called Spammers. So who is making a profit from the >Spammers? You are, it would seem. I have some commercial anti-spam software that I have been meaning to ship for some time, but that hae been delayed while I have been working on other *completely free* anti-spam weapons, in particulat the IMRSS project (see http://www.imrss.org) and also the DSSL project (http://www.imrss.org/dssl/) which is already up and running and providing *FREE* spam protection to quite a lot of people. >So why is this little advert on the end of every email you send >out, Mr Guilmette: > >>-- 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/ See above. My standard signature line points people at the URL for my commercial software *and* also at the home page of my WPOISON program... which is yet another COMPLETELY FREE anti-spam tool that I give away to people FOR NOTHING. (It isn't even shareware or nagware or trialware. It is just plain free for the taking and dozens of sites are already using it to innoculate their web sites against spammer address harvesters.) But why am I even sitting here justifing _my_ extensive anti-spam efforts? That is irrelevant. The topic, you may recall, was _you_ and your apparent lack of ethics in hosting spammer drop boxes. >>In short, Mr. Pope doth protest too much. It now appears that his state- >>ment that ``Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ address >>on a piece of spam'' may not in fact have conveyed a complete picture of >>what really happened. > >It is absolutely correct. Oh pleeezzzzz! Let's not play these little games of semantics Mr. Pope. It is completely clear that someone sent out spam with a Netnames return address on it. Now, do you or do you not have any solid evidence to believe that whoever sent out the spam in question was anyone OTHER THAN the exact same person who had rented a return address drop-box account from you? Do you even have any _vague_ or _unsubstantiated_ reason to believe that? I don't believe for one second that you do, because your OTHER statements on this topic make it abundantly clear that you wouldn't give a damn even if that were indeed the case. You just don't care. You believe that it is your God-given right to host spammer drop-boxes, and the public interest (and the future of the net) be damned. >>>I felt we had no choice but to accept. However, I generally find >>>fundamentalism of any stripe to be unpleasant, and I don't see that I >>>should be forced to accept the arbitary standards of any private individual. >> >>Translation: I'm not happy that there is someone out there who is going to >>act to prevent _me_ from getting _my_ piece of the spamming pie too. > >I have nothing to do with Spamming. Correct. And fences have nothing to do with theft either. >You, on the other hand, have a company that earns money from it. See above. The truth be told, I have been so busy trying to eradicate this pestilence from the net that I have *not* made so much as one thin dime from it to date. But again, let's not change the subject. The subject, as you may recall, was you, your company, your apparent lack of ethics, and the events which caused you to be listed on the MAPS RBL... a listing which is appearing more and more well-justified the more you elaborate on your ``it isn't illegal'' approach to business ethics. >Basically, Mr Guilmette, you are the sort of plonker that gives the >Internet a bad name. One of us certainly is. We disagree about which one of us that is. >I have over thirty thousand happy customers... And how many of those are spammers? >I have been working with the Internet commercially for ten years. I have been >there and done that. Yes, you have obviously been around long enough to learn the ropes, _and_ how to make a profit from spamming without actually doing any of it yourself. If this is the point you were trying to make, consider it made. >Vixie's RBL is an attempt to impose arbitary standards on the Internet by >force and it should be resisted. The standards which the RBL promulgates are NOT by any stretch of the imagi- nation ``arbitrary''. They are in fact the SHARED and COMMON *minimal* standards of good conduct and behavior on the net that are shared by all of the companies, organizations, and individuals who subscribe to it. You however, for reasons that are clear and obvious, would greatly perfer the standards of conduct on the net to be basically ``anything a businessman like me can get away with''. Well, sorry Mr. Pope. But some of us, at least, expect a little bit more, in particular, just a little bit of care and concern for the Internet as a whole, and for its future as a viable communications medium (rather than its alternative future, i.e. as one vast sleezy billboard of interest to no one). -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 12:47:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA15225; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA15218 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA016330568; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:09:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199901292009.AA016330568@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: "Tom Rouse" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, "Rich Kulawiec" Subject: Re: AOL is horribly broken this morning In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:00:14 MST." <001d01be4bb9$9b26d940$264ed6ce@partagas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:09:27 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk We just received the following from our network provider: AppliedTheory [our network provider] has worked with Sprint [Applied Theory's network provider] overnight on the issue, as AT did not have a route to AOL networks on our backbone. Sprint informed AT that AOL is making software and routing changes on their network. This is causing significant changes in how Sprint and AppliedTheory are receiving the routes to AOL and ICQ. AOL is still working on the issue as of 09:30 1/29, and may continue throughout the day today. There may be intermittent connectivity at times, but until AOL has finished making their changes, connectivity will be unstable. -Mitch >We've experienced similar difficulties sending to AOL in the past week or so. > Most of the mail goes through (about 300 AOL >subscribers), but we're getting 30 or 35 AOL bounces per message, higher than >normal. We get the same 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND message. >No idea what's going on. Spam filters maybe? > >TR > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM >> [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 6:32 AM >> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM >> Subject: AOL is horribly broken this morning >> >> >> I run a small mailing list (75 members) for the Bethesda Center of Excellenc >e. >> Sometime between last night and this morning, every single AOL address on >> that mailing list started bouncing with this message (I've elided the >> user's name): >> >> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >> ... while talking to air-zb03.mail.aol.com.: >> >>> RCPT To: >> <<< 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND >> 550 ... User unknown >> >> I find it difficult to believe that every single AOL subscriber to this >> mailing list (there are about 20) have dropped their service in the last >> 24 hours. My conclusion is that AOL has once again demonstrated its >> vast incompetence. >> >> ---Rsk >> Rich Kulawiec >> rsk@gsp.org >> > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 14:20:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA16291; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:42:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA16280 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12932; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:47:56 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA05431; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:47:54 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199901292147.PAA05431@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert To: ivan@netnames.com (Ivan Pope) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:47:54 -0600 (CST) Cc: rfg@monkeys.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Ivan Pope" at Jan 29, 99 06:07:30 pm 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 Ivan Pope wrote: > Do you try to stop the USP posting to Direct Mail users? I continue to assert that the comparison to bulk mailers is not proper, and that the economics of the Internet are not structured correctly and actually encourage spamming. A bulk mailer pays for the creation and mailing of the piece, and that cost (mostly) covers the entire delivery process, all the way down to the local mail carrier's salary and the gas to run the delivery truck. With e-mail, the majority of the costs are born by intermediate carriers, local ISP's, our employers, or ourselves. Until such time as an economic model for the Internet is used that allocates and distributes both costs and revenues based on usage and origination or consent, Draconian measures such as the RBL will enjoy favor as being better than no solution at all. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 29 22:45:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA21011; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:18:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA21004 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:18:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA13279; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:24:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990130011706.009fc470@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:17:06 -0500 To: Mitch Collinsworth From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: AOL is horribly broken this morning Cc: "Tom Rouse" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, "Rich Kulawiec" In-Reply-To: <199901292009.AA016330568@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:09 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > >We just received the following from our network provider: > > AppliedTheory [our network provider] has worked with Sprint [Applied > Theory's network provider] overnight on the issue, > as AT did not have a route to AOL networks on our backbone. Sprint > informed AT that AOL is making software and routing changes on > their network. This is causing significant changes in how Sprint > and AppliedTheory are receiving the routes to AOL and ICQ. AOL > is still working on the issue as of 09:30 1/29, and may continue > throughout the day today. There may be intermittent connectivity > at times, but until AOL has finished making their changes, connectivity > will be unstable. This is interesting. But the AOL bounces were that one was able to make a good connection to AOL's mail server and AOL would refuse to acknowledge that some fraction of the recipients had valid mailboxes. -- You might be a redneck if -- Your BBQ has its own license plate. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 00:03:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA21909; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA21899 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA25500 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:41:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 8:49:49 EST From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: arielle@taronga.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: ListZone (was Re: Egroups Organization: SADARM SPICE Team, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Message-ID: <9901280849.aa17528@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach: >On a related front, anyone else find out that they've magically had >their lists added to something called ListZone? (see bottom of this >message for one of many I got). Yep. And, so far, they have not replied to, nor followed, my demand that the 3 lists of mine they have on their site be removed. Oh, they got a bunch of the subscribe info wrong for mine, too. Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 00:06:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA21953; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA21942 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:33:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from enterprise.netgravity.com (enterprise.netgravity.com [209.117.136.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03407 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ANDROMEDA.netgravity.com ([209.117.136.164]) by enterprise.netgravity.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA6724 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:19:37 -0800 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Reply-to: "From: Lazlo Nibble" Subject: More Spam? Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:19:36 -0800 Message-ID: <7726842578E.AAA6724@enterprise.netgravity.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk So your ISP should be black listed because I put your name in the From line (return address) and the reply-to line above? So wonderful of your ISP to make a safe home for me. At least that was my understanding of what Ivan said -- Bob >On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:18:17AM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote: > >> >If you have some evidence to support your claim that sysadmins refuse mail >> >from people for no reason, please present it. >> >> We were put on the Paul Vixie black list system and had all traffic from >> our mailservers blocked into the US by a US ISP that used the list as a >> reference. This had a major effect on our service, as the ISP was the >> supplier into the US for our ISP. >> What was our crime? Someone used one of our client addresses as a _return_ >> address on a piece of spam. > >I hardly think that providing a safe home for spammers to collect >responses to their spam is "no reason" for refusing to connect to >your system. By offering a drop box, your site was actively >assisting these lowlifes in their abuse of the network. Why should >people feel obligated to help you help the spammers by connecting to >you? > >-- > Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 00:29:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA21968; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:34:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA21960 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from llama.swcp.com (llama.swcp.com [198.59.115.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA04581 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:25:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by llama.swcp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) id UAA02604 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:29:59 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:29:58 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Message-ID: <19990128202958.A2459@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <19990126124327.A16998@swcp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Brent Sims on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:00:38PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:00:38PM -0700, Brent Sims wrote: > Not long ago I had the plug pulled on me because someone had > subscribed to a very low traffic, subscription confirmation required, > mailing list that I run. They received one mailing, which consisted of > exactly what they were told they would get, but because they forgot they > had subscribed a complaint was issued to my ISP who yanked the plug in > order to avoid ending up on someone's black list. That may have been the excuse your ISP fed you, but sites don't get blacklisted under the circumstances you list above. Even if you *had* sent this guy unsolicited email, that wouldn't have even bumped the needle on the RBL. If your provider really felt they were at risk, they were being irrational. > The point and I believe the point of the original message in this > thread is that sometimes those of us who actually play by the rules get > nailed because some crazed lunatic doesn't have anything better to do with > their time than run a blacklist. Actually I think running a blacklist is one of the better things one can do with their time. The RBL has had a significant impact on the amount of junk email being puked across the Internet. If you think the right of people to send junk email is more important then the right of people to control their own servers -- which when all is said and done is all the RBL is, albiet writ very large across the face of the net because so many providers agree with how it's run -- than you and I part company in a really serious way. -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com this message powered by art of silence - artofsilence.co.uk -- From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 00:30:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA21896; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:32:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA21888 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:32:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from MAINE.maine.edu (maine.maine.edu [130.111.39.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA25332 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from polaris.umpi.maine.edu [130.111.208.87] by MAINE.maine.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 310) via TCP with SMTP ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:22:37 EST Received: from POLARIS/SpoolDir by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.43); 28 Jan 99 08:24:06 EST Received: from SpoolDir by POLARIS (Mercury 1.43); 28 Jan 99 08:23:45 EST Received: from albert (130.111.208.84) by polaris.umpi.maine.edu (Mercury 1.43); 28 Jan 99 08:23:41 EST From: "Anthony J. Albert" Organization: University of Maine at PI To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:23:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Prices for advertising. In-reply-to: <199901280730.XAA18718@honor.greatcircle.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-ID: <9019AB72912@polaris.umpi.maine.edu> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 27 Jan 99, at 23:30, List-Managers-Digest wrote: >------------------------------ >Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:30:37 +0900 >From: Leif Gregory >Subject: Prices for advertising. > >Hello fellow List-managers, >I publish the VBOK e-zine on a monthly basis to a little over 1100 >subscribers. I've decided to allow advertisements in my newsletter, >but I really have no idea on what to charge. >I have four offers for advertisements, but I just don't know how much >to charge. Well, the little I know about running a publishing business says that you should at least try to cover your costs from your advertisers. So, figure out what you spend on this newsletter, per month, and then divide that by the number of advertisers, to find out how much to charge them. If you are doing this on a voluntary (i.e. "non-profit") basis, already, then if I were you, I wouldn't count my time as part of the costs to you. But if you see this as a profit-making enterprise, then you need to include your time, at a fair wage, as part of the costs of production. (I listened to a long article on public radio a little while back, on why many small businesses do well at first, but then go under, and not allowing for labor costs from the start was one reason.) Re: your stress on *permanently* stored ads - National Geographic and other print magazines have ads, and those magazines are archived more-or-less permanently in many prominent institutions, so I'm not sure that you should figure on additional fees on that basis. Anthony J. Albert ============================================================== Anthony J. Albert albert@polaris.umpi.maine.edu Systems and Software Support Specialist Postmaster Computer Services - University of Maine, Presque Isle Attention: the next meeting of the Time Travellers' Society will be last Tuesday. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 07:47:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA29471; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA29464 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userc120.uk.uudial.com [193.149.95.86]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA14001; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:10:29 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990130145548.00982570@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:03:39 +0000 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Ivan Pope Subject: The Spam Police are amoung us! Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>I'll second that. Paul Vixie hates my guts; yet a couple weeks ago when my >>address here was forged as the envelope sender of some spam, there were no >>RBL sanctions against this ISP nor against me. >>Ron Guilmette wrote, >If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at >best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the >message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that >*I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has >accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to >it. Oh no, by accusing the RBL Vixie scheme of being trigger-happy I have outed myself as a dyed-in-the-wool spammer. Sounds a bit like a Macarthyite approach to me. Ivan From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 07:49:47 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA29447; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA29440 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:07:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userc120.uk.uudial.com [193.149.95.86]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA14006; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:10:34 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:03:40 +0000 To: nolan@tssi.com From: Ivan Pope Subject: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 15:47 29/01/99 -0600, you wrote: >Ivan Pope wrote: > >> Do you try to stop the USP posting to Direct Mail users? > >I continue to assert that the comparison to bulk mailers is not proper, >and that the economics of the Internet are not structured correctly and >actually encourage spamming. What I meant was, do you try and stop people _sending mail back to_ Direct Mail users? Because that's what the effect of blackholing companies for having a 'drop-box' used by a 'spammer' is. So, does anyone stand outside the offices of a Direct Mail company and try to stop the post being delivered? Or burn their offices down to stop all their business? Or threaten to burn them down unless they change their way of doing business? Because, that's the effect of the Vixie RBL system - its blackmail. If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. There is an issue of free speech here btw. Ivan From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 09:33:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA00726; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:19:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA00719 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:19:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA24950 ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:28:11 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990128202958.A2459@swcp.com> References: ; from Brent Sims on Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:00:38PM -0700 <19990126124327.A16998@swcp.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:23:56 -0800 To: Lazlo Nibble , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:29 PM -0700 1/28/99, Lazlo Nibble wrote: >> The point and I believe the point of the original message in this >> thread is that sometimes those of us who actually play by the rules get >> nailed because some crazed lunatic doesn't have anything better to do with >> their time than run a blacklist. Like this never happens in real life, and it's unique to the internet? (not!) Look, basic reality: sometimes the systems don't do teh right thing, for the best of intentions. Systems aren't perfect. Processes fail. There are special conditions where Stuff Happens. It's a real b?tch if you get nailed by one of these, too. I'm not minimzing that. But that doesn't mean the systems are bad. Imperfect to flawed, but not bad. But just like, oh, what happens when you get a report about a parking ticket because the data entry clerk typed a license plate in wrong -- you get to deal with it anyway. > Actually I think running a blacklist is one of the better things one can do > with their time. The RBL has had a significant impact on the amount of junk > email being puked across the Internet. Yup. I have some issues with RBL. I've chosen NOT to run it on my sites. Doesn't mean I think its scum, just means I don't think it's something I want on my sites. But a while back, much to *my* amazement, one of my sites ended up on dorkslayers for open relays. Surprised the h@ll out of me, to put it mildly. And -- dorkslayers was right, because of a really obscure glitch in my sendmail configuration. Really, really obscure. Took me three bloody days to find and fix, but the bottom line was, dorkslayers was right, and it got fixed. > If you think the right of people to > send junk email is more important then the right of people to control their > own servers The bottom line is really rather simple -- everyone has the right to choose what's best for THEIR system. Don't like RBL? Don't run it. Don't pay attention to them if RBL blackholes you. That's your right. But you can't accept this as YOUR right, and not give others the right to do what they want, too. Can't have it both ways -- if they can't force you to do it their way, you can't force them to do it your way. So if you choose to ignore RBL, you live with the consequences of losing email access to sites that DO subscribe to RBL. That's THEIR right. Nobody has to accept email from anyone. There's no right there -- just a large collection of interacting priviledges. I just blackholed a site yesterday (optonline.net) because a user has been trolling lists and sending physical and abusive threats to me -- and the postmaster and admins have never bothered to respond to any email, much less do something about it. I don't need this, so the site has gone away (the user also was sending from hotmail, and the hotmail folks have been responsive. At least they TRY to keep their world clean, folks...). There's no rule that says I have to accept mail from anyone for any reason. Just like there's no rule that says you have to accept mail from me. You want me to accept your mail? Play by rules we both agree with. If that's RBL, that's RBL. If you don't want to play by those rules, accept the consequences. It's not that tough. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 10:33:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA01282; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from gaserver.ga.unc.edu (gaserver.ga.unc.edu [152.4.20.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA01271 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from chdial01.ga.unc.edu (chdial01.ga.unc.edu [152.4.35.130]) by gaserver.ga.unc.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21329; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:18:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:22:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Byron C. Howes" To: Ivan Pope cc: nolan@tssi.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: bch@ias.ga.unc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: > What I meant was, do you try and stop people _sending mail back to_ Direct > Mail users? Because that's what the effect of blackholing companies for > having a 'drop-box' used by a 'spammer' is. Um, unless I'm misunderstanding something terribly obvious, that isn't the way it works. Sites on the 'black hole' list can _receive_ mail from anywhere, including from organizations like mine who happily respect the RBL, they just can't send it out to sites that observer the RBL list. That is, after all, why it's called the "Black Hole" list. Anything can go in but nothing can come out. Your right of free speech, by the way, does not include the right to use my press -- which is what spamming effectively does. --Byron Howes Systems Administrator UNC General Administration From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 11:35:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02016; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:11:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA02006 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14942 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA016119747; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:55:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199901291955.AA016119747@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Ivan Pope Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Yet another virus alert In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:07:30 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:55:47 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Vixie's RBL is an attempt to impose arbitary standards on the Internet by >force and it should be resisted. By force?? You mean the RBL police will be coming by to make sure I subscribe? -Mitch From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 11:50:17 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01943; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA01933 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from izzy6.izzy.net (izzy6.izzy.net [206.84.176.178]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA08770 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from UUatbbs@localhost) by izzy6.izzy.net (8.8.8/8.6.9) id GAA27054 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:29:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: izzy6.izzy.net: UUatbbs set sender to dbsmith@atbbs.com using -f >Received: by atbbs.com (0.99.970109) id AA03603; 29 Jan 99 06:28:58 -0500 From: dbsmith@atbbs.com (David B. Smith) Date: 28 Jan 99 21:13:04 -0500 Subject: Good taste Message-ID: <7d5_9901290628@atbbs.com> Organization: American Tune BBS * Ypsilanti Twp MI To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Had a potential subscriber to my DEATHLAW list send me a tough question: AH>My dad - when he's lucid - occassionally comes up with a funny joke about AH>his condition. AH>Can I post jokes about death on the list? On the one hand, it'd be in kinda poor taste, as well as only marginally on-topic to a discussion about Law and Death. On the other hand... well, I gotta consider the source. Gotta make allowances for the input of a dying person to any discussion related to death. * SLMR 2.1a * William Kelly was fed secretary -- >> 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 From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 12:05:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02210; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA02203 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa27292; 30 Jan 99 11:27 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 30 Jan 99 11:22:13 PST for List-Managers@greatcircle.com To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Prices for advertising. From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 11:08:16 PST In-Reply-To: <9019AB72912@polaris.umpi.maine.edu> Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Anthony J. Albert" writes: > Well, the little I know about running a publishing business says > that you should at least try to cover your costs from your > advertisers. So, figure out what you spend on this newsletter, per > month, and then divide that by the number of advertisers, to find out > how much to charge them. I don't believe that model governs online. It's probably still how plastics and potatoes are marketed, editing in the demand and volume of the product, but the big factor is simply how much folks are willing to pay, as determined by how much others are able to command. Advertisers pay Newsweek and Elle not based upon how much it costs to bring those books to the rack, but on how many readers they can deliver. Were I to guess without going back to calculate what we've paid for online ads in mailing lists, I'd peg the going rate at about $100 per issue per 10,000 subscribers. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 12:19:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA02466; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:43:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA02451 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:43:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27310 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA24596 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:55:18 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: The Spam Police are amoung us! In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:03:39 +0000. <3.0.32.19990130145548.00982570@mail.netnames.co.uk> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:55:17 -0800 Message-ID: <24594.917726117@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.32.19990130145548.00982570@mail.netnames.co.uk>, Ivan Pope wrote: >>>Ron Guilmette wrote, > >>If the truth be told, he is not entirely fond of me either (and I'm at >>best ambivalent about him), but regardless of all that, I think that the >>message that started this sub-thread contained the first instance that >>*I* have ever seen where anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool spammer has >>accused him of being trigger-happy. He isn't, and that's all there is to >>it. > >Oh no, by accusing the RBL Vixie scheme of being trigger-happy I have outed >myself as a dyed-in-the-wool spammer. No. But you _have_ outed yourself as one of innumerable whiners who want to claim that they have some sort of God-given right to make a buck (even if only indirectly) via spamming, and one who is willing to shave the truth a bit in order to try (unsuccessfully) to paint yourself as a totally innocent victim. You hosted spammer drop-boxes. Also, you didn't respond to complaints about the activities of your users. You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar, so then a *lot* of other somones (in particular, all of the network admins who use the RBL) whacked you for it. Deal with it. Get over it. But above all, STOP WHINING. If people don't want your packets (e.g. be- cause you are behaving like an uncooperative s**t-head) then they don't want your packets, and they *don't* have to accept them. You own _your_ equipment, and they own their's. Which part of this do you not understand? >Sounds a bit like a Macarthyite approach to me. Sounds more like African-Americans refusing to ride on busses at all (if they are only allowed to sit in the back) to me! Call it what you will. A blacklist, a boycott, or just an organized protest. You can attempt to apply any damn label you want to it... and it seems that you will... but _that_ is just your attempt to shift focus away from the set of ethics (if they could be called that) that you use to run your business. Let's stick to the subject, shall we? The subject was you, and the ethics (or lack thereof) of your business practices. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 12:48:37 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA03187; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:29:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cantec.com (ns1.cantec.com [206.31.250.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03180 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from www ([206.31.250.15]) by cantec.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06) id 4935100 ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:34:30 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990130203004.0132d654@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: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:30:04 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Dave Bigham Subject: Repeating auto-responder Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is somewhat off topic but I hope there is some help or direction for me on this list. I have recently seen a timed auto-responder where an initial message is sent out following a request and additional messages are sent automatically later on. This is not, strictly speaking, a list. Once the pre-programed number of messages are sent, no further mail is generated. My question is where can I get information or code to do this kind of thing myself using my own server. I know the location of one or two commercial services that do this but I would like to have the capability in-house. Thanks, Dave Bigham From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 13:06:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA03300; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03291 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:43:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA33706 ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:52:37 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:46:33 -0800 To: Ivan Pope , nolan@tssi.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. Well, as has been pointed out, this ain't the post. the laws are different. > There is an issue of free speech here btw. Bogus. Your right to free speech stops when you insist I have to listen. You can talk all you want. Nobody has to pay attention. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 13:18:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA03318; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03311 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA33714 ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:52:39 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990130145548.00982570@mail.netnames.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:48:06 -0800 To: Ivan Pope , "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: The Spam Police are amoung us! Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:03 PM +0000 1/30/99, Ivan Pope wrote: > Oh no, by accusing the RBL Vixie scheme of being trigger-happy I have outed > myself as a dyed-in-the-wool spammer. > Sounds a bit like a Macarthyite approach to me. nope. it's simple. We have an understanding and track record with the RBL. By coming in and telling us it's wrong, you have to prove it, because we know how it operates. You haven't. You've just complained about it. When you have two points of view, one you understand, one you don't, which do YOU believe? (I'd say "the one that fits my basis in reality", but I won't...) -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 13:34:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA03491; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA03483 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05487 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:01:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990130095750.03d1a8c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:57:50 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: More Spam? In-Reply-To: <7726842578E.AAA6724@enterprise.netgravity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:19 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Lazlo Nibble is said to have written: > >So your ISP should be black listed because I put your name in the From >line (return address) and the reply-to line above? So wonderful of >your ISP to make a safe home for me. > >At least that was my understanding of what Ivan said -- Have you been reading this thread? Someone pointed out that they had been screwed over in exactly that manner and had *not* been RBL'd. The investigation proceeded, and nothing happened. It only happens when the ISP fails to reply to complaints or to RBL and indicate that an investigation has been done and that this was a forgery. That is, whn someone says, "I'm not a spammer, I just provide maildrops for them." Or does not respond to spam complaints at all. As this person apparrently did. People who use the RBL list have decided that one of the responsibility of someone who runs an ISP is to not provide a home for or other services to spammers. I personally extend this to providing DNS services and other incidental services that enable the spammers to function on the net, and not only direct incidentals such as maildrops and web sites. They have also decided that they don't want to work and play with people who do not shoulder those responsibilities. This is an anarchy - you can make up an equally arbitrary set of rules for those you will work and play with, such as, "no Z in the domain name" or "address does not end in '9' when expressed in dotted decimal." And you can make up your own blackhole list and try and convince others to adopt your rules. The difference, of course, is that enough people actually agree with the rules that are embodied in the RBL process that they are adopted widely enough to cause the people put on the RBL some pain. -- Pasta is really just kibble, boiled until soft. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 13:48:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA03921; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA03914 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA23945; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27736; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:32:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:32:18 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: "Byron C. Howes" Subject: Re: Spam Police 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 Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Byron C. Howes wrote: > Your right of free speech, by the way, does not include the right > to use my press -- which is what spamming effectively does. Yup. Put another way, you have the right to speak. You don't have the right to hijack a captive audience and force them to listen. Same principle applies to off-topic posts on some mailing lists. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 14:48:20 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA04674; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:28:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA04667 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA21008 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA29492 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:40:43 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:03:40 +0000. <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:40:43 -0800 Message-ID: <29490.917736043@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk>, Ivan Pope wrote: >What I meant was, do you try and stop people _sending mail back to_ Direct >Mail users? Because that's what the effect of blackholing companies for >having a 'drop-box' used by a 'spammer' is. Not exactly. It is more like throwing a fence in jail for the offense of aiding and abetting theft. >So, does anyone stand outside the offices of a Direct Mail company and try >to stop the post being delivered? Or burn their offices down to stop all >their business? Or threaten to burn them down unless they change their way >of doing business? Paul Vixie burned down your office??? Wow man. Like bummer. Do you have any pictures? Video tape? (You wouldn't by any chance be hyperventilating and/or exaggerating just a wee bit, would you?) >Because, that's the effect of the Vixie RBL system - its blackmail. Funny. That is exactly that same thing that _all_ of the shameless profiteers say whenever someone mounts a legitimate boycott in protest against their unscruplous activities. >If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. >There is an issue of free speech here btw. Ivan, you need to take more lessons on ``spammer speak''. You just aren't getting the essence of it. You need to hang out in news.admin.net-abuse.email for awhile. If you do, you will learn that spammers (and the folks who in- directly make money from them, like you) always talk about ``free speach(tm)''. (This is somewhat of a standing joke these days in n.a.n-a.e, because the spammers who show up from time to time to try to excuse their theft of other people's bandwidth on the basis of ``free speach'' are not, in general, even literate enough, it seems, to be able to _spell_ these two simple words, let alone smart enough to understand this lofty ideal _or_ the reasonable limitations that even _our_ court system here has placed on it. Of course, over on _your_ side of the pond, you have essentially all of the same limitations on free speech as we have... specifically you are not allow to *steal* from people in order to exercise your free speech rights... *AND* you also have The Official Secrets Act, which is a ridiculous and pointless limitation on your right of free speech, but that's your problem.) -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 17:19:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA06536; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.160.189]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA06523 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from shadow-castle (1Cust195.tnt16.lax3.da.uu.net [153.37.97.195]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20795 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:11:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990130171319.007ef350@mgsw3.jpl.nasa.gov> X-Sender: kyle@mgsw3.jpl.nasa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:13:19 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Kyle Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:32 PM 1/30/99 -0500, murr wrote: >> Your right of free speech, by the way, does not include the right >> to use my press -- which is what spamming effectively does. > >Yup. Put another way, you have the right to speak. You don't have >the right to hijack a captive audience and force them to listen. >Same principle applies to off-topic posts on some mailing lists. > > >- murr - And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country. Kyle My opinions are my own an are in no way influenced by aliens. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 19:19:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA07649; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:03:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mg2.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA07640 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:03:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12856 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:09:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (brent@166-93-38-117.rmi.net [166.93.38.117]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21969 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:09:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (brent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05346 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:08:55 -0700 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:08:54 -0700 (MST) From: Brent Sims X-Sender: brent@localhost.localdomain To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990130171319.007ef350@mgsw3.jpl.nasa.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm gone, but before I go I have to say this: I don't rely on "Plug and Play" technology. I'm a professional and such I am in control of my email box. If you have so little control over your email box that you can't stop it from filling with spam then the fault lies with either you or the makers of your email client, rather with those who are simply exploiting the holes in your system. Have a nice life. Brent On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Kyle wrote: ->At 04:32 PM 1/30/99 -0500, murr wrote: ->>> Your right of free speech, by the way, does not include the right ->>> to use my press -- which is what spamming effectively does. ->> ->>Yup. Put another way, you have the right to speak. You don't have ->>the right to hijack a captive audience and force them to listen. ->>Same principle applies to off-topic posts on some mailing lists. ->> ->> ->>- murr - -> ->And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the ->government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability ->to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you ->right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to ->limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country. -> -> -> ->Kyle ->My opinions are my own an are in no way influenced by aliens. -> From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 19:50:14 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA05543; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:34:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA05431 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d29.dial-2.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.61]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id SAA20898 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:27:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990130232902.00b88a80@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: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:29:02 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Spam Police Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 1/30/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote: >There is an issue of free speech here btw. Would that be the same issue that prevents people from going to your house and spraypainting their advertising all over it? From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 30 21:33:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA08840; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA08833 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 21:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa15725; 30 Jan 99 21:20 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 30 Jan 99 20:17:42 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam Police From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: <2JiX3e1w165w@clovis.nerdnosh.org> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 20:05:36 PST In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990130171319.007ef350@mgsw3.jpl.nasa.gov> Organization: NERDNOSH - the story continues... Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kyle writes: > And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the > government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability > to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you > right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to > limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country. Which country is this? Mission creep has allowed the prospect of the First Amendment in the US to seep down so that practically any entity is bound and must abide by it. The strangest was the holding by the Supremes that a mall, an enclosed parcel of private enterprise, must open up for pamphleteers. Your local shopping emporium does not have the right to refuse admittance to the tedious bands of puplic spammers with their wretched clipboards... For the time being, I hold my own forum as a private garden party, and we laugh when some youngster blusters in spouting his right to produce whatever his wit will allow and our corrolary obligation to carry it. But I wonder what's coming. AOL is also a private entity, and yet the judges seem to take seriously anyone's right to broadcast through their servers. mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:majordomo@story.nerdnosh org the command: subscribe nerdnosh From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 02:25:37 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA12541; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA12532 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userj306.uk.uudial.com [194.69.101.153]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06218; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:16:24 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990131094847.00b0be60@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:09:28 +0000 To: Kyle From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the >government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability >to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you >right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to >limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country. I think you'll find that the right to free speech has a lot of nuances. Much of it is to do with the ability of unpopular speech to be allowed a platform. Much of it has to do with the ability or not of the powerful or controllers to stop others saying things. It of course doesn't have anything to do with forcing others to listen - but that is a red herring and not the point here. Ivan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 02:37:59 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA12550; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA12543 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userj306.uk.uudial.com [194.69.101.153]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06225; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:16:27 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990131095614.009a5770@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:09:31 +0000 To: murr rhame From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Yup. Put another way, you have the right to speak. You don't have >the right to hijack a captive audience and force them to listen. >Same principle applies to off-topic posts on some mailing lists. Let's take another view on this. We all do and always receive emails that we don't want - so we delete them. We also all receive emails that we didn't ask for but that we want - Great Aunt Edna, for example. So how do we define Spam? How do we draw a distinction between emails that we didn't ask for and don't want and emails that we did ask for and do want? I am still waiting for someone to post a definition of spam. Does it occur when someone sends more than two emails? More than a million? Commercial messages? Unsolicited commercial messages? I believe that if we are ready to accept a single unsolicited message, then we are effectively signalling that we are ready to accept many more. We all have our strategies to deal with this. It seems that you want to cure the 'problem' at a higher levels, i.e. by shutting off access for some people to the networks. And that is a free speech issue, whether you like it or not. What happens when the Vixie RBL starts to list political sites, or race hate sites, or religious sites, or whatever the people who control it decide they have had enough of? I think the Internet will soon cure the spam 'problem' by creating a new generation of tools, rather than by taking a blunt instrument to it. Ivan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 02:52:56 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA12533; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA12516 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userj306.uk.uudial.com [194.69.101.153]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06211; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:16:21 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:09:24 +0000 To: "Byron C. Howes" From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Let me try one more time to explain what I mean: >> What I meant was, do you try and stop people _sending mail back to_ Direct >> Mail users? Because that's what the effect of blackholing companies for >> having a 'drop-box' used by a 'spammer' is. > >Um, unless I'm misunderstanding something terribly obvious, that isn't the >way it works. Sites on the 'black hole' list can _receive_ mail from >anywhere, including from organizations like mine who happily respect the >RBL, they just can't send it out to sites that observer the RBL list. That >is, after all, why it's called the "Black Hole" list. Anything can go in >but nothing can come out. 1. One user of a forwarding service that we run used his address on some 'spam'. 2. This address was actually a unique domain name, but was run through our forwaring service 2. Because of the way our service works, about twenty thousand other people were getting the service through the same service. 3. The main US upstream provide to our UK hosting service subscribed to RBL and cut of 'ability to send mail'. 4. Which had the effect of cutting off most forwarding service to the US for all of our clients. Now, whatever way you look at that, one use of one address had a huge effect on our service for a few days. You may understand _how_ it works, but you don't understand _what_ it does. BTW, there are claims being made that the RBL has hugely lessened the amount of 'spam' on the Internet. I would be very interested to see the source for this assertion. I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'. Thanks, Ivan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 03:08:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA12534; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from minbari.netnames.net (minbari.netnames.net [195.40.150.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA12518 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:13:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivan3.netnames.co.uk (userj306.uk.uudial.com [194.69.101.153]) by minbari.netnames.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06215; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:16:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990131094545.00b5f870@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Sender: nnuk-ip@mail.netnames.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:09:26 +0000 To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" From: Ivan Pope Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Ivan, you need to take more lessons on ``spammer speak''. You just aren't >getting the essence of it. You need to hang out in news.admin.net-abuse.email >for awhile. If you do, you will learn that spammers (and the folks who in- >directly make money from them, like you) always talk about ``free speach(tm)''. Ron, The problem here is that of course I don't 'need' to 'hang out' in any newsgroups for a while to learn to moderate my language, or learn how to talk in a politicallly correct way. I don't need to learn to talk the correct language. I was there and I remember well when the whole Internet consisted of people like you - everything was a club and there was a huge resistance to 'making money'. Luckily, things changed. Now, we all need to make a living and the Internet accepts that. And you seem to have a desire to make your living in the arena of 'Spam'. Which of course means that you have to be an expert in this area. Which of course gives you an incentive to spend all your time working out your position on things. I, on the other hand, run a business that has to do with domain names. So, if you want chapter and verse on domain name issues we can engage at great length. I will of course try my best to avoid sarcasm, put downs, zealotry and abuse. I don't think anyone knows what the answers are - and there are as many views on it as there are people involved. I don't know much at all about the history of Spam control, but I would assume that there are different sides and different positions and lots of arguments. I would be highly surprised if your attitude or the attitude on news.admin.net-abuse.email is somehow the official or only line, however much you might like it to be. Therefore, my approach, which is one of 'I don't like holier-than-thou systems which impose one person's value system on everyone else'. That's my view and I reserve the right to have it. Plenty of people get vilified for not taking the party line, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or evil or anything. Think about it. And why don't you send me the definition of spam that you use for these discussions? Ivan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 06:08:09 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA16806; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:47:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA16799 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 05:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA02805; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:52:54 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990131084631.03a8c3d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:46:31 -0500 To: Brent Sims From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990130171319.007ef350@mgsw3.jpl.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:08 PM 1/30/99 -0700, Brent Sims wrote: > I'm gone, but before I go I have to say this: > > I don't rely on "Plug and Play" technology. I'm a professional >and such I am in control of my email box. If you have so little control >over your email box that you can't stop it from filling with spam then the >fault lies with either you or the makers of your email client, rather with >those who are simply exploiting the holes in your system. If I can shoot you, that means that your bullet proof vest manufacturer is to blame, not the jerk behind the trigger. What an ultra-maroon. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 06:37:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA17301; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA17294 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA12978 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:30:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990131092958.A12965@gsp.org> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:29:58 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: AOL is horribly broken this morning References: <001d01be4bb9$9b26d940$264ed6ce@partagas> <199901292009.AA016330568@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199901292009.AA016330568@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>; from Mitch Collinsworth on Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:09:27PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > AppliedTheory [our network provider] has worked with Sprint [Applied > Theory's network provider] overnight on the issue, > as AT did not have a route to AOL networks on our backbone. Sprint > informed AT that AOL is making software and routing changes on > their network. This is causing significant changes in how Sprint > and AppliedTheory are receiving the routes to AOL and ICQ. This appears to have no relationship to the problem that I (and others) experienced. The information I provided clearly shows that mail was received by AOL's mail server(s), and clearly shows that it was returned, thus indicating a functional, if not optimal/robust network path. It's pretty obvious that AOL broke their mail servers; I'm waiting to see if they acknowledge their error and provide an explanation for it. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 07:08:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA17496; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:42:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cydian.com ([209.218.184.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id GAA17483 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell300 [209.19.77.253] by mail.cydian.com (SMTPD32-4.06) id ABD3D01F0; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:42:27 EDT Message-Id: <4.1.19990131085758.01948ab0@mail.cydian.com> X-Sender: culrich@mail.cydian.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:00:37 -0500 To: Stan Ryckman From: Christopher Ulrich Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19990130232902.00b88a80@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:29 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 03:03 PM 1/30/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote: > >>There is an issue of free speech here btw. > >Would that be the same issue that prevents people from going >to your house and spraypainting their advertising all over it? Actually, that would be a vandalism. But leaving a leaflet wouldn't be illegal. But if someone said something to you in front of your house that you didn't like, there's nothing you can do. On the other hand, if one person sent you 50,000 of the same email that *could* (with other factors and circumstances) be construed as a form of harassment (like someone standing in front of your house shouting at you for six hours). ... again, not advocating spam ... just discussing it ... :) From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 07:14:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA17495; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cydian.com ([209.218.184.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id GAA17481 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell300 [209.19.77.253] by mail.cydian.com (SMTPD32-4.06) id ABD2D01F0; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:42:26 EDT Message-Id: <4.1.19990131085252.01945450@mail.cydian.com> X-Sender: culrich@mail.cydian.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:57:10 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Christopher Ulrich Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:46 PM 1/30/99 -0800, you wrote: > >> If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. > >Well, as has been pointed out, this ain't the post. the laws are different. Under the law, people have a right to talk. You have a right to walk away. But if you disagree with what they say, you don't have the right to shut them up... just to ignore the message. >> There is an issue of free speech here btw. > >Bogus. Your right to free speech stops when you insist I have to >listen. You can talk all you want. Nobody has to pay attention. Free speech actually doesn't apply here. The 1st Amend only applies to the State / Gov't, not individuals. The STATE can't infringe on your right to speak. An individual doesn't have to give you their forum. So, for example, if you are on the street corner & saying something I don't want to hear, all I can do is walk away. But if I publish a newspaper, you don't have a right to speak IN my newspaper. So while I can't stop you from speaking, I don't have to give you the forum. Now someone sending a UCE (and I'm not advocating it, but taking a legalistic point of view) is not setting up a forum in your space (they would if, for example, they forced their message into your web space). By sending you a UCE its more like sitting on the street & babbling... you don't like it - ignore it and walk away (or here hit delete). But they are not hijacking your site or publishing under your forum by sending you a message. There is a distinction. Just my $0.02 >-- >Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) >Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) >Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) > + > >Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 07:37:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA17769; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcc.net (150a.pcc.net [206.135.217.150]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA17762 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jeannean [209.101.118.130] by pcc.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.06) id A0F319C0029A; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:04:19 CDT Message-ID: <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk> References: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 2.50.00.45 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:18:13 -0600 Reply-To: jeanne@jacy.com From: "jeanne@jacy.com" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Ivan Pope wrote: >I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'. I sure don't know, but I've been following this thread with great interest. I run a couple standard mailing lists, one for a client (an author) who also has a completely opt-in, outgoing-only newsletter available for subscription. This is newsy in nature and does not sell or push products although I suppose the announcement of a featured article in XYZ magazine could be considered a commercial. People subscribe via a form on the Web site, no email confirmation step is in place. We've sent out four newsletters to date, to about 4,000 people. There is a tag line on the newsletter that indicates what steps had been taken to be on this 'list' and likewise, to unsubscribe. The latest one got about 4 very ugly and vulgar responses, most likely from a spouse, sibling or SO using a shared email address and unaware of what the other half is doing. One threatened to report me to some blacklist or other and it caught me off-guard. Nothing has appeared to have come of it (yet) but it has me scrambling to implement a confirmation step. If *all* unsolicited email is spam, then one could argue the point that my client's newsletter could in some circumstances be considered spam. It's scaring me a great deal because this is *my* ISP etc which this goes through. I have cable access, the only game in town, and if I were to lose that, ugh. It's a very grey area, IMO, and probably scares legit people away from setting up newsletters, some that I might like to be on. Jeanne From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 07:40:30 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA17604; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cydian.com ([209.218.184.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id GAA17595 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell300 [209.19.77.253] by mail.cydian.com (SMTPD32-4.06) id AEC91301E8; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:55:05 EDT Message-Id: <4.1.19990131094550.01954370@mail.cydian.com> X-Sender: culrich@mail.cydian.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:48:32 -0500 To: Ivan Pope From: Christopher Ulrich Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131094847.00b0be60@mail.netnames.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:09 AM 1/31/99 +0000, you wrote: >>And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the >>government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability >>to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you >>right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to >>limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country. > >I think you'll find that the right to free speech has a lot of nuances. >Much of it is to do with the ability of unpopular speech to be allowed a >platform. Much of it has to do with the ability or not of the powerful or >controllers to stop others saying things. >It of course doesn't have anything to do with forcing others to listen - >but that is a red herring and not the point here. >Ivan I think you are close here... but we have to remember that "unpopular" is not an objective standard but a subjective standard to you. So what might be unpopular to one person could be perfectly fine to tens of millions of others. As far as forcing others to listen, that should be defined. If I speak and you can hear, I didn't force you to listen. If I send you a piece of junk mail (by regular mail) I didn't force you to listen. But if I back you into a corner & speak in your face so you can't move away - then I am forcing you to listen. that is why the courts allow anyone to speak any message they want on the street but not, for example, in an airport terminal or subway - because the audience is captive and can't walk away. But remember, the burden is on the listener to walk away, ignore, throw away or hit delete, not on the speaker to not speak. From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 08:07:30 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA18075; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA18058 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA07286; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04577; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:47:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:47:43 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Ivan Pope cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131095614.009a5770@mail.netnames.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: > .... What happens when the Vixie RBL starts to list political > sites, or race hate sites, or religious sites, or whatever the > people who control it decide they have had enough of? This is classic straw-man argument. Invent conditions which do not exist then attack the scenario which you just invented. It's so much easier to condemn something which you've fabricated whole cloth. No need to confront reality when you can spin your own fantasy and attack that fantasy. If RBL starts to blacklist sites solely for political reasons, then RBL will loose credibility. If RBL looses credibility, very few sites will use the service. If only a few sites use the service, RBL will cease to be viable. Are you aware that participation in RBL is voluntary? Only those sites who voluntarily select the service use it. No one is coercing ISP's to use the RBL system. If Vixie were capricious, no one would bother using his Real Time Blacklist. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 08:23:29 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA17585; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA17578 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from default (pem05-09.swva.net [208.140.224.73]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA26198 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:56:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199901311456.JAA26198@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:56:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: spam drop-boxes Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I hesitate to re-open (or continue) this heated and ultimately fruitless thread, but the recent mention about 'drop boxes' has gotten me a bit worried that perhaps the vigilantes really are going too far. I've reviewed the AUPs for about a dozen places (including the four ISPs I do business with), and I cannot find ONE that would have anything to say about it being improper to run a "drop box" (even if a customer were really doing that). As far as I can tell *receiving* email has never been an unacceptable practice, and particular email received is *NOT* the ISP's business. Perhaps the reply-address is fake, perhaps it isn't, but since the customer isn't violating ANY local (*or*global*!) use/behavior policies, by happening to have their email address mentioned in some bit of UCE sent *by*someone*else*, and if the customer even bothers to reply to the ISP's improper (IMO!) inquiry about this, if they just say "I don't know what you're talking aboutg and I've never gotten any email about that... maybe someone is trying to set me up to be mail bombed".... what basis would the ISP have to interfere with the customer's business, whatever it might be, or to mess with their account? What would the vigilantes recommend the ISP do if the customer pushes back and threatens to file suit or complain to the local-jurisdiction consumer protection folk? [or to the feds if the customer thinks that the ISP has been improperly monitoring their incoming email]? Nick mentioned "investigate", but at least in the US there's precious little that an ISP can do in the way of investigation. No AUP that I've ever seen says anything about from whom a person can *receive* email, the laws prevent just random monitoring of incoming email [and indeed, even if it is in response to the spam, the customer might still just say that they don't know what the ISP is talking about, yes, they get some of that but they filter it to /dev/null so it doesn't affect them]. ISPs don't have the prerogative to intrude into the private business affairs of their customers, and *from*what*the*ISP*can*see*, the customer is a model citizen. And so what's the ISP to do when the vigilantes threaten to mess with their business? Seems that the ISP is caught between a rock [the vigilantes] and a hard place [the law]. [note, I've tried to be careful here, looking at it from the point of view of the ISP and the information the ISP is properly privy to. [quite different when a customer SENDS UCE, and so the parties who received it can [legally and properly] forward the "evidence" back to the ISP] What if the ISP goes back to the vigilantes and just says "the customer denies it or won't even talk to me about it (claiming that who they receive email from is none of my business), and from what I can tell (from my system logs, etc) is causing no trouble at all to anyone. My system is secure and no UCE is being sent from it". It *might*be* that the customer is really a drop box for some third-party sending out UCE, but there's no way for the ISP to tell. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 08:24:22 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA18351; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cydian.com (dnsa.ypo.com [209.19.77.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA18344 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell300 [209.19.77.253] by mail.cydian.com (SMTPD32-4.06) id AFA9980152; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:07:05 EDT Message-Id: <4.1.19990131105402.01a0fdd0@mail.cydian.com> X-Sender: culrich@mail.cydian.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:07:52 -0500 To: Ivan Pope From: Christopher Ulrich Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131150930.00a0a630@mail.netnames.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Actually, constitutionally, it generally isn't (I am a former practicing attorney). There is a right to speak, but you don't have a right to force others to listen. But the courts view the right to speak VERY BROADLY and the "forcing others to listen" VERY NARROWLY. So Yes, I can stand on the street corner and preach nazi-ism, genecide, or anything that the mainstream may view as "evil" and I have the absolute right to do it. I could even send you junk snail mail. That is fine. Because I have almost an unfettered right to speak. The fact that you can hear and may not like it is, legally, irrelavant. Now, as far as "forcing you to listen", that doesn't occur everytime someone speaks. Just because you can hear or read it, doesn't mean you are being forced. Forced is very narrowly construed, such as where you physically corner someone against a wall and shout at them or, in earlier examples, where you are on a public bus, subway, train or airport because, in a very real sense, you are a "captive" audience (you can't jump off a moving bus). But if someone stands on the corner preaching, puts out newspaper ad that you read, puts out a TV or radio ad that you hear, etc... you haven't been forced. Hearing or reading it simply does not equal forced. Being physically pinned and being forced to listen, being locked in a room, etc... that is forced (and other crimes to boot). So no, just because someone sends you an email that you read, publishes a TV, Radio or Print ad that you read or hear, or preaches on the street, you are not being "forced" to listen (even though you hear it). As far as limitations on the distribution of speech, that, for the most part, can't be limited either. The gov't can't control speech based on content (the message) but can place reasonable restrictions on the method of speech AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON CONTENT. What does that mean? The gov't can't say "no anti-black messages on TV". Why? Because it filters the content of TV based on content. So while the motive is good, it is illegal. They can't say "no ads for MLM's" because thay discriminates between one kind of message and other. But they could (possibly) place restrictions on ALL advertising, but not just one type of ad. The whole idea is that the gov't can't be a censor. So to the small degree that it can censor (and this is small), it can't be based on content. It's all or none. A lot of what can get out there may be unpopular with you or I, but may be perfectly fine to 100,000,000+ of our fellow citizens. So IMHO (and not a legal opinion), if you don't like it, delete it. I don't want any ISP filtering my mail for certain keywords. I may find 1 of 20 messages informational or useful. Or not. Or a message from a friend may contain a buzz word. Or not. But I would want the final say in what I do or do not read, not someone else. And if this means that we have to put up with some annoyance in maintaining our freedom, so be it. The price of it has never been cheap; the perks come with strings. You want to be able to say whatever you want in public? Fine. But so can everyone else. You want to say whatever you want via telephone, letter or email? Well, right now so can everyone else. And when we start saying "OK, everyone can say anything they want, except if I don't like it", well, it barely warrants comment. Sorry to ramble. Guess this was my $0.04. Cheers. Gosh, ConLaw (constitutional law) was fun... At 03:29 PM 1/31/99 +0000, you wrote: > > >>As far as forcing others to listen, that should be defined. >>But remember, the burden is on the listener to walk away, ignore, throw >>away or hit delete, not on the speaker to not speak. > >I'm sure there is no 'right to be heard'. There is a right to speak. >However, this is sensibly defined as covering the means of distribution of >speech, I belive. >Ivan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 08:52:59 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA18740; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.n.ml.org (narnia.idsi.net [208.195.228.60]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA18733 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:43:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21719 invoked by uid 505); 31 Jan 1999 16:49:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Jan 1999 16:49:22 -0000 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:49:21 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Reed To: Ivan Pope cc: murr rhame , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131095614.009a5770@mail.netnames.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: ) What happens when the Vixie RBL starts to list political sites, or race ) hate sites, or religious sites, or whatever the people who control it ) decide they have had enough of? Then the various volunteer subscribers to the RBL will simply drop their feed from the RBL and it will rather abruptly die, as has been either intimated or outright detailed on this list many dozens of times before. I, personally, very much consider this discussion both a) unproductive and b) resource consuming (and you all complain about the resource consumption of spam?). I, along with many others I'd imagine, would be forced to take a dim viewing of anyone who continues this thread further than it already has continued to, no matter if they're "fighting the good fight" or not. -- Daniel Reed If you can remain calm, you just don't have all the facts. From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 10:14:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA19545; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA19537 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09821 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:03:34 -0600 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA22001 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:03:30 -0600 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199901311803.MAA22001@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Spam definition To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:03:30 -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 I prefer the designation UCE instead of spam, 'unsolicited [bulk] commercial e-mail'. This includes get-rich-quick schemes, sex sites, and so forth. The three major characteristics of UCE are that they are never requested by the recipient and not often welcome, that they are always sent to mass quantities of people (generally at trivial costs), and they always have profit as a motive for the sender. Of these, the factor that most separates them from postal bulk mail is the low cost factor involved. A bulk mailing piece may cost fifty cents or more per recipient by the time production and mailing costs are added up. Regarding mail from my long-lost aunt, it seldom arrives bulk rate. I actually sort my mail based on the permit. 1st class I tend to open the same day it arrives, magazines go on the reading stack in the bathroom, catalogs go on the reading stack in a different bathroom, bulk mail from companies I've never heard of are likely to go into the wastebasket unread, bulk mail from companies I have heard of, including newsletters, may eventually get opened but not immediately. And as I keep pointing out, bulk mailers are at least paying the majority of the costs of distribution of their stuff, bulk e-mailers are not. Fax users got the government to pass laws dealing with unsolicited faxes, because the recipient bears a significant portion of the cost of delivery, and it was tying up people's fax capability. I think e-mail deserves similar economically based considerations, though I personally would prefer it not be handled by force of law but by force of economic rationality on the part of the Internet. But I am a lonely voice in the wilderness on this issue. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 13:40:37 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21758; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA21748 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:24:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA01591 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id LAA09476 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:49:38 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:49:38 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: More Spam? Message-ID: <19990130114937.B7703@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <7726842578E.AAA6724@enterprise.netgravity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <7726842578E.AAA6724@enterprise.netgravity.com>; from Lazlo Nibble on Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:19:36PM -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:19:36PM -0800, Lazlo Nibble wrote: > So your ISP should be black listed because I put your name in the From > line (return address) and the reply-to line above? So wonderful of > your ISP to make a safe home for me. > > At least that was my understanding of what Ivan said -- That may be what Ivan wanted you to think, but unfortunately what he wants you to think has very little to do with how the RBL actually works. If you sent out spam directing people to a return address at my ISP, and that return address pointed to a working email drop box, and my ISP had an AUP that allowed this and refused to stop you from doing business through that drop box, then yes, my ISP *should* be blacklisted. But that wouldn't happen at my ISP, so you should probably go get an account from Ivan to direct your sucker- uh, customers to. :-) -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 13:56:03 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21745; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA21734 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:24:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA01500 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:35:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.8.8/1.2.3) id LAA08543 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:40:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:40:43 -0700 From: Lazlo Nibble To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police Message-ID: <19990130114043.A7703@swcp.com> Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990130145831.00988320@mail.netnames.co.uk>; from Ivan Pope on Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 03:03:40PM +0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 03:03:40PM +0000, Ivan Pope wrote: > So, does anyone stand outside the offices of a Direct Mail company and try > to stop the post being delivered? Or burn their offices down to stop all > their business? Or threaten to burn them down unless they change their way > of doing business? Because, that's the effect of the Vixie RBL system - its > blackmail. You've already stretched the spam-Direct Mail analogy way past the snapping point, but if you want things phrased that way, it'd be more accurat to compare the MAPS RBL to a large coalition of people who refuse to do business with companies that are involved in any way with Direct Mail advertising, and who aren't afraid to tell you so. If you want to bombard people with advertising, there are way to do it without making people pay out of their own pockets to transport and recieve it, which is where the spam-Direct Mail analogy breaks down. Direct Mail pays for itself. The costs of spam are paid by everyone involved *except* the people who send it. In this sense it's a form of theft, which is why people get so hacked off about it. > If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. > There is an issue of free speech here btw. Yes there is, but it's not the issue you think it is. What's at issue is the freedom to not be compelled to pay to carry other peoples' unwanted speech on machines you control. -- Lazlo Nibble - lazlo@studio-nibble.com - http://www.studio-nibble.com -- From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 14:10:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA22113; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA22101 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA15052 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:32:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19990131153227.A15047@gsp.org> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:32:27 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police References: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk> <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net>; from jeanne@jacy.com on Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 09:18:13AM -0600 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Spam is not speech. Spam is conduct. In particular, it is conduct which consists of a theft-of-services attack and a denial-of-services attack. If are not aware of this, then (a) I suggest that you are not fully informed of the canonical definition of spam (UBE) and/or its consequences, and you are in great need of an education on this point. I further suggest a visit to the various anti-spam sites, the Spam-L mailing list, and a thorough reading of the Spam-L FAQ. (b) I invite you to examine the archives of the com-priv mailing list, and, in particular, to search for articles by Barry Shein on this topic. These articles -- including one series I'm thinking of at the moment -- go into considerable detail on this issue, and provide hard documentation confirming the points in the first two paragraphs above. Arguments about free speech are interesting; in fact, as an ardent supporter of free speech, I went through the trouble to take some classes in constitutional law in order to better understand the issues and thus serve as an advocate. These arguments, however, are totally irrelevant to the spam issue, although I note in passing that they are frequently used by spammers and supporters of similar forms of abusive, unethical behavior in a forlorn attempt to justify their actions. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 14:25:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA22307; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:12:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA22300 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:12:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09286 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04062 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:25:03 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:48:32 -0500. <4.1.19990131094550.01954370@mail.cydian.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:25:03 -0800 Message-ID: <4060.917821503@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <4.1.19990131094550.01954370@mail.cydian.com>, Christopher Ulrich wrote: >But remember, the burden is on the listener to walk away, ignore, throw >away or hit delete, not on the speaker to not speak. No. In the case of junk E-mail, when you use my equipment and my bandwidth to do _your_ advertising (without paying me for the privlege) you _are_ trespassing. This was already adjudicated and determined to be true BY A FEDERAL JUDGE. (Ref: Compuserve v. Cyberpromo.) -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 14:40:35 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA21798; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA21788 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA02967 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:14:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by daver.bungi.com via sendmail with stdio id for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:19:38 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #9 built 1998-Oct-12) Message-Id: From: dlr@bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:19:37 PST In-Reply-To: Ivan Pope's message on Jan 30, 15:03. X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: Ivan Pope , nolan@tssi.com Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [In the message entitled "Spam Police" on Jan 30, 15:03, Ivan Pope writes:] > > What I meant was, do you try and stop people _sending mail back to_ Direct > Mail users? Because that's what the effect of blackholing companies for > having a 'drop-box' used by a 'spammer' is. You are confused. > So, does anyone stand outside the offices of a Direct Mail company and try > to stop the post being delivered? Or burn their offices down to stop all > their business? Or threaten to burn them down unless they change their way > of doing business? Because, that's the effect of the Vixie RBL system - its > blackmail. No one involved with the RBL burns buildings down (at least as far as I know). No one threatens to burn buildings down. No network, and no isp is forced to use the RBL. No blackmail is involved, as no payment is extracted from anyone who is is on the RBL to get off. The RBL is a tool which ISPs and networks can use _at their choice_ to protect their systems. Using your analogy, it permits companies to say "Please mark that letter from the Direct Mail company as undeliverable, and return it to the sender - we don't want it." When addresses are listed on the RBL that permit "safe haven" for spammers, it is in response to a spammer using those resources. As a network operator, you have a choice in providing access to spammers. And as a network operator, I have a choice in communicating with your network. I choose not to communicate with networks that have poor policies. It's even in my peering agreement. > If you did it with the post you'd get arrested. > There is an issue of free speech here btw. > Ivan Rubbish - I do that with my postal mail regularly (mark things as return to sender) and I've yet to be questioned, let alone arrested. As has been demonstrated in the past, your 'right' to 'free speech' does not permit you to come in to my office, and run off 1000 copies of your advertisment on my photocopier, using my paper, and then ask my staff if they would mind distributing it, as you are far too busy. The RBL also does not stop the "Direct Mail" companies from receiving mail from people that they wish to receive mail from. Some companies using the RBL do use it to block some or all access to addresses on the RBL - but that is by *their* choice. -- Dave Rand dlr@bungi.com http://www.bungi.com From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 14:55:42 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA22373; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:19:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA22366 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:19:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10276; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04112; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:31:54 -0800 To: jeanne@jacy.com cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:18:13 -0600. <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:31:54 -0800 Message-ID: <4110.917821914@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901310918130950.0077236B@pcc.net>, "jeanne@jacy.com" wrote: >I sure don't know, but I've been following this thread with great >interest. I run a couple standard mailing lists, one for a client (an >author) who also has a completely opt-in, outgoing-only newsletter >available for subscription. This is newsy in nature and does not sell >or push products although I suppose the announcement of a featured >article in XYZ magazine could be considered a commercial. People >subscribe via a form on the Web site, no email confirmation step is in >place. *That* is *not* bright. Would you mind if I went to your website right now and subscribed to your list? You need to guard againts net-hooligans doing this sort of stuff. Believe me, they are doing it every day of the week. >We've sent out four newsletters to date, to about 4,000 people. There >is a tag line on the newsletter that indicates what steps had been >taken to be on this 'list' and likewise, to unsubscribe. The latest one >got about 4 very ugly and vulgar responses, most likely from a spouse, >sibling or SO using a shared email address and unaware of what the >other half is doing. You should _not_ assume that. You have NO REASON to assume that. The people in question could have been forge-subscribed onto your lists by people who were trying to annoy them. You need to secure your subscription process. >One threatened to report me to some blacklist or >other and it caught me off-guard. Nothing has appeared to have come of >it (yet) but it has me scrambling to implement a confirmation step. Good. >If *all* unsolicited email is spam, then one could argue the point that >my client's newsletter could in some circumstances be considered spam. >It's scaring me a great deal because this is *my* ISP etc which this >goes through. I have cable access, the only game in town, and if I were >to lose that, ugh. > >It's a very grey area, IMO, and probably scares legit people away from >setting up newsletters, some that I might like to be on. If you are going to setup a mailing list of any kind, you should understand the basics of how to prevent it from being abused. That isn't really all that hard to understand (or to do) so it really shouldn't scare anybody away. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 15:10:34 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA22704; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA22697 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14063 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:37:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA05112 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:03:32 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: spam drop-boxes In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:56:22 -0500. <199901311456.JAA26198@ctc.swva.net> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:03:31 -0800 Message-ID: <5110.917823811@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <199901311456.JAA26198@ctc.swva.net>, "Bernie Cosell" wrote: >I hesitate to re-open (or continue) this heated and ultimately fruitless >thread, but the recent mention about 'drop boxes' has gotten me a bit >worried that perhaps the vigilantes really are going too far. > >I've reviewed the AUPs for about a dozen places (including the four ISPs >I do business with), and I cannot find ONE that would have anything to >say about it being improper to run a "drop box" (even if a customer were >really doing that). All of the more enlightened ISPs now have contract clauses that prohibit their users from violating the AUPs of _other_ networks in any way while they are customers. Thus, if you spam (illicitly, and in violation of the local AUP) from X, then you _can_ in many cases have your account revoked on Y. >As far as I can tell *receiving* email has never >been an unacceptable practice, and particular email received is *NOT* the >ISP's business. It is their business if they make it their business. Some do, and others prefer to just look the other way. >Perhaps the reply-address is fake, perhaps it isn't, but since the >customer isn't violating ANY local (*or*global*!) use/behavior policies... See above. How do _you_ know they aren't violating (in particular) the AUP over at ISP `X'... where they sent the spam from? In the vast majority of cases, the spammers _are_ violating the AUP on the network that they actually do their spamming from. >by happening to have their email address mentioned in some bit of UCE >sent *by*someone*else*, and if the customer even bothers to reply to the >ISP's improper (IMO!) inquiry about this, if they just say "I don't know >what you're talking aboutg and I've never gotten any email about that... >maybe someone is trying to set me up to be mail bombed".... what basis >would the ISP have to interfere with the customer's business, whatever it >might be, or to mess with their account? Maybe, none, _if_ the customer actually did claim that he had been setup. But this is just more irrelevant hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that in Mr. Pope's case, it appears that he neither cared nor asked if their might be a shady/clever spammer operating right under his nose. There is some significant fraction of the online world which would have like him to at least _ask_ his customer what really happened. But he could not, it seems, even be bothered to do that. Doing so would not have been of any direct benefit to his own personal bottom line. >What would the vigilantes >recommend the ISP do if the customer pushes back and threatens to file >suit or complain to the local-jurisdiction consumer protection folk? Some have done that. Mostly actual spammers. They have all lost (in court) in the end. There are _many_ examples. Ask AGIS. Ask Netcom. Ask UUnet. >[or to the feds if the customer thinks that the ISP has been improperly >monitoring their incoming email]? Red herring. >Nick mentioned "investigate", but at least in the US there's precious >little that an ISP can do in the way of investigation. He can _call_ the customer and _ask_ what the hell is going on. But as I say, some people can't (it seems) even be bothered to do that... *and* they are to fscking arrogant to even answer their E-mail when people complain about the activities of their customers. Mr. Pope's case isn't about what is or is not legally allowed. It's about arrogance and greed. The law was never at issue. >... ISPs don't >have the prerogative to intrude into the private business affairs of >their customers... Wrong. They do if their contracts with those customers say they do. >... Seems that the ISP is caught between a rock >[the vigilantes] and a hard place [the law]. Wrong again. You obviously don't understand anything about contract law. >What if the ISP goes back to the vigilantes and just says "the customer >denies it or won't even talk to me about it (claiming that who they >receive email from is none of my business), and from what I can tell >(from my system logs, etc) is causing no trouble at all to anyone. IF Mr. Pope had in fact communicated even just that much back to the MAPS RBL team, then I seriously doubt that he would ever have been RBL'd. But he decided to play it the arrogant ``screw you'' way when they tried to contact him about this incident, and thus, he got whacked. Maybe next time he'll remember that there _are_ other people on this net and in this world, _and_ that the net only works so long as people _cooperate_ with one another. Mr. Pope was uncooperative with other people, and lo and behold! He then found some other people then being uncooperative with him. Justice has been done. But now he want's to whine about it. OK. Fine. Let him whine. But he got exactly what he deserved... i.e. the same level of (non-)cooperation from other people as he was giving them. >My system is secure and no UCE is being sent from it". It *might*be* that >the customer is really a drop box for some third-party sending out UCE, >but there's no way for the ISP to tell. No, but you can ask. Mr. Pope, it seems, didn't even ask. Nor did he care. Subsequent to that, he was given a reason to care. -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 15:57:00 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA23301; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:40:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA23275 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:39:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA23093; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:44:46 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990131184123.03ecaab0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:41:23 -0500 To: Ivan Pope From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Spam Police Cc: "Byron C. Howes" , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990131093210.00b61880@mail.netnames.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:09 AM 1/31/99 +0000, Ivan Pope wrote: >Now, whatever way you look at that, one use of one address had a huge >effect on our service for a few days. And you could have prevented all of that if you had used one other address properly - your contact address. Did you ever hear the joke about the mule? You see, this young farmhand was driving his mule drawn wagon up a road in the US deep south. And the mule just decided to stop --- it sat down and wouldn't move. It was blocking traffic, and causing a hell of a mess. The kid was yelling at it, had tried cajoling it with carrots, he had tried pulling it with the reins, he had tried giving it a minute and then getting it started with the reins normally, and was at a loss. It was ignoring everything he did, just sitting there on its haunches like a mule will sometimes. Stubborn as a mule, as it were. Finally an old farmer stopped his model T and said, "I see you all got yerself a bit of trouble there. Your mule ain't a'movin." The kid cussed up a storm and said, "I can see that my mule ain't a'movin, and I ain't able to get him to move, no matter what I do!" "I can git thot thar mule to move," the old farmer said, "but you gotta let me do anythin' I want, and not say nothin'." The kid, at a loss for words, nodded his head, and silently agreed to let the old codger have his way with the mule. The old farmer parked his car and went to the back, and pulled out a 2 by 4 about 4 feet long. He walked up to the mule, and the mule completely ignored him. Then that old farmer swung the 2 by 4 as hard as he could, and hit the mule right between the eyes. The mule was rocked back, and turned to look at the farmer. The farmer said, "Git up, thar, mule! Kid, give him the reins!" The kid slapped the mule's rump with the reins and the mule leaned into the traces and pulled the cart on down the road. As the bystanders cheered, the farmer walked back to his car and tossed the 2 by 4 in the back. He was overheard to say as he walked back to the driver's seat, "Mules. Stubborn critters. Sometimes you jest have to get their attention before you can communicate with them." >You may understand _how_ it works, but you don't understand _what_ it does. You were hosting a spam site, you would not respond to complaints, and it got your attention. It also let your customers know that they were patronizing a site which was associated with spam and that therefore they could not expect reliable service until the owners and operators mended their ways. Seems to me it worked fine. It got your attention, didn't it? If you had moved when the kid clucked at you, no one would have had to hit you with the 2 by 4. >BTW, there are claims being made that the RBL has hugely lessened the >amount of 'spam' on the Internet. I would be very interested to see the >source for this assertion. Frankly, I don't care. If it works to make life hell for those who are spammers, harbor spammers and ignore spam complaints (and the customers and patrons of those who harbor spammers), it has done its job. After all, they make my life hell everyday. Your complaints make me support it all the more. >I am also still waiting for anyone's definition of 'spam'. Unsolicited Commercial e-mail, composed once and sent to more than one e-mail address or newsgroup. -- That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice) mailto:njs@us.ibm.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 16:12:15 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA23417; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from noc.nyx.net (noc.nyx.net [206.124.29.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA23401 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nyx10.nyx.net (tknab@nyx10.nyx.net [206.124.29.2]) by noc.nyx.net (8.9.1a+3.1W/8.9.1/esr) with ESMTP id QAA21039; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:59:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (tknab@localhost) by nyx10.nyx.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/esr) with SMTP id QAA14952; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:59:46 -0700 (MST) X-Nyx-Envelope-Data: Date=Sun Jan 31 16:59:46 1999, Sender=tknab@nyx.net, Recipient=, Valsender=tknab@localhost Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:59:45 -0600 (CST) From: Terry Knab X-Sender: tknab@nyx10 Reply-To: Terry Knab To: Bernie Cosell cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: spam drop-boxes In-Reply-To: <199901311456.JAA26198@ctc.swva.net> Message-ID: Reply: tknab@nyx.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Bernie Cosell wrote: > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:56:22 -0500 > From: Bernie Cosell > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > Subject: spam drop-boxes > > I hesitate to re-open (or continue) this heated and ultimately fruitless > thread, but the recent mention about 'drop boxes' has gotten me a bit > worried that perhaps the vigilantes really are going too far. > > I've reviewed the AUPs for about a dozen places (including the four ISPs > I do business with), and I cannot find ONE that would have anything to > say about it being improper to run a "drop box" (even if a customer were > really doing that). As far as I can tell *receiving* email has never > been an unacceptable practice, and particular email received is *NOT* the > ISP's business. well, nyx.net's TOS/AUP specifically prohbits the use of our service as a drop box. We did that because of the nature of the service we run (which is free net access with a required validation form needed for full access) The way I do it is if I get a complaint (or complaints as the case has been), then I start investigating. I had a situation recently where a user was advertising a commercial website, posting from another site, yet using a nyx.net account name as his return address. After visiting Dejanews, and referencing the account to the information I have in the user database, I determined this was in violation of our TOS. I suspended the account and awaited his reply to my suspension. He was reinstated after agreeing to comply with our TOS. When a complaint is received at nyx, I for one, immediately investigate any publically available resources first. I have _never_ monitored any user's email, nor do I have a desire to. I'll go to our news server and Dejanews (as news is my forte here) and find the posts in question, then ask my user for the facts. If the violation looks blatent enough (like a DOS attack or blatent spamming), I will not hesitate to pull the account until I an find out what is going on. But again, I do not and will not read a user's email. I generally don't need to read someone's email to find out if abuse is going on. > What if the ISP goes back to the vigilantes and just says "the customer > denies it or won't even talk to me about it (claiming that who they > receive email from is none of my business), and from what I can tell > (from my system logs, etc) is causing no trouble at all to anyone. My > system is secure and no UCE is being sent from it". It *might*be* that > the customer is really a drop box for some third-party sending out UCE, > but there's no way for the ISP to tell. There are ways to tell without reading a customer's email. I won't go into them here, but they do exist. To address the main question: How do I as an ISP deal with addresses mentioned in UCE? I typically will contact the user and advise of the complaint. If user doesn't respond, I will suspend the account until they do respond. (Note: Suspension is different than actually pulling the acct) This usually gets results. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. I feel, though, that if a user won't respond to my request, I have a right as an admin to take action based on the facts I _do_ have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terry E. Knab News Administrator Nyx Public Access Unix From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 16:26:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA23623; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA23611 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24150 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:55:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA07554 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:21:59 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Spam Police In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:09:26 +0000. <3.0.32.19990131094545.00b5f870@mail.netnames.co.uk> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:21:58 -0800 Message-ID: <7552.917828518@monkeys.com> X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.32.19990131094545.00b5f870@mail.netnames.co.uk>, Ivan Pope wrote: >>Ivan, you need to take more lessons on ``spammer speak''. You just aren't >>getting the essence of it. You need to hang out in >news.admin.net-abuse.email >>for awhile. If you do, you will learn that spammers (and the folks who in- >>directly make money from them, like you) always talk about ``free >speach(tm)''. > >Ron, >The problem here is that of course I don't 'need' to 'hang out' in any >newsgroups for a while to learn to moderate my language, or learn how to >talk in a politicallly correct way. I don't need to learn to talk the >correct language. You do if you want to learn _exactly_ how to sound just like a spammer. You've almost got it down, but not quite. You've already got the ``free speach'' part of standard spammer-speak down, so that's a start. Now you need to learn how ot also whine about yet other irrelevances as you condone theft of services. Practice makes perfect! >I was there and I remember well when the whole Internet consisted of people >like you - everything was a club and there was a huge resistance to 'making >money'. Hey! You _are_ getting the hang of it! Time to whine about allegedly anti- commerce zealots! Look, I have no problem with you or anybody else making money on the net. I just ask that you do it _honestly_, and without *stealing* other people's resources and bandwidth for _your_ advertising. >And you seem to have a desire to make your living in the arena of 'Spam'. >Which of course means that you have to be an expert in this area. Which of >course gives you an incentive to spend all your time working out your >position on things. >I, on the other hand, run a business that has to do with domain names. You also, apparently, run an E-mail forwarding service. That's what this whole things is/was about remember? (Did you really for- get so soon that you also had this _other_ business going?) Now if you can't be bothered to ``take the time to work out'' your position on whether or not you will condone and allow people to use that service of your's for illicit, illegal, or unethical purposes, then fine. Just shut down that part of your business and nobody will ever hassle you about it ever again. But if you _do_ plan to keep running that E-mail forwarding service, then you _do_ owe it to your fellow netizens to _think_ about what sort of sensible policies you should have in place for dealing with spammers that are using _you_ and your service as an integral component of their little shell games. Oh yea... and you also owe it to your fellow netizens to at least answer your damn E-mail when people tell you that you have a customer who is steal- ing from them. >I will of course try my best to avoid sarcasm, put downs, zealotry and >abuse. I don't think anyone knows what the answers are... I know you don't... and that is where you are just plain wrong. Some people _do_ see clearly where this spam stuff is taking us (and the net) and it doesn't take a pair of bifocals or a magnifing glass or microscope or a pair of binoculars to see whet the net is going to degenerate into if everyone were to show as little concern about what they are doing to the place as you do. Eventually, the whole thing... the Internet itself... will be reduced to a worthless mass of crap advertising that NOBODY will have any desire to touch with a ten foot pole. Oh and by thw way, that will affect YOU TOO. By tolerating spammers (and helping them, as you apparently have been doing) you are fouling your own nest! Only an idiot would do that. Do you still plan to be in the Internet business in five years? If so, then you had better get busy and start zapping spammers, instead of helping them (as you have been) or else there won't be anything left here that ordinary people have any interest in in five years, and _you_ will then have to go off and sell earth shoes or something. It doesn't take a genius to see this possible future as *the* most likely future of the net. All you have to do is to take a look at the trend line for spam, and its slow but stedy increase over the past 2-3 years, and then extrapolate that upwards slope out into future years. This isn't rocket science for God's sake! And if you ``don't think anyone has any answers'' then it is only because you haven't been paying attention. The answer is: ``Yes, if left unchecked, spam will make the entire Internet utterly worthless within five years.'' Now, you can either be a part of the solution, or continue on as you have been, being a part of the problem. Take your pick and then live with it. Just stop whining about it if other people don't approve of your sleezy fast-buck approach and/or if they decide not to exchange packets with you on account of that. >...and there are as >many views on it as there are people involved. >I don't know much at all about the history of Spam control, but I would >assume that there are different sides and different positions and lots of >arguments. More spammer speak. Nice try, but you can't so easily cloud or muddy the issue... not in the presence of intelligent people anyway. Anyone who has above-moron intelligence and who has been on the net for the past several years _knows_ that the spam trend line has an upwards slope (still) _and_ they can infer the obvious implications of that. Of course some of the real fresh newbies don't understand (yet) and some other folks (like you) will try to feign below-moron intelligence levels as a ruse in the hopes of that excusing their own short-term business plans, but I think its safe to say that even you understand where this spam stuff is heading, _and_ that it ain't very pretty. >I would be highly surprised if your attitude or the attitude on >news.admin.net-abuse.email is somehow the official or only line, however >much you might like it to be. There you go again. More spammer speak. Don't try to argue the obvious facts on the ground. Instead try to pick a fight about the degree to which this party of that party is or isn't an ``authority'' on the subject matter at hand. Read what I wrote, above, again. It doesn't take an ``authority'' of any kind to know where this spam stuff is heading. Plot a trend line for YOUR OWN spam, and then extrapolate it out five years. Do you like what you see? Do you think that _anybody_ is going to like what they see? Nope. Hell! If people just want to be advertised at, they can sit in front of the TV and have it done to them FOR FREE, rather than having to PAY twenty bucks a month for the privledge of being blasted with other people's ads. In short, wise up. This isn't a matter of your position or my position, or the ``politically correct'' position or the position of the majority fo the denizens of news.admin.net-abuse.email. The fact that we will all soon be drowing in spam (if nothing is done about it) isn't a matter of interpretaion or of one's personal political leaning. I could show a six year old kid the spam trend line and even _he_ would be able to tell me which direction things are headed in. >Therefore, my approach, which is one of 'I don't like holier-than-thou >systems which impose one person's value system on everyone else'. Right. And thus, by _your_ set of ethics, if you saw someone dumping toxics into a river some dark night, you wouldn't get involved, because you don't want to appear ``holier-than-thou''. Swell. (I believe that it was Albert Einstein who said that the world is a danger- ous place... not becase of the evil men in it, but because of all of the _others_ who stand by and do nothing.) >That's my view and I reserve the right to have it. Fine. You've got it. It's your opinion, and you're stuck with it. >Plenty of people get vilified for not taking the party line, but that >doesn't mean they are wrong or evil or anything. See above. This has nothing to do with the party line... unless you call it ``the party line'' to hold out some hope that the Internet might still be here, and might still be a place worth visiting in five years. >And why don't you send me the definition of spam that you use for these >discussions? I already sent it to you. Spam is unsolicited advertising of a product, service, politician, political cause, religion or religious belief, charity or charitable enterprise, which is sent from one party to another where the sending party had no pre-existing established relationship, either business or personal, with the recipent, and where the recipient has taken no overt action which could be construed (by a reasonable person) as constituting an overt ``opt-in'' or an explicit requested to receive the solicitation or type of solicitation in question. There. Happy now? -- 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/ "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD" -- Steve Atkins From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 31 20:22:50 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA02192; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:10:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from venus.communitech.net (venus.communitech.net [199.79.146.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA02185 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from thorby ([24.94.80.128]) by venus.communitech.net ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:12:58 -600 Message-Id: <4.1.19990131181307.00fc2840@mail.rudbek.com> X-Sender: vawjr@mail.rudbek.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:14:53 -1000 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." Subject: Re: Spam definition In-Reply-To: <199901311803.MAA22001@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At Sunday 1/31/99 12:03 PM, Mike Nolan wrote: >[deleted] > >I think e-mail deserves similar economically based considerations, though >I personally would prefer it not be handled by force of law but by force >of economic rationality on the part of the Internet. But I am a lonely >voice in the wilderness on this issue. >-- >Mike Nolan I'm definitely with you on this one. We already have too many laws. (if you'd like to find voices to join in the wilderness, lemme know). Victor A. Wagner, Jr. PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93 The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"