From list-managers-owner Mon May 1 00:43:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA12890; Mon, 1 May 2000 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA12883 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 00:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197]) by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e417peZ10894; Mon, 1 May 2000 00:51:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39085EBB.7771883A@louisiana.edu> References: <39085EBB.7771883A@louisiana.edu> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 00:51:52 -0700 To: Istvan Berkeley , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Remarq.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:37 AM -0500 4/27/2000, Istvan Berkeley wrote: >Hi there, >Some time ago I noticed that Remrq.com were archiving my list. As is the >case with many people, I was not happy with this. So, I sent them a >cease and desist letter by snail mail, addressing it to their designated >person under OCILLA. I had a private discussion with the Remarq people about this, where they removed one of my lists from their archive (one that happened to be discontinued) but leaving all my others in place. that led to a further, somewhat frustrating discussion that ended up with me giving their representative an e-mail "please stop annoying me" message, and since I simply don't believe they are capable of managing C&D requests based on my discussion, I handle it here at the source by rejecting all email from remarq.com. That way, they can't subscribe their systems to my lists in the first place, so they can't archive it. Since they can't archive my site without my implicit agreement (by allowing them access to my lists), and I explicitly deny them that access, to me, a C&D becomes moot. And since my experience iwth them left me unconvinced they can manage C&D properly, that's fine by me. -- -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Wed May 3 11:08:28 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA22268; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.colltech.com (ausproxy.colltech.com [208.229.236.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA22261 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 10:59:47 -0700 (PDT) From: cegeddin@colltech.com Received: from mail2.colltech.com (mail2.colltech.com [208.229.236.41]) by mx1.colltech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/not) with ESMTP id NAA08530 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:21:17 -0500 Received: from colltech.com (hp-vba.livingcorp.com [208.51.93.8]) by mail2.colltech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/not) with ESMTP id NAA13071 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:21:15 -0500 Message-ID: <39106D8A.97DB6393@colltech.com> Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 14:18:50 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Looking for benchmarks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello, I am looking for benchmarks for various listservers...does anyone know where I could find such a thing? I am looking for numbers to make a decision for some pretty hefty lists... --Chris From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 10:21:32 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA05870; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA05863 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27254 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:36:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 10:26:01 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: webtv whitelist? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed from their whitelist list because of spam reports. I find the timing curious that both my sites were flagged at the same time. I'm wondering if this is just more webtv braindamage, or perhaps some kind of subtle attack aimed at my stuff. I know it's not because I'm suddenly tossing spam at WebTV from both my sites at the same time, and of course, they don't do things like report the spam or give me any details on what they got. given the timing, it could also be related to this iloveyou virus, perhaps, although as far as I can tell, that hasn't passed through my systems. I'm going to go double-check that shortly. Now personally, as far as I'm concerned, the webtv folks can put me on their plaidlist but I find this curious... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 11:06:27 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06248; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06241 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) id LAA23286; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005041818.LAA23286@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:18:58 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. I got this as well, for postmodern.com. Strange because I don't know of any spam originating from here at any point, or anything relayed since I installed sendmail's anti-open-relay code a year or more ago. The notification arrived yesterday, almost 24 hours before the ILOVEYOU virus broke out, at least in North America, so I don't think it's related to that. The specific piece of brain damage I'm wondering about is whether they have somehow tagged multi-recipient mailikng list mail as spam. Sigh. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 11:36:26 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA06574; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA06567 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:30:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA01712 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:52:33 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA27392 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:52:32 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <200005041852.NAA27392@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:52:32 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. Yup, I got one this morning, too. I sent back a reply asking for a copy of the alleged spam, which according to their own guidelines they are supposed to send to either postmaster@ or abuse@ before proceeding further. So far all I have gotten back is an automated response. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 11:52:06 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA06625; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA06618 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22498 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:00:31 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000504144717.A28894@jane.smoe.org> References: <20000504144717.A28894@jane.smoe.org> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:58:21 -0700 To: Jeff Wasilko , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:47 PM -0400 5/4/2000, Jeff Wasilko wrote: >I got the same thing. To me, it looks like they're purging their >whitelist based on age.... of course, that's not what they SAY.... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 12:11:53 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA06504; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org (jane.smoe.org [24.30.216.55]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA06497 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-jane) id OAA29044; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:47:17 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Message-ID: <20000504144717.A28894@jane.smoe.org> Mail-Followup-To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1us In-Reply-To: ; from "Chuq Von Rospach" on Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:26:01AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. > > I find the timing curious that both my sites were flagged at the > same time. I'm wondering if this is just more webtv braindamage, or > perhaps some kind of subtle attack aimed at my stuff. I know it's not > because I'm suddenly tossing spam at WebTV from both my sites at the > same time, and of course, they don't do things like report the spam > or give me any details on what they got. I got the same thing. To me, it looks like they're purging their whitelist based on age.... -jeff From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 12:24:00 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA07048; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA07041 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA70204 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:36:10 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:34:04 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: www.list.org? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk anyone know why www.list.org seems to be down? -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 13:14:06 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA07228; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA07221 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA58982 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 12:59:56 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005041818.LAA23286@server.postmodern.com> References: <200005041818.LAA23286@server.postmodern.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:57:29 -0700 To: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM +0000 5/4/2000, Michael C. Berch wrote: >I got this as well, for postmodern.com. In other words, it's not just me (it's all of us!), it's inexplicable, and it's so webtv... and given I've got 41 subscribers from their domain, I could get blacklisted and not notice... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 13:26:23 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA07838; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA07831 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) id RAA04333 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:42:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:42:17 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Message-ID: <20000504174217.R15716@gamerz.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: ; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:26:01AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. You're not alone. I got it today, too. I had no clue they had a whitehat list nor that I was on it. But hey... I have until the 8th to spam them to my heart's content, I guess.. 8^) -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Consultant / Sendmail, Inc. \__/ \ | URL: http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | \__/ | *BSD and Linux: The Ultimate Windows NT Service Packs From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 13:39:06 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA07914; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA07907 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7764 invoked by uid 100); 4 May 2000 16:47:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:47:41 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > anyone else see this? Lots. The message meant exactly what it said, although for some reason many people who didn't read it closely leapt to wrong conclusions. WebTV does a lot of spam blocking. Whenever they get a complaint about spam, they tend to block the site where the spam came from. Except that some sites tend to provoke false alarms for one reason or another. So they have a "whitelist" of sites that they know are well behaved and about which they will ignore spam complaints. I believe that abuse.net is on their whitelist, for example. All that their message said was that as of Monday, you'll no longer be on your whitelist. As their message said, this DOES NOT mean that you'll be blocked, blacklisted, or anything else. All it means is that if they get complaints about you in the future, they might block you rather than ignoring the complaints. Honestly, I don't understand why they bothered to send out the notice, since their blocking practices are their own business, and as we've seen, many trigger-happy sysadmins insisted it on misreading it as some sort of attack. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 14:00:34 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA08012; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA08005 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA67120 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:01:01 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 13:58:12 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: www.list.org? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:34 PM -0700 5/4/2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >anyone know why www.list.org seems to be down? it's back up. They were hacked, and were putting things back together. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 14:08:00 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA07642; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hostigos.otherwhen.com (mavery-gw.pernet.net [205.229.2.17]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA07635 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 13:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.otherwhen.com (mavery2.pernet.net [205.229.2.19]) by hostigos.otherwhen.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA90543 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:25:59 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mavery@mail.otherwhen.com) Received: from PORKY/SpoolDir by mail.otherwhen.com (Mercury 1.48); 4 May 00 15:25:51 -0600 Received: from SpoolDir by PORKY (Mercury 1.48); 4 May 00 15:25:44 -0600 From: "Mike Avery" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:25:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Reply-to: mavery@mail.otherwhen.com Message-ID: <3911967A.26801.9D0CB8B@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 4 May 2000, at 10:26, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. I had the same thing happen here. As far as I know none of the lists I host have sent "I LOVE YOU". On the other hand, there are days when I'd love to setup a filter and remove all the addresses in my lists from aol.com, webtv.com, webtv.net, hotmail.com and a few other big services that cater to the clueless. And then add those domains to my kill-file. I dropped them a note and asked them what they mean, and indicated that if they are having problems they need to talk to me about it... so far only a form letter has been returned, though I have been invited to call their toll-free number. Mike -- Mike Avery MAvery@mail.otherwhen.com (409)-842-2942 (voice) (409)-842-4352 (FAX) ICQ: 16241692 * Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other way * A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day: Creditors have much better memories than debtors. From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 15:12:47 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA08845; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA08827 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e44MLHI29463; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:21:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: webtv whitelisting Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just received the following reply to my inquiry. **** Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:17:55 -0700 From: xxxxxxxxxx To: Roger B.A. Klorese Subject: Re: FYI dorothy.queernet.org to be deleted from whitehat list Thank you. We're not reporting any problems. We're just cleaning our lists of unneeded rules. Our lists have gotten too cumbersome and are deleting sites that don't generate spam complaints. Sorry, should have made the initial messager clearer. If we are getting false positives for your site we would add you back in. On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 12:20:29AM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2000 postmaster+unwhitehat-dorothy.queernet.org@corp.webtv.net wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:17:57 -0700 (PDT) > > From: postmaster+unwhitehat-dorothy.queernet.org@corp.webtv.net > > To: postmaster@QueerNet.ORG > > Subject: FYI dorothy.queernet.org to be deleted from whitehat list > > > > > > The domain/host dorothy.queernet.org will be deleted from our list of sites that > > we never block due to spam complaints on May 8, 2000. > > > > This does NOT mean that we are blocking your site. > > > > > > Please tell me why. > -- > 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 Thu May 4 15:26:07 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA09073; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:11:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA09066 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 RAA03815 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:32:54 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA29265 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:32:52 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <200005042232.RAA29265@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? (fwd) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:32:52 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > All that their message said was that as of Monday, you'll no longer be on > your whitelist. Not quite. It says that AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, you'll no longer be on the whitelist. If there's a complaint, it would be helpful to know what it was that someone complained about. > Honestly, I don't understand why they bothered to send out the notice, since > their blocking practices are their own business, and as we've seen, many > trigger-happy sysadmins insisted it on misreading it as some sort of attack. No, I read it as a warning, without any content or information for me to take appropriate action. You've been warned. I'm just not saying what about. :-) -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 15:40:52 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA09263; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntascsg5.intranet.hdr (exchhost.hdrinc.com [206.61.158.100]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA09248 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ntascsg5.intranet.hdr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:51:38 -0500 Message-ID: <81237BCF173ED311951000A0C9E4FEE4AF95F9@ntascsg28.intranet.hdr> From: "Tegels, Kent" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: RE: www.list.org? Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 17:51:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >it's back up. They were hacked, and were putting things back together. Somebody looking for another way to send LOVELETTERs? -----Original Message----- From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:58 PM To: Chuq Von Rospach; list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: www.list.org? At 12:34 PM -0700 5/4/2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >anyone know why www.list.org seems to be down? it's back up. They were hacked, and were putting things back together. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 16:10:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09653; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:02:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 QAA09646 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:02:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 SAA04546 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:24:01 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA30270 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:23:58 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <200005042323.SAA30270@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Webtv responds to whitehat letter To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:23:58 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just received the following from the webtv.net postmaster: > Thank you for your response. > > Sorry about the confusing message. > > There are no spam complaints for your site. > > Our lists in our anti-spam rules have gotten unmanageable. On May > 8th we will be deleting entries for some sites. These are sites > that are currently NOT generating spam complaints. > > If we get "false positive" spam reports for your site we will add > it back in to our "whitehat" list. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 16:25:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09698; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09679 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA96546 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:27:45 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 May 2000 10:26:01 -0700. Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 16:27:45 -0700 Message-ID: <96544.957482865@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and >apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed >from their whitelist list because of spam reports. > >I find the timing curious that both my sites were flagged at the >same time. I'm wondering if this is just more webtv braindamage, or >perhaps some kind of subtle attack aimed at my stuff. I know it's not >because I'm suddenly tossing spam at WebTV from both my sites at the >same time, and of course, they don't do things like report the spam >or give me any details on what they got. > >given the timing, it could also be related to this iloveyou virus, >perhaps, although as far as I can tell, that hasn't passed through my >systems. I'm going to go double-check that shortly. > >Now personally, as far as I'm concerned, the webtv folks can put me >on their plaidlist but I find this curious... As of last week, the domain lists.apple.com is also on my blacklist here. The resons is simple... some net-miscreant who (apparently) doesn't like my political views signed me up to a half a dozen Apple mailing lists that I have no interest in whatsoever. (Either that or else Apple is just plain spamming me, but that seems rather unlikely.) And of course, your Chuq, in your infinite wisdom, insured that this attack would be at least twice as annoying as it should have been by setting up your lists so that they blindly accept forged subscriptions with no validations whatsoever required on the part of the victim. Thus, I had to manually unsubscribe myself in order to stop getting this jizz. I did that, in the case of the first three Apple lists that hit me, but after that it started to get ridiculous so I just dropped lists.apple.com into my Sendmail access.db file with a blanket REJECT code. I frankly don't know why you should be at all surprised when others do likewise. You know exactly what's wrong with the way you manage your lists, and you have elected, for _your_ own convenience, to leave them configured so that they can be used as tools to annoy other netizens. It is getting to the point where I and others on the net have decided that we really don't need any e-mailed communications from people and organizations who show so little respect and common courtesy towards their fellow netizens. From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 16:40:15 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09816; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from igtc.igtc.com (igtc.igtc.com [206.86.144.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09807 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from pmm@localhost) by igtc.igtc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19008; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:45:57 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:45:56 -0700 From: "Paul M. Moriarty" To: Mike Avery Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Message-ID: <20000504164556.D15881@igtc.igtc.com> References: <3911967A.26801.9D0CB8B@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <3911967A.26801.9D0CB8B@localhost> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here's the response I got back from their postmaster: Thank you for your response. Sorry about the confusing message. There are no spam complaints for your site. Our lists in our anti-spam rules have gotten unmanageable. On May 8th we will be deleting entries for some sites. These are sites that are currently NOT generating spam complaints. If we get "false positive" spam reports for your site we will add it back in to our "whitehat" list. -> Paul <- From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 16:55:25 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09939; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09932 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA51590 ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:56:14 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005042232.RAA29265@celery.tssi.com> References: <200005042232.RAA29265@celery.tssi.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:53:05 -0700 To: nolan@tssi.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List Managers) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? (fwd) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:32 PM -0500 5/4/2000, Mike Nolan wrote: >Not quite. It says that AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, you'll no longer be on >the whitelist. If there's a complaint, it would be helpful to know what it >was that someone complained about. I'm wondering if what they did was make a policy change, and simply dump the changes into the system without thinking that the system was going to toss out an inaccurate message to all those list owners... That, at least, is how it seemed to me..... (damn those mailbots! grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 17:10:17 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA09847; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.gamerz.net (www.gamerz.net [216.181.159.135]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA09840 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 16:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by www.gamerz.net (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) id TAA18884 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:46:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 19:46:48 -0400 From: Richard Rognlie To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? Message-ID: <20000504194648.C9941@gamerz.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: ; from johnl@iecc.com on Thu, May 04, 2000 at 04:47:41PM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Per one of their admins when I asked what the whitelist message meant... "Thank you. We're not reporting any problems. We're just cleaning our lists of unneeded rules. "Our lists have gotten too cumbersome and are deleting sites that don't generate spam complaints. "Sorry, should have made the initial messager clearer. If we are getting false positives for your site we would add you back in." So, we who are being deleted from the whitelist are generating too few complaints to warrant inclusion on their whitelists. On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 04:47:41PM -0400, John R Levine wrote: > > anyone else see this? > > Lots. The message meant exactly what it said, although for some reason many > people who didn't read it closely leapt to wrong conclusions. > > WebTV does a lot of spam blocking. Whenever they get a complaint about spam, > they tend to block the site where the spam came from. Except that some sites > tend to provoke false alarms for one reason or another. So they have a > "whitelist" of sites that they know are well behaved and about which they > will ignore spam complaints. I believe that abuse.net is on their whitelist, > for example. > > All that their message said was that as of Monday, you'll no longer be on > your whitelist. As their message said, this DOES NOT mean that you'll be > blocked, blacklisted, or anything else. All it means is that if they get > complaints about you in the future, they might block you rather than ignoring > the complaints. > > Honestly, I don't understand why they bothered to send out the notice, since > their blocking practices are their own business, and as we've seen, many > trigger-happy sysadmins insisted it on misreading it as some sort of attack. Agreed. If they'd not said anything, I know I certainly wouldn't have noticed. 8^) But then again, most of the lists I server run on auto pilot anyway... Richard -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Consultant / Sendmail, Inc. \__/ \ | URL: http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | \__/ | *BSD and Linux: The Ultimate Windows NT Service Packs From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 17:56:08 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA10674; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu [128.84.247.48]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA10667 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (mkc@localhost) by larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA42335; Thu, 4 May 2000 21:07:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mkc@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu) Message-Id: <200005050107.VAA42335@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu> To: nolan@tssi.com cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Nolan of "Thu, 04 May 2000 17:32:52 CDT." <200005042232.RAA29265@celery.tssi.com> Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 21:07:36 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> All that their message said was that as of Monday, you'll no longer be on >> your whitelist. > >Not quite. It says that AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, you'll no longer be on >the whitelist. If there's a complaint, it would be helpful to know what it >was that someone complained about. It was poorly worded, but I didn't read it as: "[your] domain will be [un-whitelisted] due to spam complaints ..." but rather: "[your] domain will be [un-whitelisted] ..." where [unwhitelisted] includes all of "deleted from our list of sites that we never block due to spam complaints". Or in other words the phrase "due to spam complaints" is meant to describe "block" rather than "deleted". But I did read it at least 3 times before I shrugged and moved on. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 18:10:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA10864; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA10857 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e451O3p03135 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:24:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? In-Reply-To: <96544.957482865@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > As of last week, the domain lists.apple.com is also on my blacklist > here. Nobody cares. Oh, and another thing: it's irrelevant, considering what I already explained these messages meant. -- 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 Thu May 4 18:25:46 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA10645; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA10638 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 17:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id e4515QQ13638; Thu, 4 May 2000 21:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:05:26 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? Message-ID: <20000504210526.T1451@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <20000504144717.A28894@jane.smoe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7us In-Reply-To: <20000504144717.A28894@jane.smoe.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 02:47:17PM -0400, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > > > anyone else see this? both my mailing list sites (plaidworks and > > apple) got notes from webtv announcing my sites were being removed > > from their whitelist list because of spam reports. > > > > I find the timing curious that both my sites were flagged at the > > same time. I'm wondering if this is just more webtv braindamage, or > > perhaps some kind of subtle attack aimed at my stuff. I know it's not > > because I'm suddenly tossing spam at WebTV from both my sites at the > > same time, and of course, they don't do things like report the spam > > or give me any details on what they got. > > I got the same thing. To me, it looks like they're purging their > whitelist based on age.... For what it's worth, we've been on their whitelist for something like a year and I have not yet received one of these notices. -- Regards, Tim Pierce RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator and Chief Hacking Officer From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 18:55:15 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA11485; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA11478 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 18:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e452CU204055 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 19:12:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: nolan@tssi.com, List Managers Subject: Re: about the webtv whitelist? (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 May 2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > I'm wondering if what they did was make a policy change, and simply > dump the changes into the system without thinking that the system was > going to toss out an inaccurate message to all those list owners... > That, at least, is how it seemed to me..... Yes, that's exactly what I was told. -- 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 Thu May 4 20:10:20 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA11974; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA11966 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 19:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA97273 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 20:18:11 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 May 2000 18:24:03 -0700. Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 20:18:11 -0700 Message-ID: <97271.957496691@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> As of last week, the domain lists.apple.com is also on my blacklist >> here. > >Nobody cares. Correct: You don't care. And Chuq doesn't care. It may have escaped your attention, but there _are_ some other people inhabiting this Universe with you. Maybe some other less arrogant people care that Apple has helped some random net-hooligan mailbomb me. From list-managers-owner Thu May 4 21:38:58 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA12625; Thu, 4 May 2000 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA12618 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 21:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e454vTU06631 Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 21:57:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? In-Reply-To: <97271.957496691@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > It may have escaped your attention, but there _are_ some other people > inhabiting this Universe with you. Funny, that was what MY point was: what is important to you doesn't pass that test for most of us. > Maybe some other less arrogant people care that Apple has helped some > random net-hooligan mailbomb me. And maybe some less arrogant people than you feel that Chuq's taken a step forward in usability, which is the real challenge of the net, and that the side effect, while unfortunate and necessary to address, is far less of a problem for the world as a whole than the "make it confusing and multi-step in order to protect me, even if it drives most of the net away" jive you favor. -- 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 Thu May 4 23:09:25 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA13298; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA13291 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA98437 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 23:24:42 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: webtv whitelist? In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 May 2000 21:57:29 -0700. Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:24:42 -0700 Message-ID: <98435.957507882@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> It may have escaped your attention, but there _are_ some other people >> inhabiting this Universe with you. > >Funny, that was what MY point was: what is important to you doesn't pass >that test for most of us. > >> Maybe some other less arrogant people care that Apple has helped some >> random net-hooligan mailbomb me. > >And maybe some less arrogant people than you feel that Chuq's taken a step >forward in usability, which is the real challenge of the net, and that the >side effect, while unfortunate and necessary to address, is far less of a >problem for the world as a whole than the "make it confusing and >multi-step in order to protect me, even if it drives most of the net away" >jive you favor. ``drives most of the net away''?? You have a rather inaccurate view of the net as it actually exists. Apparently you are unaware that there are tens of thousands of mailing lists on the net that _do_ confirm alleged new subscriptions... many with a confirmation messages containing a clickable web URL that even the click-and-drool dummies seem to be able to cope with... and that the majority of those lists seem to be surviving quite nicely, thank you. Face it, the only reason that you or Chuq or anybody still blindly accepts mailing list subscriptions without any kind of confirmation required is because your respective lists cater to extraordinarily stupid people who are below the level of intelligence of even the click-and-drool crowd... and you know you'd lose a big part of your subscriber base if you asked them to reply to a simple e-mail, or do anything else (e.g. clicking on a web URL) requiring intelligence in excess of a sub-moron IQ rating. OK, so how about if we strike a compromise here? I'll continue to strongly advise intelligent people running mailing lists for the befit of intelligent audiences to setup and administer those lists with modest, reasonable, and prudent security precautions, but I'll also conceed that the kinds of morons who populate your lists, Chuq's lists, and Apple's list are clearly too in- competent to be able to reply to a simple e-mail requesting them to confirm their subscriptions, or to even click of a URL contained in such a message. Deal? (I do seriously think that it is reasonable to make some special exceptions for lists that cater primarily to the lowest dregs of society, IQ-wise.) From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 06:09:39 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA19237; Fri, 5 May 2000 06:05:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA19228 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA27134 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA28207 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:51:19 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: <98435.957507882@monkeys.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I will not allow anyone to use my mailing lists as a vengeance weapon. In my humble opinion, running a mailing list with open subscriptions and no confirmations is inexcusable. This is not a new problem. I'm quite surprised that a veteran list admin hasn't taken measures to prevent malicious subscriptions. - murr - From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 07:55:13 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA19987; Fri, 5 May 2000 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA19980 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 07:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e45F7FM14885 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: murr rhame cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, murr rhame wrote: > I will not allow anyone to use my mailing lists as a vengeance > weapon. In my humble opinion, running a mailing list with open > subscriptions and no confirmations is inexcusable. This is not a > new problem. I'm quite surprised that a veteran list admin > hasn't taken measures to prevent malicious subscriptions. Follow Chuq's earlier points in this space. It is his experience that confirmation, even easy methods, are confusing to most new netters, and they simply up and leave. For him, that's a much more severe problem than the occasional attack. For me right now, I use confirmation, but I also know that 25% or more of my potential subscribers give up either when they can't get confirmation right the first time or when asked for it at all. It's a web world -- people expect to click once and get what they're looking for, not a body cavity search. -- 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 May 5 08:39:52 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA20351; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:21:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 IAA20344 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:21:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA26454; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04292; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:43:40 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Follow Chuq's earlier points in this space. It is his > experience that confirmation, even easy methods, are > confusing to most new netters, and they simply up and leave. > ... I HAVE read both Chuq's remarks and yours. I strongly disagree with most of the premises. I vehemently disagree with the conclusions. IMHO, open subscription without confirmation is unconscionable. To do so is aiding and abetting net hoodlums. - murr - From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 08:53:58 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA20393; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA20369 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT) From: blaise@scadian.net Received: from thinkpad ([204.217.158.171]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id LAA09915; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:44:29 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.8] Message-ID: <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:44:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Confirmation Required References: <98435.957507882@monkeys.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5 May 00, at 8:51, murr rhame wrote: > I will not allow anyone to use my mailing lists as a vengeance > weapon. In my humble opinion, running a mailing list with open > subscriptions and no confirmations is inexcusable. This is not a > new problem. I'm quite surprised that a veteran list admin > hasn't taken measures to prevent malicious subscriptions. I agree; however, I would like to see one intermediate level added (beyond open, auto, closed). What I'd like is open+confirm/auto -- in other words, I'd like users to be able to subzcribe *themselves* without confirmation but only subzcribe *others* with confirmation. Jim Trigg From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 09:39:01 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21069; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA21062 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA23354 ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:53:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:50:52 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , murr rhame From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:07 AM -0700 5/5/2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >Follow Chuq's earlier points in this space. It is his experience that >confirmation, even easy methods, are confusing to most new netters, and >they simply up and leave. For him, that's a much more severe problem than >the occasional attack. For me right now, I use confirmation, but I also >know that 25% or more of my potential subscribers give up either when they >can't get confirmation right the first time or when asked for it at all. >It's a web world -- people expect to click once and get what they're >looking for, not a body cavity search. It depends on the list. It depends on the audience. And it depends on lots of other factors. I'm all for mailback validation where it makes sense. Unfortunately, some folks seem to think it's a panacea, and that by definition, it's the only possible solution. that's an overly simplistic view of life. The busier the list, the more mailback validation makes sense. Getting stuffed onto a twice-a-month list is a lot different than getting stuffed on sf-lovers. One is an inconvenience, the other can drown you before you know what happened. the busier the list, the more you have to protect people from it. And FWIW, turning off mailback validation does not imply you leave your list open. My lists that don't mailback validate do other things to limit the chances of someone getting slammed. for instance, I don't have an email access point for subscriptions, so the standard "slam subscribe" tools out there are useless. I can't be part of an automated attack. All subscriptions come through a web site (or in my case, one of four web sites, three of which I don't have direct control over, which complicates things. And that's an issue Murr doesn't seem to catch -- not all of these issues are things where you have final say on the matter) The subscribe CGI should be protected from automated slam subscribes. How I'm doing this I won't say offhand, but email me privately if you want more details. If you do these things, you limit slams to those where a user physically goes into the web site and types in an email address. Those still happen -- but the number is tiny. The next level of defense is the welcome message. Every subscription gets one, and the welcome message includes multiple ways of unsubscribing, including a pre-encoded URL that takes you to the unsub page with the email address pre-loaded. It's literally a two-click operation. (it doesn't solve the problem of the person who won't read the mail, but.... ). Effectively, there IS a mailback validation here; it's opt-out instead of opt-in. The next level of defense is that if you do this, you need to make sure you have administrative resources to answer and handle mail. the postmaster has to be available and responsive -- problems happen, they can't fester. Finally, the system is set up to allow my to blackhole problem addresses and domains. If someone reports they're being repeatedly subscribed, they can be (and are) blackholed. Not having mailback validation doesn't imply no protection. And to put it bluntly, I see a much higher incident of problems on my "normal" listservs through info/subscribe bombs than I do through my big system. The big system was designed to avoid the automated bomber tools, and that in itself solves 99% of the problems. There is no one true way of doing email systems. Those who think so need to widen their horizons. Life is complicated, email is exceptionally complicated, and simplistic "this is the only way things can work" responses are, oh, non-constructive. There are many different ways email is being used, with different audiences, and you need to target your solutions to your needs and audience. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 10:07:47 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21215; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA21206 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA64440 ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:08:25 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com> References: <98435.957507882@monkeys.com> <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:06:18 -0700 To: blaise@scadian.net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:44 AM -0400 5/5/2000, blaise@scadian.net wrote: >I'd like users to be able to subzcribe *themselves* >without confirmation but only subzcribe *others* with confirmation. doesn't work, since you can't authenticate the email address. Might as well leave it wide open, because it is. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 10:23:14 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21149; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA21142 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e45H4Q516769 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:04:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: murr rhame cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, murr rhame wrote: > I HAVE read both Chuq's remarks and yours. I strongly disagree > with most of the premises. I vehemently disagree with the > conclusions. IMHO, open subscription without confirmation is > unconscionable. To do so is aiding and abetting net hoodlums. For many of my lists, subscription by request with manual confirmation is far less confusing to users -- and, oddly, MORE scalable and LESS resource-intensive. -- 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 May 5 10:37:50 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21242; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA21235 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA37100 ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:10:55 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:08:48 -0700 To: murr rhame , "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM -0400 5/5/2000, murr rhame wrote: >I HAVE read both Chuq's remarks and yours. I strongly disagree >with most of the premises. I vehemently disagree with the >conclusions. Which is fine. Nobody's forcing you to change. If we can't convince you, we can't convince you. Now, I just wish the occcasional "you must do it my way or else" hothead I run into would return the favor.... > IMHO, open subscription without confirmation is >unconscionable. To do so is aiding and abetting net hoodlums. I guess it all comes down to definitions of "open". I may not do explicit mailback validation, but I disagree that my lists are open. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 10:52:45 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA21497; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA21490 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04692 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 05 May 2000 08:07:15 -0700. Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:22:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4690.957547360@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: >On Fri, 5 May 2000, murr rhame wrote: >> I will not allow anyone to use my mailing lists as a vengeance >> weapon. In my humble opinion, running a mailing list with open >> subscriptions and no confirmations is inexcusable. This is not a >> new problem. I'm quite surprised that a veteran list admin >> hasn't taken measures to prevent malicious subscriptions. > >Follow Chuq's earlier points in this space. It is his experience that >confirmation, even easy methods, are confusing to most new netters, and >they simply up and leave. For him, that's a much more severe problem than >the occasional attack. For me right now, I use confirmation, but I also >know that 25% or more of my potential subscribers give up either when they >can't get confirmation right the first time or when asked for it at all. >It's a web world -- people expect to click once and get what they're >looking for, not a body cavity search. So put a clickable URL in the automated confirmation request message. Problem solved. From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 11:07:49 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA22111; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:02:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 LAA22104 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee-nt.climber.org (eckert@netcom6.netcom.com [199.183.9.106]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05985 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000505111959.00b52370@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:21:20 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: SRE Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com> References: <98435.957507882@monkeys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:44 AM 5/5/00, blaise@scadian.net wrote: >(beyond open, auto, closed). What I'd like is open+confirm/auto -- >in other words, I'd like users to be able to subzcribe *themselves* >without confirmation but only subzcribe *others* with confirmation. That's kind of silly, since almost every mail tool allows you to change the "From:" field in your headers. (Eudora has it on the preferences menu, and is free for all PC and Mac users.) Checking who the request is from might stop a few, but probably would not stop the worst. From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 11:22:44 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA21694; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA21687 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05139 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 05 May 2000 11:44:18 -0400. <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:44:06 -0700 Message-ID: <5137.957548646@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <200005051544.LAA09915@tonnant.cnchost.com>, wrote: >On 5 May 00, at 8:51, murr rhame wrote: > >> I will not allow anyone to use my mailing lists as a vengeance >> weapon. In my humble opinion, running a mailing list with open >> subscriptions and no confirmations is inexcusable. This is not a >> new problem. I'm quite surprised that a veteran list admin >> hasn't taken measures to prevent malicious subscriptions. > >I agree; however, I would like to see one intermediate level added >(beyond open, auto, closed). What I'd like is open+confirm/auto -- >in other words, I'd like users to be able to subzcribe *themselves* >without confirmation but only subzcribe *others* with confirmation. Apparently, you don't understand the issue. How do you know if someone really is who they claim to be? That's the issue. Like they say, ``On the Internet nobody know you're a dog.'' On the Internet, nobody knows that *I* am *not* . Someone _claiming_ to be me signed me up half a dozen Apple mailing lists recently. Apple believed that claim, blindly, and without any supporting evidence, even though it was clearly wrong. From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 11:36:32 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA21302; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:50:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA21294 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee-nt.climber.org (eckert@netcom15.netcom.com [199.183.9.115]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05515 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:12:20 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: SRE Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:07 AM 5/5/00, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >confirmation, even easy methods, are confusing to most new netters It's patronizing to assume they can't learn. If no one ever tried to educate them, they'd still be putting stamps on paper letters. The trouble explaining WHY confirmations are a good idea is worth it. >It's a web world -- people expect to click once and get what they're >looking for, not a body cavity search. Searching for analogies, I realized that I can go put someone else's name on those sweepstakes forms at the supermarket. Then THEY get the junk mail, and there's no way to trace it back to me. VERY SIMILAR. Except in the hardcopy junk mail world, there is recourse. In the electronic junk mail world, you can't make it stop once it starts... and it's easier to contact the 'victim' before it starts. If you care. SRE mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/ Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 12:10:36 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA22447; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA22435 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06789 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 12:01:50 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 05 May 2000 09:50:52 -0700. Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 12:01:50 -0700 Message-ID: <6787.957553310@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >My lists that don't mailback validate do other things to limit the >chances of someone getting slammed. Whatever you _believe_ you are doing, I have direct, first-hand, and recent experience that it isn't working. >for instance, I don't have an >email access point for subscriptions, so the standard "slam >subscribe" tools out there are useless. I can't be part of an >automated attack. Yea. Right. Like it is really difficult to write a Perl script that goes out to a few hundred of these web sites (like your's) that just ask you to type in your e-mail address to get subscribed. Uh huh. >All subscriptions come through a web site (or in my >case, one of four web sites, three of which I don't have direct >control over, which complicates things. And that's an issue Murr >doesn't seem to catch -- not all of these issues are things where you >have final say on the matter) OK. I'll buy that. So which boneheads at Apple actually DO control Apple's mailing lists? Which boneheads at Apple should I actually be complaining to? >The subscribe CGI should be protected from automated slam subscribes. The operative word there seems to be ``should''. >How I'm doing this I won't say offhand, but email me privately if you >want more details. I don't care to know how you think your system works. I just want to know why it doesn't actually work. >If you do these things, you limit slams to those where a user >physically goes into the web site and types in an email address. ... or has a Perl script do it for him. In either case, somebody who doesn't give a tinker's damn about Apple's products gets slimed with a bunch of unsolicited *commercial* blurbs about Apple's problems. Now please remind me Chuq... How exactly is this different from spamming? >Those still happen -- but the number is tiny. So that makes it alright then huh? Only a few people were ever burned to death in rear-end collisions involving Ford Pintos, so their families should just shutup and quite complaining, right? Marvelous self-serving logic there. >The next level of defense is the welcome message. Every subscription >gets one, and the welcome message includes multiple ways of >unsubscribing... Yes. And the same can be said for better than 90% of the _other_ spams I have received over the past six months. The fact remains that I don't feel that it should be incumbant upon *me* to unsubscribe from something I never signed up for in the first place. And this ain't hardly just my opinion. If you travel over to either the SPAM-L mailing list or the news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup, you'll find at least a few thousand other people who also share this view. >... including a pre-encoded URL that takes you to the >unsub page with the email address pre-loaded. It's literally a >two-click operation. Congratulations Chuq. You have just made my point for me. You just argued (and I _do_ agree) that it is trivial... downright simple... to click on the URL contained in your mailing list greeting message. Heck! It's so simple even a moron could do it, right? Now the only question is ``Who are you going to FORCE to do this simple thing? Your subscriber wannabees or people who have been forge-subscribed to your list and who never wanted to be on in the first place?'' You yourself agree that it is so simple that any idiot can do it, so why not just ask your subscriber wannabes to do it, rather than abusively demaning that I and other people who have been forged-subscribed to your lists do it? The fact that you prefer to inconvenience _me_ (and other netizens who don't really give a damn about what products Apple is pushing this season) just lends credence to the theory that I was _NOT_ in fact forge-subscribed to any of Apple's mailing lists, but that Apple, the company, is in fact just doing some good-old-fashioned address harvesting and spamming. >... Effectively, there IS a mailback >validation here; it's opt-out instead of opt-in. You and the DMA ought to get along famously. >Finally, the system is set up to allow my to blackhole problem >addresses and domains. If someone reports they're being repeatedly >subscribed, they can be (and are) blackholed. OK. Swell. Domain level opt-out. I'll take it. I have an AOL account that I use sometimes. It has ten different AOL ``screen names'' associated with it. And every so often I change a few of those screen names to something different. I have been repeatedly forged-subscribed to various Apple mailing lists, and the targeted addresses were various members of my AOL screen name set on different occasions. Because of this ongoing problem, I'm requesting that you ``blackhole'' aol.com and disallow any and all further subscriptions for any/all aol.com addresses to your Apple mailing lists. You can probably have that done by this afternoon, yes? >There is no one true way of doing email systems. Those who think so >need to widen their horizons. Life is complicated, email is >exceptionally complicated, and simplistic "this is the only way >things can work" responses are, oh, non-constructive... blah blah blah... And safety locks on guns are pointless because people will take them off sometimes and shoot themselves (or their family members) accidently anyway. I hope you don't mind Chuq. I just signed you up for the NRA's mailing list. I'm sure you'll be right at home there, along with the rest of the knee-jerk conservative reactionaries insisting on everyone's God-given right to accidently shoot innocent bystanders, so long as it doesn't happen too frequently. From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 14:26:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA24436; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA24429 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.216.27.198] (A17-216-27-198.apple.com [17.216.27.198]) by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA48006 ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:43:34 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> References: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:39:52 -0700 To: SRE , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >It's patronizing to assume they can't learn. If no one ever tried to >educate them, they'd still be putting stamps on paper letters. The >trouble explaining WHY confirmations are a good idea is worth it. I have. Sorry, it's patronizing to assume they WANT to learn. Or that nobody's tried. The biggest problem I have on my lists today are people who refuse to read the instructions. How do you teach THEM? -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 14:56:56 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA24674; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA24667 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) id PAA04046; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005052210.PAA04046@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:10:11 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq writes: > The biggest problem I have on my lists today are people who refuse to > read the instructions. How do you teach THEM? You don't. I consider it a self-executing bozo filter. If someone is 1) unable to follow simply-worded instructions; 2) unable to comply with the concept of mailing back a confirmation token, or clicking on a confirmation link; 3) unable to handle the common everyday concepts and actions of reading and sending e-mail ... my lists are better off without them. My experience shows that this group is highly correlated with the group of people who post drivel, chain letters, Net hoaxes, etc., or have misconfigured vacation programs, or post everything as HTML or rich text or try to send through encoded binaries or graphics. I get a lot of Majordomo "please approve" requests for people who sent the message subscribe your-email-address to Majordomo. If they don't understand the level of abstraction (which is explained in the following line in the help message) that causes "your-email-address" to be replaced by an actual e-mail address, they're unlikely to be a valuable contributor to the list. So I don't do it manually or even send a further help message. If they're interested, and figure it out later, they'll come back. Some lists have business or other purposes that make this unacceptable, but for the type of hobbyist, fan, and other recreationsl lists I run, it seems the best policy. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 15:56:28 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA25322; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 PAA25315 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 15:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee-nt.climber.org (eckert@netcom11.netcom.com [199.183.9.111]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA08034; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000505155337.00b422e0@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 15:57:06 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: SRE Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:39 PM 5/5/00, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >Sorry, it's patronizing to assume they WANT to learn. I don't assume they want to learn. I'm saying it's better for all of us if they DO learn. Looking at the big picture. >The biggest problem I have on my lists today are people who refuse to read >the instructions. How do you teach THEM? If you don't learn how to drive, you don't get a license. Know anyone who can't pass the driver's test? Know anyone who didn't want to? Same thing. Everyone can learn how to return a token, even if some of them don't want to. Then the REST of us are better off because there is a common knowledge base. My opinion. I'll assume there's no need to continue, because neither of us will change our minds! SRE mailto:eckert@climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/ Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 16:57:43 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25921; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA25905 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197]) by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e460BLZ05266; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:11:21 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005052210.PAA04046@server.postmodern.com> References: <200005052210.PAA04046@server.postmodern.com> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:07:43 -0700 To: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:10 PM +0000 5/5/2000, Michael C. Berch wrote: >Some lists have business or other purposes that make this unacceptable, >but for the type of hobbyist, fan, and other recreationsl lists I >run, it seems the best policy. yup. Exactly. As I said, you have to know the audience for the list, and manage accordingly... There is no single panacea solution for this stuff.... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 17:11:41 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25922; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA25912 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 16:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197]) by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e460BNZ05269; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:11:24 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20000505155337.00b422e0@pop.climber.org> References: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> <4.3.1.0.20000505155337.00b422e0@pop.climber.org> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:08:43 -0700 To: SRE , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:57 PM -0700 5/5/2000, SRE wrote: >At 02:39 PM 5/5/00, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >>Sorry, it's patronizing to assume they WANT to learn. > >I don't assume they want to learn. I'm saying it's better for >all of us if they DO learn. Looking at the big picture. I don't agree with this, either. > >If you don't learn how to drive, you don't get a license. so you're requiring licenses to use your mailing lists? that's nice, unless your lists are for people who are learning how to get a license.... -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 19:56:52 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA26952; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA26940 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER17.GVA.NET [216.80.135.21]) by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e463CDH20175 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 23:12:14 -0400 Message-Id: <200005060312.e463CDH20175@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 23:12:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: References: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5 May 2000, at 14:39, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > The biggest problem I have on my lists today are people who refuse to > read the instructions. How do you teach THEM? I don't understand, quite. I think there's a problem of "audience" here. You, I guess, have to administer lists for which membership is required, either because they're paying you to let them on your list or there's some political reason that they can't be excluded or something like that. OTOH, I'm hard pressed to think of a single mailing list among all that I've been involved with over the years for which a suitable answer to your rhetorical question wouldn't be "try once, then to hell with them". So you're not allowed to join the Quake-mod-implementers mailing list because you won't learn/obey the rules... what's the problem? [I do the same on the newsgroup I moderate: I don't 'approve' things that don't fit the rules... if a particular author gets all huffy and won't re-do the submission to fit within the charter's guidelines, I don't even give it a thought: adios, amigo, enjoy the un-moderated sister newsgroup] Why do you act like admitting single subscribers to a list is some sort of entitlement you have to bend over backwards to honor? Is there something special about the lists you administer? /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 20:13:51 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA26938; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA26929 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 19:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14250 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 20:12:00 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 05 May 2000 15:10:11 -0000. <200005052210.PAA04046@server.postmodern.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:11:59 -0700 Message-ID: <14248.957582719@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <200005052210.PAA04046@server.postmodern.com>, mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) wrote: >Chuq writes: >> The biggest problem I have on my lists today are people who refuse to >> read the instructions. How do you teach THEM? > >You don't. I consider it a self-executing bozo filter. If someone is >1) unable to follow simply-worded instructions; 2) unable to comply >with the concept of mailing back a confirmation token, or clicking on >a confirmation link; 3) unable to handle the common everyday concepts >and actions of reading and sending e-mail ... my lists are better off >without them. I couldn't have said it better myself. >My experience shows that this group is highly correlated with the >group of people who post drivel, chain letters, Net hoaxes, etc., >or have misconfigured vacation programs, or post everything as HTML >or rich text or try to send through encoded binaries or graphics. > >I get a lot of Majordomo "please approve" requests for people who sent >the message > > subscribe your-email-address Hilarious! >to Majordomo. If they don't understand the level of abstraction >(which is explained in the following line in the help message) that >causes "your-email-address" to be replaced by an actual e-mail address, >they're unlikely to be a valuable contributor to the list. So I don't >do it manually or even send a further help message. If they're >interested, and figure it out later, they'll come back. > >Some lists have business or other purposes that make this unacceptable, I disagree. The prinicpals are the same in both cases. >...but for the type of hobbyist, fan, and other recreationsl lists I >run, it seems the best policy. Congratulations. You have identified the REAL issue that is lurking behind these discussions. I have yet to meet a single mailing list admin of a NON-COMMERCIAL TWO-WAY discussion-type list who would argue AGAINST having proper security setup for mailing list subscriptions. Conversely, I have yet to meet a single mailing list admin of a COMMERCIAL ONE-WAY ``marketing & sales'' fecal matter newletter who would argue IN FAVOR of having proper security setup for mailing list subscriptions. The reasons for this discrepancy are clear. People who operate discussion lists want reasonably intelligent *contributors*, whereas COMPANIES that operate one-way ADVERTISING lists don't give a damn if the life form receiving their messages can even hold a spoon. The only thing they care about is whether or not they own a wallet. And the incentives, as perceived from their perspectives, cause them to delude themselves into believing that every living thing on the planet, concious or otherwise, NEEDS to hear about their special products and services. I've talked to a LOT of admins of commercial one-way mailing lists and I've done my best, talking until I'm blue in the face on many occasions, to try to explain to them that no, not every creature on planet earth that happens to have disposable income really has a desire to learn about their wonderful products and serives, and yes, I really AM annoyed that they allowed some net-hooligan to subscribe me to their lists. Almost without exception, they don't get it. I've come to one inescapable conclusion after numerous attempts to explain these concepts to innumerable marketing managers... they don't get it because they don't WANT to get it. It's not that they are stupid or that they really aren't able to grasp ethical concepts. It's just that they have that marvelous in-built human capacity which allows us all to reach ``logical'' conclusions which conveniently suit our own narrow self-interest. But this isn't going to work in the long run. Over time, netizens are getting more and more irate about getting spammed all of the time, and they are becoming more and more aware that if a company has... either by concious choice or by acts of omission... allowed net-hooligans to get the company to send unsolicited e-mail to someone, this is only one step (and only one SMALL step) away from the company being spammers themselves. And how exactly is the recipient/victim supposed to tell the difference anyway? The answer is simple. You can't. From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 20:56:29 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA27481; Fri, 5 May 2000 20:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA27474 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 20:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta6/8.10.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id e464CvZ29376 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 21:12:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Chuq Von Rospach cc: SRE , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 May 2000, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > At 3:57 PM -0700 5/5/2000, SRE wrote: > >If you don't learn how to drive, you don't get a license. > > so you're requiring licenses to use your mailing lists? > > that's nice, unless your lists are for people who are learning how to > get a license.... And in addition, it's more like "If you can't change a tire, you don't get a license." -- 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 May 5 22:27:00 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA28139; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA28132 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197]) by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e465TtZ05837; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:29:55 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 22:20:48 -0700 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Cc: SRE , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:12 PM -0700 5/5/2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >And in addition, it's more like "If you can't change a tire, you don't get >a license." Some of us prefer to build tires that are easier to change. Or won't go flat. And I really don't understand why some people on this list are so afraid of building tires that are easier to change. If folks didn't work to make things easier, we'd still be doing all of this on Vaxen, using gopher, and the internet would have 40 people on it. And yes, I realize that some folks on this list would prefer the Good Old Days. But putting unnecessary walls in front of the people who've joined the fun won't return them, it only pisses off people. And unlike some of you, I can't simply tell my customers and clients "do it my way or go somewhere else" -- because they will. And last I looked, I need my clients and customers more than they need me. I'd guess the same is true of mayn fo you, even if you don't admit it. But from the way you set things up, it sure seems like you don't believe that. -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Fri May 5 22:41:30 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA28250; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newboy.plaidworks.com (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA28243 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.197] (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197]) by newboy.plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e465g3Z05875; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:42:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: chuqui@newboy.plaidworks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200005060312.e463CDH20175@mail.rev.net> References: <4.3.1.0.20000505095821.00b52c90@pop.climber.org> <200005060312.e463CDH20175@mail.rev.net> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 22:42:48 -0700 To: "Bernie Cosell" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: Confirmation Required Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:12 PM -0400 5/5/2000, Bernie Cosell wrote: >You, I guess, have to administer lists for which membership is required, >either because they're paying you to let them on your list or there's >some political reason that they can't be excluded or something like that. Even simpler: I run lists for people where we need them more than they need us. Maybe you can say "do it my way or get lost", but I can't. >OTOH, I'm hard pressed to think of a single mailing list among all that >I've been involved with over the years for which a suitable answer to >your rhetorical question wouldn't be "try once, then to hell with them". Marketing lists. Stop thinking that all mailing lists are discussion lists. >Why do you act like admitting single subscribers to a list is some sort >of entitlement you have to bend over backwards to honor? Is there >something special about the lists you administer? Yes. They help us sell computers to our customers and keep our customers informed on what's going on with my company. There's a huge difference between "if you don't do it my way, you can't talk about Quake" and "If you don't like it my way, go buy a Compaq". -- Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'" From list-managers-owner Sat May 6 07:56:33 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA05547; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA05540 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 07:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER18.GVA.NET [216.80.135.22]) by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e46F7b332359 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 11:07:38 -0400 Message-Id: <200005061507.e46F7b332359@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:07:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5 May 2000, at 22:20, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > At 9:12 PM -0700 5/5/2000, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > > >And in addition, it's more like "If you can't change a tire, you don't get > >a license." > > Some of us prefer to build tires that are easier to change. Or won't go flat. This is disingenuous. The 'easy tires' existed for a long time and were the first approach used [confirmations are relatively new] and were *replaced* by what almost everyone agrees are 'better' tires... *YOU'RE* the one trying to turn the clock back to the good-old-days when folk could almost trust what came in via email and pretending that the realities that gave rise to most all lists requiring a confirmation-to- subscribe aren't there [or won't affect YOUR users or YOUR lists]. > And I really don't understand why some people on this list are so > afraid of building tires that are easier to change. If folks didn't > work to make things easier, we'd still be doing all of this on Vaxen, > using gopher, and the internet would have 40 people on it. Feh. The problem is that you're not building a tire that's easier to change, you're building one that is *broken*. A better analogy, IMO, than your 'tire' would be to contemplate building a mail client that automatically 'opens' attachments --- I'm sure those 'customers' of yours, if they can't figure out how to click on a confirm link, will be utterly baffled by "Attachment yourmom.jpg saved ...." [I know that our customers are --- we get tech support calls about this ALL the time]. Maybe if you just had your mail client auto-open the attachment it'd make life so EASY for them and they woudln't be tempted to sign on with a competitor who might have an easier-to-use mail client... good idea huh? > And unlike some of you, I can't simply tell my customers and clients > "do it my way or go somewhere else" -- because they will. You're in a messy situation... as I said in my previous note, you're stuck with a political/business problem and so life is hard... I'm still not convinced that your "indulge their cluelessness" approach is the right/best path, but hey, you're playing the game with your own money. Guess it's just too bad that third-parties might have to end up paying a price [because of spoofing/hacking] for the way you've chosen to cosset your users... /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 8 11:40:15 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01694; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA01687 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER20.GVA.NET [216.80.135.24]) by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e48IrMC12057 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 14:53:23 -0400 Message-Id: <200005081853.e48IrMC12057@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:53:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: URL for page with 'how to filter' advice X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I *know* someone posted here, I think, a URL to a web page that had "how to set up filters" for various different email clients. I was _sure_ I had saved it,b ut it ain't in my favorites list...damn... this ring a bell for any of you? Anyone have that URL? THANKS!! /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 8 13:51:27 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA03032; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.tidalwave.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA03021 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27606 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 17:10:21 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Anybody else seeing probes from "meta-list.net"? Message-ID: <20000508171021.A27587@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This arrived today; I'm wondering who else has seen this, and/or if these folks are gonna do anything like Remarq's trick of co-opting our mailing lists and our content for their profit? ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org > From: server-request-967494015@meta-list.net > To: majordomo@gsp.org > Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:51:50 +0200 > > HELP > > -- > This mail addressed to the list server majordomo@gsp.org was generated > automatically in order to compile publicly accessible mailing lists > in an index of the project Meta-List (http://www.meta-list.net). > Normally you would not see this mail as it is a robot-to-robot message. > However if you do read this mail and have any questions regarding it, > please address these to: info@meta-list.net. > The Meta-List Team. > > Diese Mail an den Listserver majordomo@gsp.org wurde automatisch > generiert um oeffentlich zugaengliche Listen in einen Index des > Projektes Meta-List (http://www.meta-list.net) aufzunehmen. > Normalerweise sehen Sie diese Mail niemals da es sich um eine Robot > to Robot Kommunikation handelt, aber falls doch und Sie Fragen zu > dieser Mail haben, so wenden Sie sich an: info@meta-list.net > Ihr Meta-List Team. > From list-managers-owner Mon May 8 16:06:28 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA04156; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA04149 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 15:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 47AB9350C5 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 19:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000508161403.00d90e70@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:14:03 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Confirmation Required In-Reply-To: <14248.957582719@monkeys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:11 PM 5/5/2000 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >And how exactly is the recipient/victim supposed to tell the difference >anyway? The answer is simple. You can't. And, therefore, the only possible solution is to treat them in exactly the same manner. Complain to their ISP, turn them into spamcop, etc. Companies like Apple are, of course, big enough to ignore such complaints. How do you tell if someone put your e-mail address into the subscriber web site? Or if they gleaned it and put it in themselves? I firmly believe that that has happened to me a number of times (spammers set up an e-mail web subscribe list, gleaned addresses and subscribed me). Of course, they never keep records. I've heard tell of at least one modern version of "upyours" that has built into it a list of several hundred non-confirming web interfaces. It is probably a rumor, as I've never seen the code. Would it be hard to write? As pointed out, no. At the very least the CGI should insure it is talking to a browser that can return random hidden fields or some such stratagem. I personally resisted adding confirmations for a long time since I have no "techie" lists. I finally realized that it was a disservice to the Internet at large to do so. At one point, I was being used as the relay for 3-4 "upyours" attacks per day. The pattern was simple - someone would be subscribed to every mailing list on my server and then the address would go dead - (or not - some people simply kill filed the mailing lists and let them get downloaded and deleted every day.) In net time, this seems a long time ago, years now. Since then, I've done stuff to make life easier for the point-and-clickers, by giving them a clickable token that allows them to subscribe to *all* mailing lists, (by e-mail) and clickable subscribe confirmations. I don't feel like I should go farther. -- You might be a redneck if -- Your BBQ has its own license plate. Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Tue May 9 08:21:30 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA14726; Tue, 9 May 2000 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA14719 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER21.GVA.NET [216.80.135.25]) by mail.rev.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e49Eaff09452 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:36:42 -0400 Message-Id: <200005091436.e49Eaff09452@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:41:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Sendmail MaxRecipients config X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Apologies for another off-topic inquiry, but again you folks probably have thought about this kind of thing more than any other forum I can think of... Is there a good rule-of-thumb for what to set the MaxRecipients pamarater to in sendmail? And the meta question: what happens to the sending server if the limit is exceeded... are the servers clever enough to requeue the message and then send, later, another 'chunk', or will the original sender (probably an MLM) just get back an error.... [of course, if the limit is anything more than, say, 10 or so, about the only thing that could bust the limit is if a LOT of our customers subscribe to a particular mailing list and so we get mail from that MLM's server addressed to a boatload of our users] Thanks! /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue May 9 09:51:50 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA15953; Tue, 9 May 2000 09:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA15946 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29910 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:04:07 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Sendmail MaxRecipients config In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 May 2000 11:41:42 -0400. <200005091436.e49Eaff09452@mail.rev.net> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:04:07 -0700 Message-ID: <29908.957891847@monkeys.com> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message <200005091436.e49Eaff09452@mail.rev.net>, "Bernie Cosell" wrote: >Apologies for another off-topic inquiry, but again you folks probably >have thought about this kind of thing more than any other forum I can >think of... > >Is there a good rule-of-thumb for what to set the MaxRecipients pamarater >to in sendmail? I seem to vaguely recall that there is something somewhere in one of the relevant RFCs that says something to the effect that MTAs should be able to handle _at least_ 100. (This perhaps explains why the default value implemented by sendmail is 100.) >And the meta question: what happens to the sending server if the limit is >exceeded... are the servers clever enough to requeue the message and then >send, later, another 'chunk', If by ``server'' you mean Sendmail, then the answer is `no'. It is very simple. If you have MaxRecipients set to `N' and then some SMTP client connects and tries to issue more than `N' RCPT TOs for some individual message, then the N+1 and subsequent RCPT Tos will get some sort of 5xx response. > or will the original sender (probably an >MLM) just get back an error.... [of course, if the limit is anything more >than, say, 10 or so, about the only thing that could bust the limit is if >a LOT of our customers subscribe to a particular mailing list and so we >get mail from that MLM's server addressed to a boatload of our users] No true. If you set MaxRecipients to (say) 10, and then *you* try to send an out- going e-mail to eleven of your closest friends, you may experience a problem. Obviously, it depends on what MUA you are using. I have tried setting MaxRecipients down to some low number in the past (in order to thwart spammers... or at least to slow them down) and I quickly found out that (at least with the MUA I have been using... i.e. the Rand/UCI MH package) I had effectively limited the number of recipients that _I_ could address one of my own outgoing messages to. From list-managers-owner Tue May 9 11:52:10 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA17224; Tue, 9 May 2000 11:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id LAA17210 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 11:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1847 invoked by uid 100); 9 May 2000 15:10:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:10:37 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Bernie Cosell cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Sendmail MaxRecipients config In-Reply-To: <200005091436.e49Eaff09452@mail.rev.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there a good rule-of-thumb for what to set the MaxRecipients pamarater > to in sendmail? RFC821 says that SMTP servers have to handle 100 recipients, but the usual number seems to be 20. > And the meta question: what happens to the sending server if the limit > is exceeded... are the servers clever enough to requeue the message Not that I've seen. On the other hand, I don't know of any MTA that sends more than 20 addresses per transfer, and the only ones who can't handle that are deliberately broken as a badly implemented spam filter. Incidentally, if you have reasonable bandwidth, your overall throughput will probably be better if you send one receipient per message as qmail does, even though the total bytes transferred is more, due to increased overlap and less waiting for round trip handshakes. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Tue May 9 15:21:27 2000 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA19423; Tue, 9 May 2000 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA19416 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 15:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laptop (p167.nzwide.ihug.co.nz [209.79.139.167]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA24339 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:39:32 +1200 Reply-To: From: "Dan Randow" To: Subject: Re: URL for page with 'how to filter' advice Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:37:07 +1200 Message-ID: <8fa0c9+9qj0@eGroups.com> X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-eGroups-Return: dan@groupsense.co.nz X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <200005081853.e48IrMC12057@mail.rev.n