From list-managers-owner Tue May 1 00:05:09 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA28952; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (unknown [151.196.211.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78BC17E8E for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux.local (pop-ls-14-4-1-dialup-191.freesurf.ch [194.230.170.191]) by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06900 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 02:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from norbert@localhost) by linux.local (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f416tpQ09099; Tue, 1 May 2001 08:55:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 08:55:51 +0200 Message-Id: <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: (message from Chuq Von Rospach on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:07:04 -0700) Subject: Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it References: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The *real* solution here is a way to authenticate an e-mail > address. I think the real solutions would be XNS. See http://xns.org But it doesn't look to me like they're making any progress. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland) Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 nb@thinkcoach.com From list-managers-owner Tue May 1 00:20:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA29185; Tue, 1 May 2001 00:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (unknown [151.196.211.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F34D17E8E for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 00:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux.local (pop-zh-20-1-dialup-224.freesurf.ch [194.230.178.224]) by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA07495 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 03:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from norbert@localhost) by linux.local (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f417BJh09144; Tue, 1 May 2001 09:11:19 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:11:19 +0200 Message-Id: <200105010711.f417BJh09144@linux.local> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: (message from Chuck Rice on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 07:59:00 -0700) Subject: Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed References: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I do not like to see them drop messages anyway. There are ways to > handle this. Since their system is so sophisticated, they could add > code to bounce the first 500 and drop the rest of the bounces. On the > 500th bounce, they could return a message to the postmaster of the > site to indicate that messages were being lost due to excessive > bounces. But silently dropping messages is wrong. -Chuck- Yes. All automatically-generated messages should be rate-limited, and there needs to be notification when the rate-limiting kicks in. For each type of message, I think one should have two limits: a per-recipient-mailbox limit and a (much higher) per-recipent-domain-limit. This in an important principle for everyone who implements an email robot, not just for AOL. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland) Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 nb@thinkcoach.com > Currently recruiting: Perl programmers and JSP (JavaServer Pages) > programmers for the "Traffic Building Bulletin Board System" project > at FreeDevelopers.Net ------------------> See http://tbbbs.org From list-managers-owner Tue May 1 07:39:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA06045; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.elistx.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1655817EE0 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 07:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from two.elistx.com (two.elistx.com [209.116.254.209]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GCN0031PUJMHZ@eListX.com> for List-Managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 01 May 2001 10:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 10:22:50 -0400 (EDT) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it In-reply-to: X-Sender: galvin@two.elistx.com To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Yes, I hear you but it overlooks one important characteristic of spammers: anonymity. If you're going to "join the club" you're going to have to tell us who you are and how to contact you. It's not the Holy Grail of a hurdle but I think it will make a big difference. BBB and TRUSTe are sort of the right model, but the problem with both as you point out is enforcement. If the CNS has automated tools for testing whether you meet the requirements (e.g., you're not an open relay) then enforcement is less of an issue. Another criteria might knowing what software you use. This doesn't guarantee you'll use it correctly but perhaps a value proposition to members is a resource of how best to use the most popular software. And, I still don't think we have to define spam. The question is, "Are you a responsible list manager?" Buying and selling lists of subscribers does not qualify. Confirmed opt-in does. This is not a content judgement. This is about the process by which you build and manage your mailing lists. In addition to anonymity it is these qualities that separate spammers from the rest of us. In a litigious society such as the US, liability is a tough nut to crack, but I'm still not convinced it's worse than it is now. What the CNS offers is accountability. A violation of the rules makes you persona-non-grata and you're excluded from the club (with no refund). It's not a perfect system but I don't think it has to be. The CNS doesn't guarantee no spam, it just guarantees a response to it. Nothing we do today is perfect so I don't see how the CNS could be held to a higher standard. You just don't set it up that way. Hey, I'm thinking out loud here. John Levine suggested that an effort run on a shoestring would never make it. Probably so. It's clear that success would require buy-in from one or more significant "end-users", of which AOL would have to be one. List managers would come if the end-users required it. Regardless, I'm not throwing out a shoestring. It was an idea, perhaps one we're not ready for yet. It's just that in the absence of a homogeneous infrastructure for email (Chuq's reference to PKI and all that) there really aren't any obvious technical solutions. Everything we do is "glue and staples", including what AOL is doing (which, by the way, I do not fundamentally have a problem with although I'm not fond of some of the edge choices they've made). As a mailing list service provider myself I'm not fond of having to pay for the privilege. I like the reference from someone else (sorry for forgetting the attribution) regarding "blackemail." I can see where what I'm proposing is exactly that. :-) However, in the absence of technical solutions an administrative one is all we have, and somebody has to pay for it. Jim On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:17:20 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach To: James M Galvin Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it On 4/30/01 9:01 AM, "James M Galvin" wrote: > As answered in a prior note to Tom Neff, my proposed model is that list > owner sites would "subscribe" for a fee. There is a fee schedule issue > for the one list site, but I don't think that's insurmountable. So you're looking at the sorta-BBB or TRUSTe model. A group that sets standards for operation that members agree to. > It is a > replacement for the 1-1 contracting AOL is kicking-off. Only if sites like AOL agree to buy into it. And only if the group manages its members well. There are lots of people who see TRUSTe as a lapdog,not a watchdog, for instance. So you have to have monitoring and enforcement in the group (how? And it's not cheap to fund). And convince people and sites to trust it. Which gets back to the idea of "define spam". > A > centralization of this for the good of the Internet in general is surely > a cost-savings for them. Only if you agree with the policies, the policies are properly enforced and you trust the organization doing it. > I don't see the "obvious" liability issue. A list owner subscribes to > be listed as legitimate. If they are then they are listed. This group is going to have to validate its members. If it can't, it's open to legal liabilities. And how do you handle the case of someone who starts a shell corporation, signs up for the group and gets listed, and then starts spamming? Don't think that'll happen? And the group is liable -- it's vetted the guy, after all. From list-managers-owner Wed May 2 19:05:33 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA28380; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blipvert.blank.org (unknown [216.112.239.86]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C50917EB2 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6692 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2001 01:58:21 -0000 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 21:58:20 -0400 From: "Nathan J. Mehl" To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: List-Managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Iname/mail.com effed up again? Message-ID: <20010502215820.P8330@blank.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:21:20AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In the immortal words of Chuq Von Rospach (chuqui@plaidworks.com): > > Has nayone else noticed that the iname world is effed up again? My queues > are (again) clogged with unaccepted mail from my lists... > > There's a change, though -- the mx records now all point to outblaze.com. > Did iname get bought? Disclaimer: I was once Sr. Sysadmin / Postmaster at Mail.Com. I am not any more, and haven't been for a year. Mail.Com still exists...barely. They've laid off just about all of their technical staff, and as you've noticed, they've outsourced all of their consumer email boxes to Outblaze. I would not expect the situation to improve. Maintaining the consumer free email system is...not really a priority for what's left of the company. -n ------------------------------------------------------ The life of a sysadmin is always intense! ---------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Wed May 2 20:50:25 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA29331; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC5A17EB2 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.199] (barfy.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.199]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f433Y9t26430; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:34:09 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 20:41:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Iname/mail.com effed up again? From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "Nathan J. Mehl" Cc: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20010502215820.P8330@blank.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5/2/01 6:58 PM, "Nathan J. Mehl" wrote: > I would not expect the situation to improve. Maintaining the consumer > free email system is...not really a priority for what's left of the > company. I think you're right, unfortunately. Mail on all my systems have been clogging my queues long enoguh to start timing out and bouncing... From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 07:06:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA07252; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from M5.sparta.com (unknown [157.185.61.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC9117EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lancaster.sparta.com (lancaster.sparta.com [157.185.12.3]) by M5.sparta.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f43Dt6F09248 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:55:07 -0500 Received: from bobc.qnet.com (pcbobc.lancaster.sparta.com [157.185.12.39]) by lancaster.sparta.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id FAA19938 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 05:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> X-Sender: robertc@av.qnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 05:36:37 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Comperini Subject: New mailing list host? In-Reply-To: <20010502215820.P8330@blank.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Gang, I need to move my (majordomo) list to another site. Can anyone point me to reasonably priced list hosting services? (Yes, I'm aware of the freebie places like Yahoo) Thanks. -- Robert Comperini USUA AFI #A16560, KN6EZ Lancaster, CA mailto:robertc@qnet.com http://www.qnet.com/~robertc From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 09:36:46 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA08624; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pageplanet.com (england.pageplanet.com [205.160.14.30]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6E917EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.139.23.209] (129.139.23.209) by pageplanet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.0.1); Thu, 3 May 2001 12:29:52 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: tcora1@mail.ibmwr.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:29:05 -0400 To: Bob Comperini From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: New mailing list host? Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:36 AM -0700 05/03/2001, Bob Comperini wrote: >Hi Gang, > >I need to move my (majordomo) list to another site. Can anyone >point me to reasonably priced list hosting services? (Yes, I'm aware >of the freebie places like Yahoo) You don't say who is currently providing majordomo services to you, but I run a bunch of lists (6, I think) via world.std.com. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@skylands.ibmwr.org Skylands (NJ) BMW Riders <+> From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 11:22:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09674; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail03.rapidsite.net (mail03.rapidsite.net [207.158.192.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B24A017EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.veld.com (209.238.114.179) by mail03.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.60s) with SMTP id 029600293 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:02:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Philip Busey" To: "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:03:20 -0400 Reply-To: "Philip Busey" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 95 (4.0.1111) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: New mailing list host? X-Loop-Detect: 1 Message-Id: <20010503181409.B24A017EAE@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Bob, try Lisa at support2@imagicomm.com I have two lists with Imagicomm and have been very pleased with the friendly, reliable service. This is an enhanced majordomo with easier opt-in confirmation (the subscriber doesn't need to cut-and-paste the code) and other functions such as replacelist. Phil http://earthfire.com On Thu, 03 May 2001 05:36:37 -0700, Bob Comperini wrote: >Hi Gang, > >I need to move my (majordomo) list to another site. Can anyone point me >to reasonably priced list hosting services? (Yes, I'm aware of the freebie >places like Yahoo) From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 11:36:50 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09823; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts14.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F8E17EC1 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010503182603.GYY28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:26:03 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:59:23 -0400 To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re: we aren't the enemy, but it's hard to prove it In-Reply-To: <788820921.988631299@[192.168.1.100]> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010503182603.GYY28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 4/30/01 -0400, Tom Neff wrote: >But wait, what does "huge" mean? How big are you thinking? The biggest >listserv I know of is TESL-L which has about 12,000 members. If half of >those were on AOL (unlikely given the specialized educational topic, but >possible for a similar sized list) then there'd be 6,000 deliveries >attempted to AOL. 6,000 is POCKET CHANGE for a spammer. A typical >campaign tries to hit ten times that many or more. As others have said, 12,000 subscribers is a very small list. In our case, over 85% of the 11 million subscribers to lists we host are on lists of 10,000 subscribers or more. Sharon From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 11:51:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09822; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts14.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F66C17EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:26:00 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:50:46 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Sharon Tucci Subject: senate.gov problem In-Reply-To: <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk We host a LOT of lists with U.S. state senators and staff as subscribers. I've been in administrative hell since the 1st and I can't figure out what the heck could be going on. Many of the senators and staff have autoresponders that go out when they receive email. Normally this isn't a problem, but instead of getting ONE copy of these autoresponders, we're getting sometimes 10 or 20 of them. (These are weekly and monthly newsletters, so there is no reason that this should happen and there is no looping taking place.... it will be one batch and then its done) The server will treat autoresponders returned as a bounce. Of course, it will not immediately remove these subscribers. What I normally do for the sen.gov heavy lists is simply reset the bounce counts so that the senators or staff do not get removed when they shouldn't be. The list owner doesnt see the bounces - they are automatically purged by our servers. The problem is that every mailing going out results in these people being removed immediately. I can't set the bounce limit at 20.... just not doable because some of our lists would never get cleaned. Anyone else experiencing this problem or - better yet - have any ideas on what I can do? I've tried emailing postmaster@senate.gov to no avail. Right now what I'm doing is going searching our logs for system unsubscribes and re-adding any emails under these addresses. The problem is that when they are removed, most list owners have a farewell message that goes out... obviously it's not a good idea. BTW... one amusing observation -- many state senators autoresponder messages thanks people for their emails if they are a constituent, but says that if they did not include their *postal* mailing address if they had a question, they will not get a response because of the volume of *email* they deal with. Kind of scary when these are people involved in law making! Thanks, Sharon From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 13:06:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10815; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from M5.sparta.com (M5.sparta.com [157.185.61.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB46C17EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lancaster.sparta.com (lancaster.sparta.com [157.185.12.3]) by M5.sparta.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f43K28F24033 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 15:02:09 -0500 Received: from bobc.qnet.com (pcbobc.lancaster.sparta.com [157.185.12.39]) by lancaster.sparta.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA22503 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503130058.043342a8@av.qnet.com> X-Sender: robertc@av.qnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:01:56 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Comperini Subject: Re: New mailing list host? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thanks for the responses everyone.. I knew you'd all know the right answers. Some folks have asked... the list is currently about 450 people, and quite often 50 or more posts per day. From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 13:21:45 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA10913; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC3817EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.199] (barfy.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.199]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f43K4rt15562; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:04:53 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:12:10 -0700 Subject: Re: senate.gov problem From: Chuq Von Rospach To: Sharon Tucci , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5/3/01 10:50 AM, "Sharon Tucci" wrote: > BTW... one amusing observation -- many state senators > autoresponder messages thanks people for their emails > if they are a constituent, but says that if they did > not include their *postal* mailing address if they had > a question, they will not get a response because of > the volume of *email* they deal with. Kind of scary > when these are people involved in law making! No, not really. Here's the situation -- lots of lobby groups have gotten into the habit of encouraging their people to send their letters to ALL members of congress. The congresscritters get inundated with thousands of messages, most of them from non-constituents. If you don't include your postal address, they can't tell if you're a constituent and assume you aren't, because in most cases they're correct. When you're the senator from vermont, you only care about what vermont residents think. When lobby groups from California or Texas start campaigns that plaster all 500+ congresscritters with thousands of messages each, few from their own constiuency -- what do you expect them to do? From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 13:51:45 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA11193; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.elistx.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6E917EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 13:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from two.elistx.com (two.elistx.com [209.116.254.209]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GCS00CAC1KJ8U@eListX.com> for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 03 May 2001 16:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:44:51 -0400 (EDT) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: senate.gov problem In-reply-to: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> X-Sender: galvin@two.elistx.com To: Sharon Tucci Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One thing you might do is look in your connection log files for additional information. A problem I have seen before (many times unfortunately) is the other side having "tuned" the timeouts for one or more of the transactions in the SMTP dialogue, which usually results in them either giving up too soon or not soon enough. I have found sites that do this in an attempt to "speedup" their email processing, i.e., move from one message to the next quickly. Obviously, they don't really get it. (The dangers of people who actually read the documentation but with their blinders on.) As far as what you could do about it at your end, is it safe to assume you don't actually look at the "bounce" message, which suggests you've got the actual failed address coded in an envelope address? If so, you might consider how you could get your 'bounce' processing to look at the message so it could ignore autoresponder messages. My system actually looks at the subject line and the first three lines of the bounce message explicitly for exactly this reason. Hope this helps, Jim From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 14:21:46 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11497; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48EB17EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010503210955.CADN15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201>; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:09:55 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:47:39 -0400 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re: senate.gov problem Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010503210955.CADN15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >No, not really. Here's the situation -- lots of lobby groups have gotten >into the habit of encouraging their people to send their letters to ALL >members of congress. Brilliant! You're absolutely correct and this hadn't even occured to me. From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 14:36:46 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11498; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABE817EB1 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010503211000.CAEC15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201>; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:10:00 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:56:32 -0400 To: James M Galvin From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re: senate.gov problem Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010503211000.CAEC15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 5/03/01 -0400, James M Galvin wrote: >One thing you might do is look in your connection log files for >additional information. A problem I have seen before (many times >unfortunately) is the other side having "tuned" the timeouts for one or >more of the transactions in the SMTP dialogue, which usually results in >them either giving up too soon or not soon enough. After sending my post through, that exact thought came to mind. It's the most logical reason. Unfortunately, I can't really tell more from the logs than what I've posted. Our logs seem to take everything from hello to goodbye and closing the connection. >As far as what you could do about it at your end, is it safe to assume >you don't actually look at the "bounce" message, which suggests you've >got the actual failed address coded in an envelope address? If so, you >might consider how you could get your 'bounce' processing to look at the >message so it could ignore autoresponder messages. My system actually >looks at the subject line and the first three lines of the bounce >message explicitly for exactly this reason. I'm not sure how this works. I'm a non-techy (scary isn't it? but I seem to do better than most mail admin people LOL) and I do know that copies of bounces do go to the list owner unless they choose to suppress them, but autoresponder messages don't. (The problems we're having are unique to the servers we're running Post.office on.) The autoresponder messages that are getting kicked back by senate.gov addresses have a different subject line (no original message contents are repeated) and there is no text in the body quoting back the original message. Logically, these bounces SHOULD be going direct to the FROM address or REPLY TO address in posts, but they are actually going to the return-path address instead. Sharon From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 15:06:46 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11861; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (c95.ppp.tsoft.com [198.144.204.95]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD7117EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 14:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14vR2b-0001Ii-00; Thu, 03 May 2001 14:53:41 -0700 To: Bob Comperini Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: New mailing list host? In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Comperini of "Thu, 03 May 2001 13:01:56 PDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20010503130058.043342a8@av.qnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010503130058.043342a8@av.qnet.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:53:41 -0700 Message-ID: <5002.988926821@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 03 May 2001 13:01:56 -0700 Bob Comperini wrote: > I knew you'd all know the right answers. Some folks have > asked... the list is currently about 450 people, and quite often > 50 or more posts per day. I'd be more interested for hosting offers. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=-- From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 16:36:46 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA13001; Thu, 3 May 2001 16:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5602B17E8E for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 16:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B06E3500E for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010503192034.01a06120@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:20:34 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: senate.gov problem In-Reply-To: <20010503211000.CAEC15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201 > References: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:56 PM 5/3/2001 -0400, Sharon Tucci wrote: >the original message. Logically, these bounces SHOULD be >going direct to the FROM address or REPLY TO address in >posts, but they are actually going to the return-path >address instead. Hiss, boo, evil! Autoresponders should go to the RFC821 sender (what you are calling Return path) so that they do not go to lists and pollute them. For human senders, these are probably the same address, which is what you want. For lists, these are not, which is also what you want. The reality is just as was suggested: These bounces need to be parsed, so that auto-responder stuff can be ignored. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 18:52:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA14402; Thu, 3 May 2001 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EA317EB5 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 18:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.88.105.31]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010504014313.LJZM4696.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@oemcomputer> for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 01:43:13 +0000 Message-ID: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> From: "Jessica Callender" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Subject: Mailing lists for -emarketing Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 21:16:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi All-- All this discussion about the 'largest' mailing lists and being ethical and all -- I need to find rental or free mailing lists for e-marketing Where can I find these services. I need to reach professional development officers in colleges and universities and nonprofits, school technology coordinators, municipal MIS directors and some other groups. Know of any professional list renters? Jessica Callender jessicacallender@worldnet.att.net From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 20:07:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15136; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 395A217EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23888 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 23:01:48 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 4 May 2001 03:01:26 -0000 Date: 3 May 2001 23:01:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Jessica Callender" Cc: "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing In-Reply-To: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I need to reach professional development officers in colleges and > universities and nonprofits, school technology coordinators, municipal MIS > directors and some other groups. > > Know of any professional list renters? For paper snail mail lists, sure, lots of them. For e-mail lists, see http://dmoz.org/Business/Marketing/Internet_Marketing/Marketing_Services/Opt-In_Email/ In my experience, at least half if not more of the people who claim to have opt-in lists are just plain lying. Of the ones who aren't lying, at least half have a definition of opt-in that wouldn't agree with any definition that we would use. So I would proceed with extreme caution. If you're serious, spend some money and send paper mail since those lists are real and legal. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 21:37:08 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA15875; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.oldradio.net (ns.oldradio.net [216.87.208.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A23D17EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.104.7.184] (ip184.7.blca.blazenet.net [24.104.7.184]) by ns.oldradio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17216; Fri, 4 May 2001 00:24:29 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Envelope-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 00:23:04 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re:Mailing lists for -emarketing Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 9:16 PM -0400 5/3/01, Jessica Callender is rumored to have typed: > Hi All-- > All this discussion about the 'largest' mailing lists and being ethical and > all -- Yeah, I can see we wouldn't want to let ethics sneak into a marketing discussion, now would we? > I need to find rental or free mailing lists for e-marketing (*sigh*) Actually, this brings up an interesting question, though. I used to direct people who confused real-world "mailing lists" with Internet "mailing lists" to: http://www.liszt.com/intro.html ...but of course now that redirects to Topica. Does anyone have a link to a page or pages that accurately define Internet mailing lists by contrasting it to the spam lists most "outsiders" think of when they see those two words together? (Yeah, I guess I'm kinda lazy, but in my defense I'm tired of trying to explain the difference to people just looking for a cheap way to sell their junk by "renting" lists of Internet email addresses, and would just rather point them to something they can read at their leasure.) Charlie Summers From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 22:35:48 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA16394; Thu, 3 May 2001 22:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C5217EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 22:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Inspiron7000.gurus.com (max1-29.shoreham.net [208.144.253.33]) by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA16274 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 01:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010504013202.0279de80@imap.iecc.com> X-Sender: margy@imap.iecc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:32:46 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Margaret Levine Young Subject: Re:Mailing lists for -emarketing In-Reply-To: References: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Does >anyone have a link to a page or pages that accurately define Internet mailing >lists by contrasting it to the spam lists most "outsiders" think of when they >see those two words together? How about http://lists.gurus.com/intro.html ? Margy Levine Young Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies" and "Poor Richard's Building Online Communities" . Looking for kids' videos? Check out From list-managers-owner Thu May 3 23:05:49 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA16581; Thu, 3 May 2001 22:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts7.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F05817EAE for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 22:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010504055702.GPDX16174.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201>; Fri, 4 May 2001 01:57:02 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:56:14 -0400 To: Charlie Summers From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re:Mailing lists for -emarketing Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010504055702.GPDX16174.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Charlie, I don't know if this would be of any help, but we put together the following page because of the number of people coming to us wanting to buy lists or have us sell their lists. http://www.listdelivery.com/tour/dontsell.htm Sharon P.S. It's late and I'm tired, so this probably isn't what you wanted. LOL From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 07:27:30 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA23573; Fri, 4 May 2001 07:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.elistx.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A597B17EB2 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 07:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from two.elistx.com (two.elistx.com [209.116.254.209]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GCT001INE5PLF@eListX.com> for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 04 May 2001 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: James M Galvin Subject: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) In-reply-to: <3.0.3.32.20010503192034.01a06120@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: galvin@two.elistx.com To: Nick Simicich Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Oh now this is a fun topic to discuss on this list (NOT!) However, I will send this one message about it. RFC2298 defines Message Delivery Notifications, the intended use of which is to report to a sender conditions that occur after a message is delivered. It states that such reports go to the Envelope From, or Return Path, which means that list failed mail processors must be prepared to deal with such things. Thus, you are correct and the system used by Sharon is not behaving in a way consistent with the Standard. However, RFC2298 very carefully does not use the word "vacation" or "responder" anywhere. In fact, it only speaks directly to issues like whether a message was read, displayed, deleted, or the recipient is not telling, although it does provide an extension mechanism that uses the now common "X-" prefix. The all important question is whether autoresponders and vacation notices are subject to RFC2298. The question is not answered in the standard because it was and continues to be a contentious issue. My preference has always been that vacation notices and autoresponders are not subject to RFC2298, which would mean that Sharon system's is just fine. What I would like to see is a Standard that says vacation notices and autoreponders reply to the message REPLY-TO or FROM header but (and this is a very BIG BUT) only if the recipient is actually listed in the message TO or CC header. Of course there are some list processors that break this model, but I prefer to consider them broken. And I'm not including marketing efforts in this model that explicitly support personalization. On the other hand, I could probably be sold on an appropriate extension to RFC2298 that explicitly identified vacation notices and autoresponders. List failed mail processors beware.... Your mileage may vary. Jim On Thu, 3 May 2001, Nick Simicich wrote: Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:20:34 -0400 From: Nick Simicich To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: senate.gov problem At 04:56 PM 5/3/2001 -0400, Sharon Tucci wrote: >the original message. Logically, these bounces SHOULD be >going direct to the FROM address or REPLY TO address in >posts, but they are actually going to the return-path >address instead. Hiss, boo, evil! Autoresponders should go to the RFC821 sender (what you are calling Return path) so that they do not go to lists and pollute them. For human senders, these are probably the same address, which is what you want. For lists, these are not, which is also what you want. The reality is just as was suggested: These bounces need to be parsed, so that auto-responder stuff can be ignored. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 12:07:11 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA26166; Fri, 4 May 2001 11:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A912617E8C for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010504185058.LTTE15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201>; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:50:58 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:49:41 -0400 To: James M Galvin From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.20010503192034.01a06120@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010504185058.LTTE15234.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Just a clarification post: At 10:14 AM 5/04/01 -0400, James M Galvin wrote: >RFC2298 defines Message Delivery Notifications, the intended use of >which is to report to a sender conditions that occur after a message is >delivered. It states that such reports go to the Envelope From, or >Return Path, which means that list failed mail processors must be >prepared to deal with such things. Thus, you are correct and the system >used by Sharon is not behaving in a way consistent with the Standard. >My preference has always been that vacation notices and autoresponders >are not subject to RFC2298, which would mean that Sharon system's is >just fine. What I would like to see is a Standard that says vacation >notices and autoreponders reply to the message REPLY-TO or FROM header >but (and this is a very BIG BUT) only if the recipient is actually >listed in the message TO or CC header. Jim, we're saying the same thing except for the TO or CC bit. What we are doing is consistent with the standard if it is interpreted to include autoresponder messages. But what I said is that it is more logical for it to go to the reply-to or from addresss to avoid a lot of admin headaches. One thing I'm seeing a lot of these days are autoresponder messages kicked back with a different from address than what was mailed to and the original email included in the reply-to. Any info allowing the system to recognize this as an autoresponder is stripped. So what happens in these cases is that a loop can occur - i.e. the list server thinks that someone is trying to send email with invalid commands to the server, so it kicks back an error message which in turn can result in more autoresponder messages being generated. I'd LOVE to see mail admins realize that vacation messages should only go out once to an address and not every time it receives an email. From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 14:50:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27793; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E19C17E8E for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f44Lh6o10461; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:43:06 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Sharon Tucci Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: senate.gov problem Message-ID: <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201>; from sharon@listhost.net on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:50:46PM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:50:46PM -0400, Sharon Tucci wrote: > > Many of the senators and staff have autoresponders that go > out when they receive email. Normally this isn't a problem, > but instead of getting ONE copy of these autoresponders, > we're getting sometimes 10 or 20 of them. (These are > weekly and monthly newsletters, so there is no reason > that this should happen and there is no looping taking > place.... it will be one batch and then its done) We occasionally get a complaint that someone has received dozens or even hundreds of copies of a single mailing list message. Each time we've been able to track down the source of the problem, it's been a misconfigured gateway at the receiver's end, sort of like this: +------+ +------------+ +------------+ | list | --- Internet ---> | receiver's | -----> | receiver's | | host | | gateway | | POP server | +------+ +------------+ +------------+ Your mailing list server sends a message to the receiver's site, which is received by a big mail gateway in their network. The message is now out of your hands. The gateway must now deliver the message to, say, 50 users on an internal POP server. Here's where things can get sticky. The gateway opens an SMTP connection with the internal POP server and announces it has mail for 50 users. Suppose one of those users has a full mailbox. The POP server will return a 450 response for that user, meaning "can't deliver now, but try again later." The gateway *should* recognize that it should only try redelivering to that particular user. Not all systems do recognize this. Instead, they forge ahead and deliver the mail to the other 49 recipients, and then turn around and re-queue it for all 50. In a few minutes it redelivers the message to all 50, except for the one whose mailbox is full. So it re-queues the message again. And so on. We have not had this problem specifically with senate.gov. However, this always seems to be the cause of the problem when hundreds of users of a single mailing list, all at the same site, all suddenly report getting duplicate copies of list mail at the same time. From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 15:05:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27860; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9244817E8E for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f44Lm8m10542; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:48:08 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: James M Galvin Cc: Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) Message-ID: <20010504174808.F86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.3.32.20010503192034.01a06120@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from galvin@acm.org on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0400, James M Galvin wrote: > > My preference has always been that vacation notices and autoresponders > are not subject to RFC2298, which would mean that Sharon system's is > just fine. What I would like to see is a Standard that says vacation > notices and autoreponders reply to the message REPLY-TO or FROM header > but (and this is a very BIG BUT) only if the recipient is actually > listed in the message TO or CC header. That's not a bad idea. The Berkeley `vacation' algorithm seems to have held up pretty well over the years: send an autoreply only if (a) the recipient is personally listed in the `To' or `Cc' headers; (b) the mail does not have a `Precedence' of `list', `bulk' or `junk'; and (c) it doesn't come from an address that is likely to be a daemon, such as `mailer-daemon', `postmaster', `owner-' and `-request' addresses. I would not mind seeing those requirements codified in the next revision of the DSN standard. From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 19:07:12 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA29954; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts14.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F1D17E8E for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b8q7201 ([64.230.79.81]) by tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010505020234.SATB28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 22:02:34 -0400 X-Sender: sharonlh@go.listdelivery.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:59:31 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Sharon Tucci Subject: Re: senate.gov problem - update In-Reply-To: <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20010505020234.SATB28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I finally received a response back from the webmaster at senate.gov. I've cut and pasted it below. The thing is -- none of the organizations we host *add* addresses without the request of the recipient. It's against our policy. I suspect it's not the senators themselves that add themselves, but someone on staff who looks out for their mail. (For many of these lists, we collect profile data about subscribers and quite often I've noticed that it is actually an assistant or a staffer subscribing the senator.) So, here we host a lot of lobbyist groups and non-profits and what their webmaster is saying is we should tell these groups that they can't let U.S. senators subscribe. This still doesn't settle the issue why their mail server continues to kick back autoresponder messages for some senators 4 days after a mailing was delivered every 2 hours. :( >We checked our system and it is not clear why you are having this problem. >Senators' public e-mail systems almost always respond to messages with an >autoresponse, therefore, it is not wise for an organization to sign up a US >Senator's public email address for an opt-in distribution list such as yours. >You probably would not encounter this problem with distributions to Senators' >staff members, as personal staff accounts rarely, if ever, use autoresponders. >I suggest removing Senators' public email addresses from your distribution >lists. I believe this would go a long way toward minimizing some of the >problems you're having, and such addresses are not, in any case, intended for >this type of use. From list-managers-owner Fri May 4 21:38:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA01161; Fri, 4 May 2001 21:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695D717E8E for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 21:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f454Kfx01001 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 4 May 2001 23:20:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105050420.f454Kfx01001@ripco.com> Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:20:41 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <20010504174808.F86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> from "Tim Pierce" at May 04, 2001 05:48:08 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Tim Pierce wrote, | The Berkeley `vacation' algorithm seems to | have held up pretty well over the years: send an autoreply only if | (a) the recipient is personally listed in the `To' or `Cc' headers; | (b) the mail does not have a `Precedence' of `list', `bulk' or | `junk'; and | (c) it doesn't come from an address that is likely to | be a daemon, such as `mailer-daemon', `postmaster', `owner-' and | `-request' addresses. Isn't "the address to which the autoreply would be sent has not already been sent a copy of the current autoreply text" part of the algorithm? From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 01:22:07 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA02968; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clifford.inch.com (clifford.inch.com [216.223.192.27]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC3017E8E for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 01:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from omar@localhost) by clifford.inch.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) id DAA15372 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 5 May 2001 03:54:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20010505035406.A15320@clifford.inch.com> Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 03:54:06 -0400 From: Omar Thameen To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: causes of multiple messages [WAS: Re: senate.gov problem] References: <200105010655.f416tpQ09099@linux.local> <20010503182600.GYQ28559.tomts14-srv.bellnexxia.net@b8q7201> <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <20010504174306.E86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com>; from Tim Pierce on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:43:06PM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Since I found Tim's description useful (though I haven't had the problem myself), I'll add one: The recipient SMTP server closes the connecton before sending a final acknowledgement of having received it. The delivering server can't mark it as delivered, so re-queues it, and the process continues. Strangely, I've seen 2 addresses at the same domain with one exhibiting the above behavior and one not. Omar On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 05:43:06PM -0400, Tim Pierce wrote: > > We occasionally get a complaint that someone has received dozens > or even hundreds of copies of a single mailing list message. > Each time we've been able to track down the source of the problem, [...] > The gateway opens an SMTP connection with the internal POP server > and announces it has mail for 50 users. Suppose one of those users > has a full mailbox. The POP server will return a 450 response for > that user, meaning "can't deliver now, but try again later." > > The gateway *should* recognize that it should only try redelivering > to that particular user. Not all systems do recognize this. Instead, > they forge ahead and deliver the mail to the other 49 recipients, and > then turn around and re-queue it for all 50. In a few minutes it > redelivers the message to all 50, except for the one whose mailbox is > full. So it re-queues the message again. And so on. From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 05:51:54 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA08594; Sat, 5 May 2001 05:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.elistx.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C438617EC6 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from two.elistx.com (two.elistx.com [209.116.254.209]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GCV00J864NCET@eListX.com> for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 05 May 2001 08:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 08:44:05 -0400 (EDT) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) In-reply-to: <20010504174808.F86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> X-Sender: galvin@two.elistx.com To: Tim Pierce Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 4 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote: The Berkeley `vacation' algorithm seems to have held up pretty well over the years: .... I would not mind seeing those requirements codified in the next revision of the DSN standard. Just for clarity, DSN is RFC1894 and refers to delivery status. MDN is RFC2298 and refers to after delivery conditions, e.g., vacation notices and autoresponders. Jim From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 10:52:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA10835; Sat, 5 May 2001 10:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E366817EC6 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 10:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.88.81.54]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010505173612.FHAA1837.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@oemcomputer> for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:36:12 +0000 Message-ID: <010501c0d58c$18684c00$3651580c@oemcomputer> From: "Jessica Callender" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 13:52:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello there-- Thank you everyone who replied. E-mail marketing doesn't seem to be developed in any legit way -- seems to be the consensus. I thought I might have been missing something--but to buy e-mail names at 15-35 cents a pop from so-called opt-in lists (that most people fill out just to get through the confounded menu and submit it) -- doesn't seem the way. Or, duh, no I'm smart enough not to go for the $100. for 100 million email addresses CD. I agree that academics are particularly testy--so I'll stay away from anything to them that smacks of unsolicited. Another marketer has advised me to make personal phone calls to them. I have heard about Leadership Directories as a snail mail list renter. If you know of any reputable others, please advise. JessicaCallender jessicacallender@worldnet.att.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jessica Callender" To: Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:16 PM Subject: Mailing lists for -emarketing > Hi All-- > All this discussion about the 'largest' mailing lists and being ethical and > all -- > I need to find rental or free mailing lists for e-marketing > > Where can I find these services. > > I need to reach professional development officers in colleges and > universities and nonprofits, school technology coordinators, municipal MIS > directors and some other groups. > > Know of any professional list renters? > > Jessica Callender > jessicacallender@worldnet.att.net > > From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 12:37:03 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11943; Sat, 5 May 2001 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D66617EC6 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 12:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id PAA05611; Sat, 5 May 2001 15:29:50 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010505122110.033978f0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:30:55 -0700 To: "Jessica Callender" , From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing In-Reply-To: <019c01c0d437$ce9f2580$1f69580c@oemcomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 06:16 PM 5/3/01, Jessica Callender wrote: >Hi All-- >All this discussion about the 'largest' mailing lists and being ethical and >all -- >I need to find rental or free mailing lists for e-marketing > >Where can I find these services. > >I need to reach professional development officers in colleges and >universities and nonprofits, school technology coordinators, municipal MIS >directors and some other groups. > >Know of any professional list renters? As you have seen by the discussion, there really aren't any list renters that do what you want. There are damn few people who really opt-in to receive commercial email from parties other than the *exact* party they subscribe with. For instance, people who opt-in to receive marketing material from Cisco do NOT want to receive marketing material from other firms, so Cisco can't rent/sell that list without getting tons of complaints and smearing their own image with their own customers. Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted spam", but I have yet to hear of a single person who has voluntarily signed up for such services who is happy and continues to receive highly targeted and relevant promotional email. What happens is that they get indiscriminately spammed, and hate it. You don't want your email sent in that fashion because it does NOT get you the response you are seeking. However, there are some solutions! There are many ad-supported opt-in discussion lists, and some of those services might be able to put your ad (as a header or footer on list discussion email) on targeted opt-in discussion lists that have subscribers that include some of the people you are trying to reach. For instance, if you are trying to reach Internet professionals, you can have your ad appear on the ad-supported lists hosted at isp-lists.com (and a banner ad on the web archive pages of those lists), see the details at: http://www.internet.com/mediakit/ Many of the egroups/yahoo groups lists are ad-supported. If there's an ad-supported opt-in discussion list there that would have some your target group as subscribers, you might be able to place ads JUST on those lists (targeted advertising) by contacting Yahoo: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/advertising/ etc. HTH jc From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 14:50:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA13022; Sat, 5 May 2001 14:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF7E17EC6 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f45LfeB06154 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 5 May 2001 16:41:40 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105052141.f45LfeB06154@ripco.com> Subject: targeted spam (was mailing lists for e-marketing) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 16:41:39 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010505122110.033978f0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> from "JC Dill" at May 05, 2001 12:30:55 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JC Dill wrote, | Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted | spam", ... I use several services that charge not in cash but in my accepting occasional pieces of mail consisting of advertising for companies who pay them to be included. | ... but I have yet to hear of a single person who has voluntarily signed up | for such services who is happy and continues to receive highly targeted and | relevant promotional email. Agreed: what I get from them is not highly targeted, and not relevant, even when the service has asked me to fill out an interest profile in order spe- cifically for such targeting. Am I happy with them? Well, "unhappy" is a strong word, and I do put up with them as the cost of the service; still, no, the ads certainly do not increase the joy in my life. | What happens is that they get indiscriminately spammed, ... The adverb certainly applies, because when I have read those messages, the offerings hawked therein have borne no relation to my listed interests with the service that is sending them to me; rather, they appear to be all the ads the service has. As to the participle, well, I did opt into getting the mes- sages and I continue to accept them because I continue to use the services, so I'm not going to call them spam. | ... and hate it. I don't "hate" getting them; I put up with them as the cost of the service. But do I buy from those advertisers? Not that I know, for I don't even read those messages. Many other people who use such services set up filters to delete their mailings upon fetching them or even straight from the POP3 server without fetching them. I think that's a little dishonest because it doesn't meet my interpretation of the promise to accept or receive the mess- ages (but it _is_ a matter of interpretation, so I don't argue the point with people who do delete them automatically rather than manually.) But just like them I don't read the content, so we're all the same to the advertisers. If we do buy what they're selling, those ads are not the reason. From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 16:35:47 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA13828; Sat, 5 May 2001 16:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A2C17EBF for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.199] (barfy.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.199]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f45NCNt04874; Sat, 5 May 2001 16:12:23 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:19:46 -0700 Subject: Re: targeted spam (was mailing lists for e-marketing) From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "David W. Tamkin" , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200105052141.f45LfeB06154@ripco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 5/5/01 2:41 PM, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: > | Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted > | spam", ... > > I use several services that charge not in cash but in my accepting occasional > pieces of mail consisting of advertising for companies who pay them to be > included. Point of terminology -- if you opt in, you're saying you want it. If you say you want it, it's not spam. "targeted spam" is a bad phrase. All e-marketing is not spam, just as all spam isn't e-marketing (there's religious spam, there's porn spam, etc..) You will never solve the spam problem as long as the defintion of spam is "what I feel like calling spam" -- if you can't agree on what it is, you can't build standards, and from standards build controls. From list-managers-owner Sat May 5 20:35:47 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15902; Sat, 5 May 2001 20:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1726917EC6 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 20:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f463RBE14061 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 5 May 2001 22:27:11 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105060327.f463RBE14061@ripco.com> Subject: Re: targeted spam (was mailing lists for e-marketing) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:27:11 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 05, 2001 04:19:46 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq started a post here by saying I said something, | On 5/5/01 2:41 PM, "David W. Tamkin" wrote: but he edited out my attribution to JC Dill, the person who actually wrote the words Chuq put under my name (relying, I suppose, on the extra column of citation marks to imply that I was quoting someone else but still not saying whom). It was JC, not I, who said, D> Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted D> spam", ... Chuq's response was this: V> Point of terminology -- if you opt in, you're saying you want it. If you V> say you want it, it's not spam. "targeted spam" is a bad phrase. ... which really addresses JC's words more than it addresses mine. I agree with Chuq there and don't like muddying the definition of "spam" either. In fact, in a part of my post that Chuq did not quote, I said this: T> I did opt into getting the messages and I continue to accept them because T> I continue to use the services, so I'm not going to call them spam. Note the word "not." Chuq continued, V> All e-marketing is not spam, just as all spam isn't e-marketing (there's V> religious spam, there's porn spam, etc..) While "all that glitters is not gold" is a time-honored exception to clarity much as "put your best foot forward" is to diction, let's say rather that not all e-marketing is spam, just as not all spam is e-marketing. To say that all of one is not the other is to deny any overlap; not only does that over- lap exist, but I'd venture that the spam that is e-marketing outweighs (in bits per day) spam that is not e-marketing and also outweighs e-marketing that is not spam. [Possibly it outweighs both of the one-but-not-the-other groups together; certainly it does among the mail that I receive.] From list-managers-owner Sun May 6 17:21:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA27717; Sun, 6 May 2001 17:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4429817E8C for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 17:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer ([12.88.87.16]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010507000449.NSLK3305.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@oemcomputer>; Mon, 7 May 2001 00:04:49 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c0d68b$97e158a0$1057580c@oemcomputer> From: "Jessica Callender" To: , "JC Dill" References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503053434.00b656c0@av.qnet.com> <5.0.0.25.2.20010505122110.033978f0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 20:20:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello there-- A couple of questions. Is there such a thing as isp-lists.com ? Are there professional e-marketers to reach: 1. muncipal and state government people, i.e. MIS administrators and grant development officers 2. college and university administrators Thanks for telling me about the marketer listed below. Do you think they are professional-reputable? Do you think that using their resources will get a positive response or would be alienating? Any experience with?? Jessica > However, there are some solutions! > > There are many ad-supported opt-in discussion lists, and some of those > services might be able to put your ad (as a header or footer on list > discussion email) on targeted opt-in discussion lists that have subscribers > that include some of the people you are trying to reach. > > For instance, if you are trying to reach Internet professionals, you can > have your ad appear on the ad-supported lists hosted at isp-lists.com (and > a banner ad on the web archive pages of those lists), see the details at: > > http://www.internet.com/mediakit/ > > Many of the egroups/yahoo groups lists are ad-supported. If there's an > ad-supported opt-in discussion list there that would have some your target > group as subscribers, you might be able to place ads JUST on those lists > (targeted advertising) by contacting Yahoo: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/advertising/ > > etc. > > HTH > > jc > > RE: >Hi All-- > >All this discussion about the 'largest' mailing lists and being ethical and > >all -- > >I need to find rental or free mailing lists for e-marketing > > > >Where can I find these services. > > > >I need to reach professional development officers in colleges and > >universities and nonprofits, school technology coordinators, municipal MIS > >directors and some other groups. > > > >Know of any professional list renters? > > > > > From list-managers-owner Sun May 6 20:37:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA29497; Sun, 6 May 2001 20:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from okra03.millsaps.edu (okra03.millsaps.edu [151.160.8.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5930917E8C for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 20:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dora (151.160.200.5) by okra03.millsaps.edu (MX V5.1-AX VnDf) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 22:21:03 -0500 From: "Larry Olin Horn" Organization: LOHnet To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:21:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing Reply-To: Larry Olin Horn In-Reply-To: <002d01c0d68b$97e158a0$1057580c@oemcomputer> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Message-Id: <20010507032106.5930917E8C@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Are there professional e-marketers to reach: 1. muncipal and state > government people, i.e. MIS administrators and grant development officers > 2. college and university administrators [...] > Do you think that using their resources will get a positive response or > would be alienating? Any experience with?? Definitely alienating. Speaking only for myself, of course. My last job was in college computing [services, not instruction], everything from flunky to director of the department (I was there a long time :). I detested marketing email. The *only* vendor email I cared about was from vendors with whom I already had a relationship or from whom I had solicited information. Colleges and universities tend to have relatively small budgets, so we're used to aggressively looking for what we need. To market me, get a web presence, get in the trade rags, and treat your customers right (word of mouth among peers). It may sound archaic, but I'd rather get postal mail than anything else for a cold sales contact. Usually I'd delete unsolicited messages without even opening them. I'd sometimes look at the messages, but only with curiosity about technique, not content. The silliest statements were things like "I recently visited your website", "a friend referred you to us", "thank you for your inquiry" - - yeah, right. The stupidest things have been the n00 KB or N megabyte messages with a handfull of Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, PDF files, and images. Surely they were on drugs if they thought I was going to open all that up to read or print. A few persistent vendors I actually replied to, letting them know that through their obnoxious, ill-conceived marketing campaign, I had put them on my blacklist and that I'd never do business with them. Never, *ever* put someone on a periodic marketing list; especially never say "you're on this list because you signed up for it" unless you can prove it. Automatic kiss of death. sorry for ranting, loh From list-managers-owner Sun May 6 22:06:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA00233; Sun, 6 May 2001 21:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CDD817E8C for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 21:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27205 invoked from network); 7 May 2001 00:57:15 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 7 May 2001 04:56:53 -0000 Date: 7 May 2001 00:57:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Jessica Callender" Cc: "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: Mailing lists for -emarketing In-Reply-To: <002d01c0d68b$97e158a0$1057580c@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > A couple of questions. > Is there such a thing as isp-lists.com ? Sure. He runs a bunch of mailing lists for people who own and operate ISPs, which I don't think is what you're looking for. > Are there professional e-marketers to reach: > 1. muncipal and state government people, i.e. MIS administrators and grant > development officers > 2. college and university administrators I doubt it. The people I know in municipal governments (quite a few, actually, since I'm on my local elected village board) don't strike me as likely to sign up for advertising mailing lists, nor do any of the college administrators I know. I am the closest thing to a grant development officer or MIS admin in my village, and I wouldn't know where to sign up for such lists even if I wanted to, which I don't. As others have suggested, if you want to contact them, use the phone or postal mail, or advertise in magazines that such people read. (I get a couple of magazines for municipal officials in New York state, and they're full of ads for computer services and software for governments.) > Do you think [internet.com] are professional-reputable? > > Do you think that using their resources will get a positive response or > would be alienating? Any experience with?? > > http://www.internet.com/mediakit/ Internet.com is Mecklermedia. They're a real company and not unduly sleazy, but again, they're mostly in the Internet market and I'd be surprised if they had anything related to either of the areas you want. 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 Mon May 7 10:06:43 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA09593; Mon, 7 May 2001 10:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4950A17E8C for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19001 invoked from network); 7 May 2001 13:04:04 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 7 May 2001 17:03:42 -0000 Date: 7 May 2001 13:04:04 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "list-managers@greatcircle.com" Subject: So called opt-in In-Reply-To: <200105052141.f45LfeB06154@ripco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As an example of how bogus rental e-mail lists can be, I got spammed by the usually well-behaved e-dialog last week. After some conversation with them, they forwarded this snippet from the list vendor electroniclist.com about the source of an allegedly opt-in list of lawyers (which, needless to say, I am not): > Hi Rick, Our lawyer and attorney list is comprised of advertised > attorney's addresses for contact information. We also use public > records and court cases and defunct databases where their e-mail > addresses may have been acquired into our database. That's why our > list is less expensive because it is deemed single Opt In by The > attorney publicly advertising their addresses or having been in > another database. Your advertisement fits the direct marketing > guidelines because you were asking them in a non commercial way to > join your list. Your e-mail piece completes what is called a CLC a > closed loop confirmation. I will note we have seen instances where a > wrong address of even the client of a case is shown as the attorney > of record and is not actually an attorney at all. Since a potential > client has requested CLC verification he has been removed from the > lawyer list until such a time that he requests to be in the legal > database. We can provide the actual verification requested with a > numbered identification, however the cost for the MIS involved would > not make it cost effective. We guarantee our lists which is on our > invoice to be only 92% accurate and with only one such request we > have met our advertised guidelines. You e-mail piece is not Spam as > you were not selling anything so no CLC was required. In the e-mail > industry what is presently transpiring is the individual ISP's are > handling spam complaints on their own. This what you have received > and can simply be answered by letting them they know they have > permanently removed and your information was of a non commercial > nature simply asking them to reconfirm their participation on your > list. English translation: this is a spam list of addresses scraped from the web and other mailing lists. 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 Mon May 7 12:52:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11207; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8D617ED6 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B51D35010 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010507153522.01a06120@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:35:22 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) In-Reply-To: References: <20010504174808.F86822@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:44 AM 5/5/2001 -0400, James M Galvin wrote: > >On Fri, 4 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote: > > The Berkeley `vacation' algorithm seems to > have held up pretty well over the years: .... > > I would not mind seeing those requirements codified in the next > revision of the DSN standard. > >Just for clarity, DSN is RFC1894 and refers to delivery status. MDN is >RFC2298 and refers to after delivery conditions, e.g., vacation notices >and autoresponders. We may have to disagree on this one. The way I read the standard, MDNs first have to be requested with a Disposition-notification-to header. Vacation notices are sent unsolicited, and as such, do not have a disposition-notification-to style target, and thus the genesis of this discussion, "where do we send the vacation notices"? Now if you think that DSN applies to vacation notices, I will bring this quote from 1894 up: 94> The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the 94> transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope 94> which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was 94> generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return 94> address appears in the MAIL FROM command.) Now, I don't *really* think that DSN or MDN applies to vacation notices. But Vacation notices are closer to DSN than to MDN since they may be sent unsolicited, and I think that, in the absense of other guidance, they should be sent to the transport envelope address and not the from or reply-to address. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns 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 8 06:20:14 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA22843; Tue, 8 May 2001 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFD7017ECB for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 06:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25627 invoked by uid 50); 8 May 2001 13:09:27 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) References: <3.0.3.32.20010507153522.01a06120@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: Nick Simicich's message of "Mon, 07 May 2001 15:35:22 -0400" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 08 May 2001 06:09:27 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 20 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nick Simicich writes: > Now, I don't *really* think that DSN or MDN applies to vacation notices. > But Vacation notices are closer to DSN than to MDN since they may be > sent unsolicited, and I think that, in the absense of other guidance, > they should be sent to the transport envelope address and not the from > or reply-to address. This is frequently debated. As a matter of practicality, you'll be much more successful in getting the autoresponse to be actually *seen* by someone if you send it to the From/Reply-To address; the level of breakage of envelope sender addresses is depressing. This, of course, means that you had better make *very* sure that your algorithm won't send responses to mailing lists. If you send to envelope senders, that can cover up a multitude of sins in your heuristics; sending directly to the From/Reply-To address is less forgiving. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Tue May 8 07:35:16 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA23409; Tue, 8 May 2001 07:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.elistx.com (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EAE17EC0 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 07:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from two.elistx.com (two.elistx.com [209.116.254.209]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id <0GD000KG5TKZVX@eListX.com> for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 08 May 2001 10:29:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:30:30 -0400 (EDT) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) In-reply-to: <3.0.3.32.20010507153522.01a06120@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: galvin@two.elistx.com To: Nick Simicich Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 7 May 2001, Nick Simicich wrote: We may have to disagree on this one. The way I read the standard, MDNs first have to be requested with a Disposition-notification-to header. Vacation notices are sent unsolicited, and as such, do not have a disposition-notification-to style target, and thus the genesis of this discussion, "where do we send the vacation notices"? Interesting point. Now that you mention it, I can see how the spec could be read to mean that MDNs are only generated upon request, given the opening sentence in Section 2. Of course, that fits with all the keywords currently defined. Personally, I've never been stuck on that point. In addition, the specification is intended to be extensible and any conversations I've had about vacation notices always revolved around MDNs, so I don't think that's a requirement one should expect to survive forever. Now, I don't *really* think that DSN or MDN applies to vacation notices. But Vacation notices are closer to DSN than to MDN since they may be sent unsolicited, and I think that, in the absense of other guidance, they should be sent to the transport envelope address and not the from or reply-to address. It is worth noting that DSNs are for MTAs and MDNs are for UAs. Since vacation notices are generated by UAs on behalf of users, I think we'll find that the email technical community considers them closer to MDNs, not DSNs, irrespective of your solicited versus unsolicited distinction. Now if you think that DSN applies to vacation notices, I will bring this quote from 1894 up: ... As far as DSNs requiring the use of the MAIL FROM address in the SMTP transaction, so do MDNs, currently. That's what's in the Return-Path: header. More specifically, the MDN should not be automatically generated unless the address requesting the notification matches the Return-Path:; the generation should be confirmed with a user. Jim From list-managers-owner Tue May 8 12:51:11 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA26171; Tue, 8 May 2001 12:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D89417E8B for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DF1B935010; Tue, 8 May 2001 15:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010508134007.023bf7c8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 13:40:07 -0400 To: James M Galvin From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.20010507153522.01a06120@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:30 AM 5/8/2001 -0400, James M Galvin wrote: >On Mon, 7 May 2001, Nick Simicich wrote: > > We may have to disagree on this one. The way I read the standard, MDNs > first have to be requested with a Disposition-notification-to header. > Vacation notices are sent unsolicited, and as such, do not have a > disposition-notification-to style target, and thus the genesis of this > discussion, "where do we send the vacation notices"? > >Interesting point. Now that you mention it, I can see how the spec >could be read to mean that MDNs are only generated upon request, given >the opening sentence in Section 2. Of course, that fits with all the >keywords currently defined. Actually, my belief was based on my reading that standard and finding no indication that any MDN could be sent to any address that was not in a "Disposition-notification-to" header. There was, as you mentioned below, the indication that certain mismatches could stop the notifications from being sent automatically. But there seemed to be no provision for applying the standard to any non-requested MDN. The standard basically says, "There is this header, and this is how you respond when this header does exist". >Personally, I've never been stuck on that point. In addition, the >specification is intended to be extensible and any conversations I've >had about vacation notices always revolved around MDNs, so I don't think >that's a requirement one should expect to survive forever. I agree that the standard is intended to be extensible, the standard says so clearly. However, it was my opinion that the extensibility was to such things as extra keywords, ignoring keywords for which you have no provisioning so that you could use an older version of an MDN responder with a disposition-notification-to header with new keywords, and the description of X- keywords within the header and the scheme for insuring that X- keywords did not clash and the provision for registering and describing new keywords. The use of MDNs when no MDN was requested is, in my opinion, a departure from the standard rather than an extension of the standard. In fact, it violates the standard, because the Disposition-notification-to header is used to control whether the MDN is generated, and the way that MDN loops are prevented is to state that an MDN can never have a Disposition-notification-to header, so that an MDN is never generated in response to an MDN. Generating an MDN when no MDN was requested breaks this loop control method in a way that is orthogonal to and incompatible with the original loop control method. Now, if you want to say that the right thing to do with vacation is to only respond when there is a Disposition-notification-to: header with the sub-keyword "absense-report-to:" I'd say, Hurray, a blight on the net ends! and support you completely. In that case, MDN is clearly on point, and I wish this had been the case since day 1 of RFC 822. But it is unlikely that people will accept that the important news that they are out of the office should only be reported to those who say that they want to know that, and therefore they will continue to tell, all and sundry, willy-nilly, that they are out of town and that it is the right day to break into their house. :-) Therefore, either a new standard or a standard that describes how to generate unsolicited reports seems on point. I'm going to strongly disagree that this particular standard could be logically extended in the direction of unsolicited reports. > Now, I don't *really* think that DSN or MDN applies to vacation notices. > But Vacation notices are closer to DSN than to MDN since they may be sent > unsolicited, and I think that, in the absense of other guidance, they > should be sent to the transport envelope address and not the from or > reply-to address. > >It is worth noting that DSNs are for MTAs and MDNs are for UAs. Since >vacation notices are generated by UAs on behalf of users, I think we'll >find that the email technical community considers them closer to MDNs, >not DSNs, irrespective of your solicited versus unsolicited distinction. I'm going to have to disagree here again. Quoting from 1894 again, regarding the purposes of DSN: 94>1.1 Purposes 94>The DSNs defined in this memo are expected to serve several purposes: 94>(a) Inform human beings of the status of message delivery processing, 94>as well as the reasons for any delivery problems or outright failures, 94>in a manner which is largely independent of human language; Now, they go on to talk about allowing MTAs to track messages and mailing lists to track messages, but the first mentioned purpose is to report failures to human beings. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a "vacation" notice is clearly a notice to a human being of "delayed delivery" (another quote from 1894). Thus, vacation does seem to fit loosely into DSN and not at all into MDN. The main reason that vacation does not fit into DSN is because DSN seems to be intended for use by MTAs rather than MUAs, but in those cases (Lotus Notes, for example) where the DSN is generated by the MTA on user instruction rather than the MUA, I think that the DSN could apply. > Now if you think that DSN applies to vacation notices, I will bring this > quote from 1894 up: ... > >As far as DSNs requiring the use of the MAIL FROM address in the SMTP >transaction, so do MDNs, currently. That's what's in the Return-Path: >header. More specifically, the MDN should not be automatically >generated unless the address requesting the notification matches the >Return-Path:; the generation should be confirmed with a user. And which does serve to amplify the first point I was trying to make, that the envelope address, however preserved to the MUA, is the preferred address for any sort of automated notification, whereas other header addresses should be used when manual responses are generated. Why is this applicable to list managers? My logic is that if you are not parsing your responses to your envelope address but are assuming that they are all failure notifications, you are doing the wrong thing. That said, I do the wrong thing - if I get a response I can't parse, I switch the list into VERP mode and remove people (or switch them to digest) on the second bounce. But this is probably reasonable, and an unfortunate fact of life. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns 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 8 17:50:06 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA28810; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (silkt.nih.gov [128.231.160.112]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AAC3417EB1 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT) To: galvin@acm.org Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 20:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: autoresponders and vacation notices (was: senate.gov problem) Message-Id: <20010509004455.AAC3417EB1@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Interesting point. Now that you mention it, I can see how the spec > could be read to mean that MDNs are only generated upon request, given > the opening sentence in Section 2. Of course, that fits with all the > keywords currently defined. > > Personally, I've never been stuck on that point. In addition, the > specification is intended to be extensible and any conversations I've > had about vacation notices always revolved around MDNs, so I don't think > that's a requirement one should expect to survive forever. The intent of the specification is definitely that MDNs be generated only upon request. There was talk at the time of later doing a specification for things like vacation messages and change of address notifications, but nothing came of it. From list-managers-owner Wed May 9 19:11:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA14595; Wed, 9 May 2001 18:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D99117EF3 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 18:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07914; Wed, 9 May 2001 18:58:58 PDT Received: from tardis by Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 9 May 101 18:58:58 PDT Received: (from jms@localhost) by tardis.tymnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA22436 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 9 May 2001 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:58:56 -0700 From: Joe Smith To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Yahho's [apparent] decision to drop Adult groups Message-Id: <20010509185856.G25126@tardis.tymnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 08:48:53AM -0700, Cyndi Norman wrote: > From: "Amy Stinson" > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 09:41:18 -0500 > > Without a whole heck of a lot of fanfare, Y!groups deleted all the > adult groups with the exception of the humor areas. > > I just checked and the two such lists I'm on are both still up and active. > But if you go to the category, it lists all the names of the categories and > sub-categories but does not give you any lists. So you either have to go > to mygroups to see lists you're already subscribed to or you have to find > out about lists you aren't currently on via word of mouth. > > Given that the two I'm on are not really "adult" lists (and definately not > porn) but rather lists for people with disablities discussing adult subject > matter, it's rather annoying to think that no one new is likely to find us. Page 2 of today's Argus (newspaper for Fremont, CA) has the headline Yahoo's clampdown on porn leaves some users feeling blue "During the last few weeks, Yahoo quietly has reconfigured its adult-themed online clubs and chat rooms, removing links to them and making them harder to find, members say." http://www.argus-ang.com/S-ASP-Bin/Ref/Index.ASP?puid=26&spuid=26&Indx=833603&Article=ON&id=53903915&ro=33 "The current Yahoo action relative to adult content is only the tip of the cyberberg." From list-managers-owner Wed May 9 20:41:53 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15530; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB22717EF3 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24314; Wed, 9 May 2001 20:20:49 -0700 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200105100320.UAA24314@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: Yahho's [apparent] decision to drop Adult groups To: jms@tardis.tymnet.com (Joe Smith) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <20010509185856.G25126@tardis.tymnet.com> from "Joe Smith" at May 09, 2001 06:58:56 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk hi ya i couldn't resist > Page 2 of today's Argus (newspaper for Fremont, CA) has the headline > > Yahoo's clampdown on porn leaves some users feeling blue that should be all that;s needed... :-) have fun alvin http://www.Linux-1U.net ... 500Gb 1U Raid5 ... From list-managers-owner Sat May 12 22:52:12 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA01091; Sat, 12 May 2001 22:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFE317E8B for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 22:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [209.239.169.199] (barfy.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.199]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4D5TWh15840 for ; Sat, 12 May 2001 22:29:32 -0700 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:37:03 -0700 Subject: For your amusement... From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "List Managers greatcircle.com" Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk If you don't know why this is relevant to running mailing lists -- someday you will... (grin) From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 07:39:32 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA25143; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neptuno.ipimar.pt (unknown [193.137.98.89]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17D317E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 07:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvert ([193.137.98.92]) by neptuno.ipimar.pt (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA00651 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:28:30 +0100 (WET DST) Message-ID: <00d101c0dfa8$6a579b80$99050a0a@silvert> Reply-To: "William Silvert" From: "William Silvert" To: "list-managers" Subject: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:37:38 +0100 Organization: IPIMAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I recently rejoined this list after an absence of several years because of my growing frustration with the problems caused by spam filters. I run about a dozen mailing lists in different sites, based on Majordomo, Listserv and Listproc, and find that I am wasting more and more time dealing with message rejection by automatic spam filters set up by hyperactive system administrators. I would like to initiate a discussion to see how widespread the problem is and if there is any way to deal with it. The sites I run all deal with science, so most of our subscribers are in academic or government research environments, often behind firewalls. A significant fraction of our subscribers have had to be deleted because the firewalls will not pass mail that has been through a mail server. The most common error message is "relaying denied" even when the server is properly configured to prevent spam relaying. Usually these spam filters offer no recourse for rejected messages, that is, there is no address you can write to point out that there is a configuration problem. Currently for example I am being mail-bombed by an automated filter that thinks I sent a virus-filled attachment in a message that contained no attachment at all, but warned about files containing Visual Basic Scripts that were circulating among our members. The problem is not confined to mailing lists of course. The address from which I am sending this, which is a major Portuguese institution whose computer gateway is maintained by our national computer facility, is routinely blocked by servers in Denmark, France, Spain, the US, and Australia, which is a severe blow to scientific communication and cooperation. I think that it is time to take action. Dr. William Silvert Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar Departamento de Ambiente Aquático Avenida de Brasília, s/n 1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 10:37:07 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA26520; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1EA17E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (A17-216-27-207.apple.com [17.216.27.207]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4IHL3J12480; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105181721.f4IHL3J12480@lists.apple.com> In-Reply-To: <00d101c0dfa8$6a579b80$99050a0a@silvert> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:11:15 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists From: Chuq Von Rospach To: "William Silvert" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "list-managers" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 07:37 AM, William Silvert wrote: > I recently rejoined this list after an absence of several years because > of > my growing frustration with the problems caused by spam filters. I run > about > a dozen mailing lists in different sites, based on Majordomo, Listserv > and > Listproc, and find that I am wasting more and more time dealing with > message > rejection by automatic spam filters set up by hyperactive system > administrators. I would like to initiate a discussion to see how > widespread > the problem is and if there is any way to deal with it. Fairly widespread. Right now, for instance, I'm seeing a lot of stuff bounced if it has the word "homepage" in it, which is (IMHO) ludicrous. I realize that virus is nasty, but simplistic 'fixes' like that don't fix the problem. To be blunt about it, there's not a lot you can do. Writing admins to poke at them is usually fruitless. When a given site gets too annoying, I simply unsubscribe the user, send them a private note explaining why, suggesting THEY poke at their admin to get their act together, and ask them not to resubscribe until their site's fixed. Not a great answer, but I don't think there are great answers here. (putting on my other hat for a second, though, since I run mail lists that are fairly widely subscribed to, I can usually tell when a virus hits the net, and right now, there are at least three running pretty rampant out there. For most of the last ten days or so, when I check the postmaster mail on my big server machine, about 40% of the mail sent to that machine has been sent by one of those three viruses attempting to propogate. I've *never* seen the net with such agressive and virulent beasts that have this level of penetration. When I'm seeing 50 or more of these a day, I can understand why network admins are getting a little freaky about trying to shut them down -- I just think many of them are going about it sideways, but then, not all network admins have the experience some of us have; worse, many are stuck with things like Exchange or NOtes or other badly written mail systems, and have their hands tied up front...) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell." From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 11:50:08 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA27136; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77C817E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 249073500E; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010518143001.02351038@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:30:01 -0400 To: "William Silvert" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: "list-managers" In-Reply-To: <00d101c0dfa8$6a579b80$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:37 PM 5/18/2001 +0100, William Silvert wrote: >I recently rejoined this list after an absence of several years because of >my growing frustration with the problems caused by spam filters. I run about >a dozen mailing lists in different sites, based on Majordomo, Listserv and >Listproc, and find that I am wasting more and more time dealing with message >rejection by automatic spam filters set up by hyperactive system >administrators. I would like to initiate a discussion to see how widespread >the problem is and if there is any way to deal with it. I find this to be the second largest reason for mail bounces. The largest is full mailboxes. IMHO, this is the largest cost of spam. SMTP e-mail used to be very reliable. Now, because of spam, people have done many things to e-mail systems which make them less reliable. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. It will probably continue to be this way, until and unless a way is found to curtail spam at the source, by treaty or whatever. >The sites I run all deal with science, so most of our subscribers are in >academic or government research environments, often behind firewalls. A >significant fraction of our subscribers have had to be deleted because the >firewalls will not pass mail that has been through a mail server. The most >common error message is "relaying denied" even when the server is properly >configured to prevent spam relaying. I'm assuming that you are saying that you are getting a "relaying denied" message from the other end, even though your server is not actually attempting to relay, just to deliver. However, if you are using the server to deliver your mailing list mail that you used to send this mail, the problem may be different since that server is not set up correctly. See below. >Usually these spam filters offer no recourse for rejected messages, that is, >there is no address you can write to point out that there is a configuration >problem. The typical sutuation is that you try to send a message to user@foo.org. You might get a bounce from the server at foo.org, and you might get a bounce from the server at bar.org. In the former case, sending mail to postmaster@foo.org is typically useless, as that mail will bounce as well. The latter case might allow you to send mail to "postmaster@bar.org" and that mail might be accepted and they might fix their servers. Now, there are a lot of misconfigurations out there, but there are some legitimate situations which will cause intermittent mail bounces, such as when someone changes ISPs and there is a lag in propigation of domain information or the domain information does not get corrected for some time. >Currently for example I am being mail-bombed by an automated filter >that thinks I sent a virus-filled attachment in a message that contained no >attachment at all, but warned about files containing Visual Basic Scripts >that were circulating among our members. I run all of the owner- mail through scripts that tries to deal with it and only forwards it if it can't deal with it. Then again, I don't send out virus warnings at all, I leave that to virus professionals :-). Actually, since I run all my mail through demime, I treat "Subject:.*virus" like "subscribe" --- it gets bounced back to the originator and the originator must click on a link in it to send it to an administrator (and the automated message warns them about hoaxes and notes that my systems do not distribute attachments and therefore cannot distribute viruses or such). >The problem is not confined to mailing lists of course. The address from >which I am sending this, which is a major Portuguese institution whose >computer gateway is maintained by our national computer facility, is >routinely blocked by servers in Denmark, France, Spain, the US, and >Australia, which is a severe blow to scientific communication and >cooperation. I think that it is time to take action. If your mail servers are being blocked because they are used for spam or because the mail servers are not set up correctly with reverse DNS and so forth, you need to complain to your national computer facility's administration. If the mail servers are maintained as open relays, or if the national computer facility either provides spam havens or is not actively pursuing and expunging spammers from the user list, or they are not set up correctly, you can expect the blocking to continue. Hmmm, I just checked the address you sent from based on the received lines. It does not have reverse DNS set up (there is no in-addr.arpa pointer, so gethostbyaddr() will not work). My servers won't accept direct e-mail from your server either. Tell the administrators of the major ipimar.pt to get their act together and fix their configuration problems. The problem is at your end. These days, many servers (as you have discovered) require that the sending address actually resolve. Some even require that the helo message be a system name that exists. The in-addr arpa delegation for that address is held by rccn.net, so it is not a ripe problem (as frequently reported on the postfix list). rccn could either delegate the 98.137.193.in-addr.arpa domain or set up a nameserver for it, since they own 137.193.in-addr.arpa. If you are actually using a system which is supposed to be an outbound mail gateway as a mail gateway you should insist that they fix this immediately, and not provide excuses. >Dr. William Silvert >Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar >Departamento de Ambiente Aquático >Avenida de Brasília, s/n >1449-006 Lisboa, Portugal -- Eat natto in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you for the rest of the day - http://scifi.squawk.com/natto.html Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 13:07:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA28138; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A8517E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 13:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER100.GVA.NET [216.80.135.104]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4IK6JR11732 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 16:06:19 -0400 Message-Id: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: "list-managers" Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:05:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-reply-to: <200105181721.f4IHL3J12480@lists.apple.com> References: <00d101c0dfa8$6a579b80$99050a0a@silvert> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have a bit of a meta-question... On 18 May 2001, at 10:11, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Fairly widespread. Right now, for instance, I'm seeing a lot of stuff > bounced if it has the word "homepage" in it, which is (IMHO) ludicrous. Is this for real? I occasionally get a message that has "IL*VEYOU" in it with a note saying that they munged it so that their message wont kick off virus-catchers... but that's SO ineffective I couldn't imagine that *sysops* actually did that kind of thing. I had always assumed that it was just one of the anomalies of the unclued [who are both too unclued to have learned not to open attachments AND are too unclued to know how to set up simple filters in their mail client, and so they need to be told "If you get a message that says it has a nude picture of Anna K, *dont* open the attachment"..... But *sysops*, blocking *their*site* based on random text matches??? I think that *that's* more indicative of the depth and breadth of what we have to deal with than almost anything else... It is one thing when the average skill of the *user* goes into the crapper, but quite another when the *sysops*, too, follow their clientiele into the without-a-clue crapper... Whew!! > To be blunt about it, there's not a lot you can do. Writing admins to > poke at them is usually fruitless. I've complained to world.std.com that some mailing list stuff from one of my lists gets bounced by them (I mention them because they're a pretty competent site with mostly-clueful folks at the helm). They're basically non-apologetic and take the attitude that such things are acceptable collateral damage in their approach to dealing with incoming spam, and that's that. I admit that not *much* gets bounced, but nonetheless their filters *do* catch legitimate stuff and if your list _happens_ to have traffic that is closer to their secret-filtering-criteria than mine is, I can see that this would be a major PITA. > .. I've *never* seen the net with such agressive and virulent > beasts that have this level of penetration. I analyzed the last couple and I noticed that there is now the email equivalent of a "root kit" -- that is, we're now at the stage where a clueless script kiddie can touch off an email worm without having a clue about 'vbs' or self-replicating software or anything like that. So, IMO, things are going to get worse, perhaps a LOT worse, before they get better. [part of my cynicism about this is that in the end, the only real recourse to stop worms like these are users-with-a-clue [since I would disagree with your terminology: I haven't seen a real "virus", in the old sense of the term, in a long time -- these are all trojans, that arrive and invite the unwary/unclued to shoot themselves in their collective feet, and they do it with amazing and mindboggling consistency]. Since, IMO, the density of clueness is going down, overall, I think that these things will always be finding more and more gullible 'hosts' and so be an essentially unstoppable plague on our house. > ... I just think many of them are > going about it sideways, but then, not all network admins have the > experience some of us have; worse, many are stuck with things like > Exchange or NOtes or other badly written mail systems, and have their > hands tied up front...) Yeah, and we're just seeing the beginning of the *fun* ones: the ones that mutate on every propagation, that download new 'stealth modules' and patch themselves on-the-fly, that hide more cleverly in their host systems... And some sysadmins will still be blocking email with "Kournikova" in the subject line.... Sigh.. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 14:06:55 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA28676; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C80D17E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4IL4a409932 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:04:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Bernie Cosell Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bernie Cosell wrote: > Is this for real? I occasionally get a message that has "IL*VEYOU" in it > with a note saying that they munged it so that their message wont kick > off virus-catchers... but that's SO ineffective I couldn't imagine that > *sysops* actually did that kind of thing. Before the content filtering capabilities were added to Sendmail Switch, many customers were implementing MTA-side filters that did, in fact, bounce as many legit virus notifications as the virii themselves. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 15:21:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA29499; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B633017E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:19:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4IMK1p13897 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 18 May 2001 17:20:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105182220.f4IMK1p13897@ripco.com> Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (list-managers) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:20:01 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <200105181721.f4IHL3J12480@lists.apple.com> from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 18, 2001 10:11:15 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote, | To be blunt about it, there's not a lot you can do. Writing admins to | poke at them is usually fruitless. Having never run a list with an essential business purpose, I've found that writing to adminstrators was counterproductive. If the list member was on an account at work or school, telling the postmaster that my leisure-topic list isn't reaching the person would just get me a nasty note back from the member for my getting him/her into trouble for personal use of email. [The concept that it was not I but (s)he got him/herself into the trouble by using the e- mail access in a prohibited fashion never occurred to any of them.] On a re- tail provider, the postmaster was willing to listen only to paying customers, leading to Chuq's policy: | When a given site gets too annoying, I simply unsubscribe the user, send | them a private note explaining why, suggesting THEY poke at their admin to | get their act together, and ask them not to resubscribe until their site's | fixed. As HTTP access and webmail and popmail servers proliferated, I took to shut- ting off their subscriptions and sending a note explaining why and advising them to open a webmail or popmail account on a better-run system. (In some cases I found the old site's behavior or policy so unacceptable that I banned the site from the list, telling all future applicants from it that they had to get an address elsewhere to join and any other current subscribers on it that they had thirty days to provide me with another address or I'd have to stop sending the list to them rather than continue to fight with their site's mailers.) Asking the user to pound sense into an admin's head is a waste of time. First, you need an admin who can grasp the concept of not already knowing everything and having something to learn, of being imperfect and hav- ing room for improvement. Next, you need one who believes that such informa- tion or advice could possibly come from a lowly user. Nick Simicich wrote, addressing William Silvert, > Hmmm, I just checked the address you sent from based on the received lines. > It does not have reverse DNS set up (there is no in-addr.arpa pointer, so > gethostbyaddr() will not work). My servers won't accept direct e-mail > from your server either. Tell the administrators of the major ipimar.pt to > get their act together and fix their configuration problems. The problem > is at your end. I wouldn't be surprised if many articles from mailing lists are rejected be- cause the listserver's sending IP address in the SMTP transaction doesn't match the author's domain in the RFC822 From: line and therefore is assumed to be relayed spam. That's an absolutely ridiculous way to run a site, but there's no telling what's out there. I've had list items bounce because the user (who had voluntarily subscribed to the list) or the admins rejected all mail that arrived as blind carbons, all in the name of fighting spam. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 15:37:05 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA29430; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA13417E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4IM22h17380; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:02:02 -0700 Message-Id: <200105182202.f4IM22h17380@plaidworks.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:09:40 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "list-managers" To: "Bernie Cosell" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 01:05 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > I have a bit of a meta-question... > > On 18 May 2001, at 10:11, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >> Fairly widespread. Right now, for instance, I'm seeing a lot of stuff >> bounced if it has the word "homepage" in it, which is (IMHO) ludicrous. > > Is this for real? Bernie -- would I lie to you? Old buddy? (grin) Yes, it's true. One of my mailing lists is currently having a discussion about homepages for students on educational servers. And there are currently two domains of subscribed users bouncing back every message with the word "homepage" in it as being virus ridden. I've written the admins to suggest their virus checkers get a clue, but if the admin had a clue going in, he'd have never done it that way. It reeks of panic/emergency hacking. When I was running majordomo as my list server, I started having a few domains kick back mail as spam -- because I was using the bulk_mailer program to speed delivery. anything that put that phrase in its received lines has to be spam, right? (that's why my copies of bulk_mailer now identify themselves in received lines as ulkbay_ailermay. honest. I couldn't make this stuff up....) > I think that *that's* more indicative of the depth and breadth of what > we > have to deal with than almost anything else... It is one thing when the > average skill of the *user* goes into the crapper, but quite another > when > the *sysops*, too, follow their clientiele into the without-a-clue > crapper... Whew!! yah. I had that talk with one of my admins today -- bounces that get through the bounce processor, and he was wondering why he was getting them. Yet another unreadable, non-standard, not-necessarily-accurate set of bounces that have to be manually handled. Now, I realize that most e-mail standards are only a decade or so old, and it takes time on the internet for people to build systems, so perhaps I'm being too picky to think that people could actually follow standards and quit reinventing the wheels with six sides... > They're basically > non-apologetic and take the attitude that such things are acceptable > collateral damage in their approach to dealing with incoming spam, and > that's that. That's always something that their clients ought to be told -- because if they have false positives, they are bouncing other stuff, too. INcluding stuff that might really matter to the recipient. So I *always* pass those kind of messages on to the subscriber, so they know their ISP is bouncing stuff improperly and thinks its a feature, not a bug. Rarely are list messages life or death to a person, but if they're bouncing list stuff -- they're bouncing other stuff, too. And that other stuff might be. Imagine not getting a consulting proposal because it was bounced because it has the word "homepage" in it. and not knowing about it until you accept another, much less lucrative job... > I analyzed the last couple and I noticed that there is now the email > equivalent of a "root kit" -- that is, we're now at the stage where a > clueless script kiddie can touch off an email worm without having a clue > about 'vbs' or self-replicating software or anything like that. So, > IMO, > things are going to get worse, perhaps a LOT worse, before they get > better. thank god I strip all mime off my lists. I've always planned to enhance demime to allow me to selectively strip mime, but I've never had time. Right now -- I'll just put that one on hold for a year. > these are all trojans, that arrive > and invite the unwary/unclued to shoot themselves in their collective > feet, and they do it with amazing and mindboggling consistency]. remember when users simply infected mail lists with viruses warning of FALSE viruses? Well, those same users are now really infected.... > Since, > IMO, the density of clueness is going down, overall, I think that these > things will always be finding more and more gullible 'hosts' and so be > an > essentially unstoppable plague on our house. not if the people building mail clients build them so they aren't wide open to this kind of crap. Not that I'm mentioning any specific software houses by name or anything. but much of the spam issue wouldn't be a problem TODAY if Eric Allman had known to shut down open relaying years ago. Today, the only way you'll ever get the open relays shut down is if everyone upgrades to a version of their MTA that won't talk to any version of sendmail older than 8.9.3. Same is true of the mail clients -- being able to execute code (or worse, auto-execute code. What WERE they thinking?) is stupid. And the people who set that up had a lot more warning than the sendmail folks did with open relays. In retrospect, we should have known better than to set things up wide open, based on the reality that anything that can be exploited will be. But allowing arbitrary code execution? Even the java folks knew better than that -- their security model may not be perfect, but at least they realized they needed one.... > Yeah, and we're just seeing the beginning of the *fun* ones: the ones > that mutate on every propagation, that download new 'stealth modules' > and > patch themselves on-the-fly, that hide more cleverly in their host > systems.. yeah, that self modification stuff is (at an intellectual level) fascinating. For folks who don't know what's going on, these new viruses move in and set up housekeeping and basically intertwine themselves into EVERYTHING. And if you read USENET on that box, it finds out what your NNTP server is, and quietly watches some alt groups. and the authors of these viruses post updates to those alt groups, which when the virus sees them, it downloads and updates itself with them. So once its on your system, the author can UPDATE it with new features, teach it to better hide itself, add new distribution methods, or turn it virulent or suicidal, any time he wants. Or, for that matter, anyone who wants to write update modules for it can, simply by posting them to the newsgroup and posing as the author. Even if the author didn't want to cause damage, someone who does can piggyback on his work any time they want. (shudder) tell you what. Makes *me* damn glad my desktops all run MacOS. Not that I *assume* I'm safe, by the way. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 18:36:59 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA01714; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEBD17E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4J1ahC39239; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:36:43 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20010518213643.G66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105181721.f4IHL3J12480@lists.apple.com> <200105182220.f4IMK1p13897@ripco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105182220.f4IMK1p13897@ripco.com>; from dattier@ripco.com on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 05:20:01PM -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 05:20:01PM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > > I've had list items bounce because the > user (who had voluntarily subscribed to the list) or the admins rejected all > mail that arrived as blind carbons, all in the name of fighting spam. The parent company did that a couple of months ago. Any mail that did not list the recipient in the `To' or `Cc' headers would be rejected. Our own users could not receive mailing list messages THAT WE SENT THEM, until I explained the mechanics of the situation. Most amusing. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 18:51:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA01580; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A94317E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4J1PAR39107; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:25:10 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: Bernie Cosell , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20010518212510.E66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from rogerk@QueerNet.ORG on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 02:04:36PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 02:04:36PM -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > Is this for real? I occasionally get a message that has "IL*VEYOU" in it > > with a note saying that they munged it so that their message wont kick > > off virus-catchers... but that's SO ineffective I couldn't imagine that > > *sysops* actually did that kind of thing. > > Before the content filtering capabilities were added to Sendmail Switch, > many customers were implementing MTA-side filters that did, in fact, > bounce as many legit virus notifications as the virii themselves. We still bounce some fair number of virus notifications from our mailing lists. Part of me would prefer, in principle, not to bounce them. The other part says, who cares? We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus will come to them through other channels. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 19:09:47 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA01683; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9087A17E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4J1Wpk39194; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:32:51 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Bernie Cosell , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20010518213251.F66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> <200105182202.f4IM22h17380@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105182202.f4IM22h17380@plaidworks.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:09:40PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:09:40PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > When I was running majordomo as my list server, I started having a few > domains kick back mail as spam -- because I was using the bulk_mailer > program to speed delivery. anything that put that phrase in its received > lines has to be spam, right? (that's why my copies of bulk_mailer now > identify themselves in received lines as ulkbay_ailermay. honest. I > couldn't make this stuff up....) In a moderate defense of that practice, I must point out that searching for the word "bulk" in X-Mailer and Received headers can seem like an incredibly good way of finding dumb spammers. Even a fairly large sample size may not provide a very high false positive rate. I think that bulk_mailer is the *only* program with such a name which is widely used for non-spammish purposes. > > I analyzed the last couple and I noticed that there is now the email > > equivalent of a "root kit" -- that is, we're now at the stage where a > > clueless script kiddie can touch off an email worm without having a clue > > about 'vbs' or self-replicating software or anything like that. So, > > IMO, > > things are going to get worse, perhaps a LOT worse, before they get > > better. > > thank god I strip all mime off my lists. I've always planned to enhance > demime to allow me to selectively strip mime, but I've never had time. > Right now -- I'll just put that one on hold for a year. whoa! This is supposed to be the part where you tell all us dinosaurs to get rid of our C64s and embrace the new technology like you have! Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something? :-) From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 20:57:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA02964; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A5C17E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4J3bph22737; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:37:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200105190337.f4J3bph22737@plaidworks.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:45:30 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Bernie Cosell , list-managers To: Tim Pierce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <20010518212510.E66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 06:25 PM, Tim Pierce wrote: > We still bounce some fair number of virus notifications from our > mailing lists. Part of me would prefer, in principle, not to bounce > them. The other part says, who cares? Back when they were all pretty much bogus, I took a real hard line on this stuff. A while back I redid my list rules, I decided to change it. I now outlaw posting chain letters or e-mail hoaxes. While I still think virus warnings are off-topic for my lists, I just can't convince myself to yell at someone for warning people about a real virus, especially if he's sending along a note saying "I caught this, it sent itself to all of my address book, so watch out!" (even though my lists strip all that stuff, I think it's unreasonable to expect users to know that when they're recovering from one of these beasties. This allows me to yell at folks who don't do basic research (my rules have direct links to both Symantec and CIAC, so they don't even have to think about where to research stuff...), but doesn't require me to do so to people who are legitimately passing along info (I might still take them aside privately, depending on the situation). > We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus > warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time > they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus > will come to them through other channels. > Except these days, I see very, very few hoax mails, and lots of "I caught this, it sent itself to everytone on my list, and you're one of them...". And to me, that's a whole different kettle of fish... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier." From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 21:06:58 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA02987; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBA317E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4J3i7h22812; Fri, 18 May 2001 20:44:07 -0700 Message-Id: <200105190344.f4J3i7h22812@plaidworks.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:51:45 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Bernie Cosell , list-managers To: Tim Pierce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <20010518213251.F66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 06:32 PM, Tim Pierce wrote: > In a moderate defense of that practice, I must point out that > searching for the word "bulk" in X-Mailer and Received headers can > seem like an incredibly good way of finding dumb spammers. I know. That's why I changed the headers. However, if those admins actually thought that spammers were too stupid to change their headers, they get what they deserve.... > whoa! This is supposed to be the part where you tell all us dinosaurs > to get rid of our C64s and embrace the new technology like you have! > Have I slipped into a parallel universe or something? :-) > There's embracing new technology, and there's embracing it blindly. Right now, my marketing lists are overwhelmingly HTML and users (with a really tiny group loudly taking exception) want it that way. On my discussion lists, the users are satisfied with plain text, as long as they don't have to poke their client to cooperate with the server. When the server does the work, that's good enough. There's definite interest in HTML and styled text, but in the groups I deal with, what they NEED is 8 bit characters and internationalized character sets, so that's what's going to get done before I do any serious mime-tweaking. HTML and styled text is a lower priority (on my project board, there's "like to have", "want to have", "must have" and "dammit, you promised me this last week" -- HTML and styled text is currently a nice to have...) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Q: Did God really create the world in seven days? A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and candy bars. On the seventh day he went home and found out his girlfriend had left him. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 21:22:35 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA03197; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8113417E8C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4J42bh23064; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:02:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200105190402.f4J42bh23064@plaidworks.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:10:15 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers To: Tim Pierce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <20010518213643.G66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 06:36 PM, Tim Pierce wrote: > The parent company did that a couple of months ago. Any mail that > did not list the recipient in the `To' or `Cc' headers would be > rejected. Our own users could not receive mailing list messages > THAT WE SENT THEM, until I explained the mechanics of the situation. > > Most amusing. A couple of years ago, I wrote a custom list-server (which is still humming away nicely and shipping a few thousand postings a day...) where we decided to do away with Bcc, because it allowed us to merge stuff mailed to multiple lists so users only got one copy, since we kept getting complaints about that.... After putting it into production, we found out just how many people (and programs, and bots, and.... not to mention all mail lists that don't VERP) mail using Bcc (about 5% of all messages, it turns out...). So we changed it back, quickly.... filtering by BCC may be one of the WORST ways of trying to filter spam... - Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 21:36:59 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA03357; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151B917ECF for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4J4Ggh23338; Fri, 18 May 2001 21:16:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200105190416.f4J4Ggh23338@plaidworks.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:24:20 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (list-managers) To: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105182220.f4IMK1p13897@ripco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 03:20 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Having never run a list with an essential business purpose, I've found > that > writing to adminstrators was counterproductive. Essential business is in the eye of the beholder. And even then, it's still counterproductive... (if you want to have a fun discussion about "essential business", get into a discussion of how to subset USENET so that you're only distributing "business" newsgroups -- when you run USENET for a company involved in electronic music, video, computer games... There's a lot to life beyond comp.sys.mac, but management doesn't always realize that until you start asking... > On a re- > tail provider, the postmaster was willing to listen only to paying > customers, > leading to Chuq's policy: > if then (grin) > (In some > cases I found the old site's behavior or policy so unacceptable that I > banned > the site from the list, telling all future applicants from it that they > had > to get an address elsewhere to join and any other current subscribers > on it I've banned a few sites over time; almost always because their software is braindamaged to the point of being dangerous to my lists -- there are some sites out there that either break and start feeding stuff back at the list, or wh's idea of a bounce is to simply redirect messages back at the list. When I find those, they go away. I think there are only two sites I've banned for administrative malfeasance -- one is juno.com, and the other is one that's no longer with us. juno did (perhaps, does) no checking of new accounts, so a user could create an infinite number of accounts to circumvent a ban. When one finally did, and juno's admins were MIA, I banned the site (FWIW, juno's admins answered my complains six weeks later with an apology, but refused to take responsibility, change their policies, or actually do anything. They stayed banned...). The other, when I had problem with one of their users, was actually more abusive than the original troublemaker was. That made it easy... > I wouldn't be surprised if many articles from mailing lists are > rejected be- > cause the listserver's sending IP address in the SMTP transaction > doesn't > match the author's domain in the RFC822 From: line and therefore is > assumed > to be relayed spam. That's an absolutely ridiculous way to run a site, > but > there's no telling what's out there. but it's a good reminder to sweat the details, and not give them any reason to reject stuff. You never know what stupid things people will come up with, so try to avoid doing stupid things... (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"? From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 23:07:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA04320; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A9F17E8B for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4J62hC23912 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:02:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Tim Pierce Cc: Bernie Cosell , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <20010518212510.E66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote: > We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus > warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time > they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus > will come to them through other channels. That used to be true. But ISPs actually don't tell their users anything about it. Most home users find out about them from those warnings. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Fri May 18 23:52:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA04523; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D285917E8B for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 23:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26338 invoked by uid 50); 19 May 2001 06:37:26 -0000 To: list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists References: <200105190337.f4J3bph22737@plaidworks.com> In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of "Fri, 18 May 2001 20:45:30 -0700" From: Russ Allbery Organization: The Eyrie Date: 18 May 2001 23:37:26 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach writes: > A while back I redid my list rules, I decided to change it. I now outlaw > posting chain letters or e-mail hoaxes. While I still think virus > warnings are off-topic for my lists, I just can't convince myself to > yell at someone for warning people about a real virus, especially if > he's sending along a note saying "I caught this, it sent itself to all > of my address book, so watch out!" (even though my lists strip all that > stuff, I think it's unreasonable to expect users to know that when > they're recovering from one of these beasties. The manual ones are one thing; I don't mind those as much. The automated ones, on the other hand, are reason to disconnect the e-mail systems that send out the damn things from the rest of the Internet before they do more damage, particularly since they *love* sending mail to mailing lists. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 05:38:18 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA10573; Sat, 19 May 2001 05:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A262017E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 05:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER160.GVA.NET [216.80.135.164]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4JCYMt22058 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:34:23 -0400 Message-Id: <200105191234.f4JCYMt22058@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 08:34:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists References: <20010518212510.E66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 18 May 2001, at 23:02, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote: > > We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus > > warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time > > they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus > > will come to them through other channels. > > That used to be true. > > But ISPs actually don't tell their users anything about it. Most home > users find out about them from those warnings. Yeah, but there's a problem with this whole approach: the 'warnings' are the wrong things to be passing around. It is one thing to get a 'warning' that a new exploit in sendmail 8.3 has been discovered and you need to get the patch de-pronto. It is another thing to be told for the thousandth time "DONT OPEN ATTACHMENTS". How many times do ISPs and folk in general have to tell these clowns the *same*message*, over and over and over and over... 'DONT OPEN ATTACHMENTS', neither the picture of Anna K nor the mysterious greeting card nor the direct-link to 'Hot teen sex' nor ANY of that is safe. Note that since there are *always* one trojan or another roaming about, ISPs could, I guess, just keep emailing their customers their daily warning: 'Yes, there are still email trojans afoot, don't open attachments'... Would you really do business for more than two days with an ISP that sent you a warning like that EVERY day? But nothing short of that really fits, does it: the trojans are *constantly* about, there is always one or another. And, as an ISP, what do you do when you try warning your customers about "Anna" or "melissa" and you don't warn them about some other one [since you can't because there are thousands floating about] and your trusting customer gets nailed by it? The thing that bothers me with these dumb 'warnings' is the implication that *other* attachments are OK to open. -- that the picture of Anna K is a trojan, don't open it, but maybe the picture of Monica Seles would make for good viewing so give it a try. DUH!!!! I try and try to convince folk that the only rational way to stay afloat is by *inclusion* rather than *exclusion* [that is, you assume that everythign is bad/dangerous and only "include" _specific_ things that you know or are confident are safe [and even then you gotta be careful]; the "dont open..." warnings are from folk whose world-model is apparently just the opposite: it is OK to mess around with attachments, except you have to be careful to "exclude" just these speicific dangerous ones]... Yes, I'm still having trouble adjusting to the basic level-of-dumb of the apparently-average user these days. The thing is that I want *BETTER* clients for me, but I it seems obvious to me that that's the wrong thing to be doing: what the net needs is *dumber* clients. Clients that have operating environments more like a toaster or a pencil than like a LearJet. I dunno.. maybe I'm getting too old, crotchety and intolerant to be messing with this sort of stuff. /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 07:53:24 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA11563; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pageplanet.com (england.pageplanet.com [205.160.14.30]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EFD17E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.240.209.233] (208.240.209.233) by pageplanet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.0.1); Sat, 19 May 2001 10:48:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: tcora1@mail.ibmwr.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105190337.f4J3bph22737@plaidworks.com> References: <200105190337.f4J3bph22737@plaidworks.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:47:23 -0400 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: list-managers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Friday, May 18, 2001, at 06:25 PM, Tim Pierce wrote: >>We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus >>warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time >>they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus >>will come to them through other channels. >> > >Except these days, I see very, very few hoax mails, and lots of "I >caught this, it sent itself to everytone on my list, and you're one >of them...". And to me, that's a whole different kettle of fish... Wow. Your experience is almost exactly the polar opposite of mine, Chuq. I get tons of the hoax viruses and very very few of the real ones. I'm almost thinking of filtering on the string "this was just announced by Intel and IBM". tom coradeschi <+> tcora@skylands.ibmwr.org Skylands (NJ) BMW Riders <+> From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 08:08:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA11544; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neptuno.ipimar.pt (unknown [193.137.98.89]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B289E17E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvert ([193.137.98.92]) by neptuno.ipimar.pt (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA05384 for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 16:38:09 +0100 (WET DST) Message-ID: <01a701c0e073$2c8a5ce0$99050a0a@silvert> Reply-To: "William Silvert" From: "William Silvert" To: "list-managers" Subject: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:51:20 +0100 Organization: IPIMAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I see I opened the floodgates, but didn't get much of a solution. I would however like to add two comments in response to the replies that were posted. First, I agree that many virus warnings are hoaxes or are so well publicised that we don't need to echo the warnings on our lists, but I wouldn't be too dogmatic about it. I sent a virus warning recently because one of our subscribers was infected and had sent the virus to anyone who posted to the list - when you get a virus from someone you know, you are more likely to be suckered. I expect that we will see more and more cleverness in the way viruses present themselves, and warnings are called for. Suppose you got a message from Rospach or Berch warning of a security flaw in Majordomo, open the enclosed patch - might not you feel just a slight temptation to open it? Imagine what happens when a fisheries manager gets a message from someone in his department with an attached Excel file containing corrections to the latest landing statistics - I could forge that, you all could. Second, the following warnings are common, and sometimes get sent to list subscribers. There are lots of us in this boat, and no one has come up with a good way to get system administrators to do A+ jobs. Our site is typical - a major government laboratory whose internet connection is managed by the national computing centre. Yeah, our configuration is not perfect. But we are worried more about the fact that sometimes our mail server breaks down and for over a week all mail is returned to the sender marked "user unknown", or that our proxy server is so crummy that it is impossible to obtain remote sensing images unless they are mailed to us on a CD. Imagine the situation in our former colonies, like Angola and Mozambique. It just isn't fair to say that if your site is not perfectly configured, we won't talk to you. I just think that we have to have a balance between spam-blocking and communication. Right now it is communication that is on the losing end. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Simicich" To: "William Silvert" Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists > Hmmm, I just checked the address you sent from based on the received lines. > It does not have reverse DNS set up (there is no in-addr.arpa pointer, so > gethostbyaddr() will not work). My servers won't accept direct e-mail > from your server either. Tell the administrators of the major ipimar.pt to > get their act together and fix their configuration problems. The problem > is at your end. From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 08:53:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA12098; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8319217E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 08:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AA3935010; Sat, 19 May 2001 11:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:48:44 -0400 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Bernie Cosell , list-managers In-Reply-To: References: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:04 PM 5/18/2001 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bernie Cosell wrote: >> Is this for real? I occasionally get a message that has "IL*VEYOU" in it >> with a note saying that they munged it so that their message wont kick >> off virus-catchers... but that's SO ineffective I couldn't imagine that >> *sysops* actually did that kind of thing. > >Before the content filtering capabilities were added to Sendmail Switch, >many customers were implementing MTA-side filters that did, in fact, >bounce as many legit virus notifications as the virii themselves. There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from virus companies. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 09:38:19 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA12507; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BA917E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4JGRXh00809; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:27:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200105191627.f4JGRXh00809@plaidworks.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:35:12 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers To: Tom Coradeschi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Saturday, May 19, 2001, at 07:47 AM, Tom Coradeschi wrote: > > Wow. Your experience is almost exactly the polar opposite of mine, > Chuq. I get tons of the hoax viruses and very very few of the real > ones. I'm almost thinking of filtering on the string "this was just > announced by Intel and IBM". > Remember, a good time ago, I decided to take a hard line on people who posted that stuff, which got me some criticism here, and some criticism on my lists when I very publically executed a few people who posted that stuff. A few public floggings got the point across in ways mere lectures never did, though, and I think that's one reason why I don't have a huge problem on my lists any more. For better or worse, I've found sometimes you simply can't do the "look, we're all intelligent adults here..." bit... This was a case where that didn't work, but a few whacks with the cattle prod got their attention -- but if you're going to do that, I think it's important that you go beyond "don't do that!" to "here's how you SHOULD do it..." -- and that's all in my list documentation. It was just a case of convincing folks to read it and pay attention to it... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. You know, I Remember When I Used To Speak In Capitals, Too. It's addictive. It also encourages people to poke sticks at you. Justifiably. (chuq, 1992) From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 10:08:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA12756; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712F817E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4JH10115757 Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Nick Simicich Cc: Bernie Cosell , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 May 2001, Nick Simicich wrote: > There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from > virus companies. And virus companies don't notify the masses. So many people get them FROM virus companies and pass them on to their friends. Get used to it. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 10:23:21 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA12665; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (c36.ppp.tsoft.com [198.144.204.36]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEC517E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 151A0f-00082B-00; Sat, 19 May 2001 09:55:21 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Tim Pierce , "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Fri, 18 May 2001 21:10:15 PDT." <200105190402.f4J42bh23064@plaidworks.com> References: <200105190402.f4J42bh23064@plaidworks.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:55:21 -0700 Message-ID: <30885.990291321@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 May 2001 21:10:15 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > A couple of years ago, I wrote a custom list-server (which is > still humming away nicely and shipping a few thousand postings a > day...) where we decided to do away with Bcc, because it allowed > us to merge stuff mailed to multiple lists so users only got one > copy, since we kept getting complaints about that.... Oddly enough this is a fight I'm having with my current IS group. They do this sort of dupe folding and are having a devil of a time understanding why I flatly demand that they NOT dupe fold mail to me. Unfortunately Exchange only has a single global config. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 10:38:21 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA12837; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from glatton.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.47]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0E717E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by glatton.cnchost.com id NAA11746; Sat, 19 May 2001 13:09:57 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010519093139.02e9e6b0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:11:02 -0700 To: list-managers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: References: <20010518212510.E66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11:02 PM 5/18/01, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: >On Fri, 18 May 2001, Tim Pierce wrote: >> We spent years trying to educate people not to believe "virus >> warnings" that they got in e-mail anyway, since 99% of the time >> they're the Budweiser Frogs hoax. Warnings about a *real* virus >> will come to them through other channels. > >That used to be true. > >But ISPs actually don't tell their users anything about it. Most home >users find out about them from those warnings. So what? What value is there in learning about these viruses through this method (being sent a warning from a friend or chat list)? Either people practice "safe email" or they don't. If they don't, sooner or later they are going to get a virus email (and open it) *before* they get a warning, and then get infected. Sending out warnings gives people a false sense of security, that if they just don't open the messages they have been warned about all will be well. As we all know, nothing could be further from the truth. I ban ALL virus warnings. Anyone who persists in sending virus warnings to my mailing lists will get banned. If someone wants to know about the latest viruses, they need to be proactive and visit the virus warning websites, or subscribe to an announcement list that sends them official warnings. Expecting to receive an emailed warning in an appropriate time frame from friends or a mailing list is just stupid. jc From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 12:07:06 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA13611; Sat, 19 May 2001 11:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8490717E8B for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 11:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4JItMZ17309 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 19 May 2001 13:55:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105191855.f4JItMZ17309@ripco.com> Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:55:22 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <200105190416.f4J4Ggh23338@plaidworks.com> from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 18, 2001 09:24:20 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk When I wrote, > Having never run a list with an essential business purpose, ... Chuq answered, | Essential business is in the eye of the beholder. Of course. I meant that my lists have not been business-related for the majority of members; rather, they've been discussion lists for leisure inte- rests. In each case, some people joined whose businesses did include the topic. | I've banned a few sites over time; almost always because their software | is braindamaged to the point of being dangerous to my lists ... Of all the sites I had to ban, only one was for reasons other than hostile email practices. That company had given me unending personal aggravation and I finally decided that I was putting a lot of effort into administering and moderating the list in question and I was damned if I'd add value to their service by providing its email accounts with the benefit of my work. I gave the five or six subscribers in its domains thirty days to send me new addresses; one replied immediately, saying that she was just about to notify me that she was changing ISPs anyway. The others never responded, nor did any of them say a word when their subscriptions vanished a month later. > I wouldn't be surprised if many articles from mailing lists are rejected be- > cause the listserver's sending IP address in the SMTP transaction doesn't > match the author's domain in the RFC822 From: line and therefore is assumed > to be relayed spam. That's an absolutely ridiculous way to run a site, but > there's no telling what's out there. | but it's a good reminder to sweat the details, and not give them any | reason to reject stuff. You never know what stupid things people will | come up with, so try to avoid doing stupid things... (grin) I don't see how your comment relates to mine, Chuq. On a discussion list, do you consider keeping the poster's address in the RFC822 From: header, thus having a domain there that doesn't match the IP address of the SMTP transaction when a copy is delivered to a member, a stupid thing to do that the list administrator should have avoided? I consider it a stupid thing for the member's site to reject the message for such a reason. From list-managers-owner Sat May 19 19:22:13 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA16547; Sat, 19 May 2001 19:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B166517EDC for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 19:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4K2FCJ49066; Sat, 19 May 2001 22:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 22:15:12 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Nick Simicich Cc: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Bernie Cosell , list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20010519221512.H66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105182006.f4IK6JR11732@mail.rev.net> <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1>; from njs@scifi.squawk.com on Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 02:04 PM 5/18/2001 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > >On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bernie Cosell wrote: > >> Is this for real? I occasionally get a message that has "IL*VEYOU" in it > >> with a note saying that they munged it so that their message wont kick > >> off virus-catchers... but that's SO ineffective I couldn't imagine that > >> *sysops* actually did that kind of thing. > > > >Before the content filtering capabilities were added to Sendmail Switch, > >many customers were implementing MTA-side filters that did, in fact, > >bounce as many legit virus notifications as the virii themselves. > > There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from > virus companies. That's kind of the attitude I'm taking these days. If I thought that we could instruct the users how to tell a warning of a real virus from a bogus rumor, then we would pursue that. I just don't think that we're capable of that kind of education (or if it's even possible). So I tell people not to trust virus warnings that they don't hear about from a credible virus-hunting company. Any warnings you get in e-mail should at least be cross-checked against a couple of other sources, if you are tempted to believe it at all. From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 07:09:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA24708; Sun, 20 May 2001 07:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DDC17EB2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER153.GVA.NET [216.80.135.157]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4KE0aw02967 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 10:00:37 -0400 Message-Id: <200105201400.f4KE0aw02967@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:00:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-reply-to: <20010519221512.H66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1>; from njs@scifi.squawk.com on Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 19 May 2001, at 22:15, Tim Pierce wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Nick Simicich wrote: > > > > There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from > > virus companies. > > That's kind of the attitude I'm taking these days. If I thought > that we could instruct the users how to tell a warning of a real > virus from a bogus rumor, then we would pursue that. But *what* are you _warning_ them about? The implication of making warnings like this *at*all* is that it is OK to open random attachments and that you're covered --- you've got this early-warning-system that'll let you know if the Britney Spears sex video is *really* an .mpg or is actually a virus, so if you haven't heard anything to the contrary, it is OK-to-click... Why not just send them a constant stream of "there are still zillions of email viruses afoot, don't open attachments"? -- that's both closer to the truth, safer, and a better 'email ecology' for them than "HEY, watch out for a message that says click here if you want to get-rich-quick". > ... I just don't > think that we're capable of that kind of education (or if it's even > possible). See, that's where we differ: you think that the 'education' is in teaching folk to figure out which 'warning's to trust. I think that the necessary 'education' is to hammer into their thick skulls "DONT OPEN ATTACHMENTS". There hasn't been a virus 'warning' in a long time [since bubbleboy/KAK] that consisted of *anything* more than that, but rather than have the education be "learn how to fish", you/we/I persist in "hey, don't eat _that_ fish". > .. Any warnings > you get in e-mail should at least be cross-checked against a couple > of other sources, if you are tempted to believe it at all. When was the last time you got a 'warning' from an 'official source' or anyplace else that told you ANYTHING useful? [assuming that _you_ have gotten the clue that opening attachments is a bad thing]. About the only thing such warnings do for me is warn me that I'm about to get deluged by pleas-for-help from clueless users who have, yet *again*, shot themselves in their collective feet. I wonder if the folks at places like gov't offices and MS and IBM and such are the least bit embarrassed about the AnnaK trojan -- it isn't just that they got bit by a trojan, and isn't just that they demonstrated that the clue-train *still* hasn't stopped at their station... but that they were messing around with that sort of stuff on the old company computers on company time. [I mean, what do you say to your boss: "How was I to know that the nude pictures of Anna K were actually a trojan?" [with the implication, I guess, that all the *other* nude-celebrity and lord-knows-what stuff that you regularly open weren't trojans so you'd gotten complacent???.]] /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 10:22:36 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA25962; Sun, 20 May 2001 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.oldradio.net (ns.oldradio.net [216.87.208.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B2C17EB2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 10:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.104.7.25] (ip25.7.blca.blazenet.net [24.104.7.25]) by ns.oldradio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21523; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:09:56 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Envelope-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105201400.f4KE0aw02967@mail.rev.net> References: <20010519221512.H66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1>; from njs@scifi.squawk.com on Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:55:12 -0400 To: list-managers From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:00 AM -0400 5/20/01, Bernie Cosell is rumored to have typed: > Why not just send them a constant stream of "there are still zillions of > email viruses afoot, don't open attachments"? -- that's both closer to > the truth, safer, and a better 'email ecology' for them than "HEY, watch > out for a message that says click here if you want to get-rich-quick". Um, kids, seems to me there's a much easier solution to this problem (which has strayed prety far away from the original topic, anyway) from the listmaster's perspective. There's really only one question you need to ask yourself: Is a virus warning on-topic for my mailing list? If you're running a list dedicated to computers, or a specific brand or OS, I'd bet it is. If you're running a mailing list dedicated to some movie actress, I'm guessing it ISN'T...and like _all_ off-topic postings, they should be discouraged. We've kinda lost sight of the fact that we are NOT responsible for educating our subscribers on all things computers, we are only responsible for supplying on-topic discussions, dealing only with what the subscriber expected to discuss when they joined the mailing list in the first place. I don't argue that our subscribers get infected...I probably receive five or six copies of Homepage or BadTrans a week to my mailing list admin addresses (yes, the filter to a safe address, and I'm careful to always use a Macintosh to pull the mail from those safe boxes). I have set up scripted responses with pointers to Symantec/McAfee web pages, and send them as immediately as possible to those subscribers who are infected. And yea, the person probably had a comple other subscribers' email addresses in their address book. But a mailing list discussing Old-Time Radio, for example, is NOT the place to discuss computer viri, real or hoaxed. It's a waste of bandwidth to allow such far-off-topic discussions, and I don't; any more than I'd allow someone to discuss foot massagers on the list. Charlie From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 12:07:36 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA26791; Sun, 20 May 2001 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033CC17EB2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4KJ6si21074 Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: Charlie Summers Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists 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 Sun, 20 May 2001, Charlie Summers wrote: > If you're running a list dedicated to computers, or a specific brand or > OS, I'd bet it is. If you're running a mailing list dedicated to some movie > actress, I'm guessing it ISN'T... But some lists are "dedicated to some movie actress" and some lists are clubs where fans of some movie actress can hang out and chat about anything, frequently but not topic-restricted to that actress. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 12:37:36 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA27080; Sun, 20 May 2001 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.oldradio.net (ns.oldradio.net [216.87.208.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE48917EB2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 12:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.104.7.25] (ip25.7.blca.blazenet.net [24.104.7.25]) by ns.oldradio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22430; Sun, 20 May 2001 15:35:23 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Envelope-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:34:30 -0400 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: list-managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:06 PM -0400 5/20/01, Roger B.A. Klorese is rumored to have typed: > But some lists are "dedicated to some movie actress" and some lists are > clubs where fans of some movie actress can hang out and chat about > anything, frequently but not topic-restricted to that actress. (*sigh*) You're really reaching to unsuccessfully argue the point. Look, if the subscribers of a list can "hang out and chat" about anything that comes into their pointy little heads, and they are aware of that complete chaos when they subscribe, then anything and everything is on-topic for that list by the definition above, including viral warnings AND hoaxes - QED. As such, it doesn't affect AT ALL what I said (which specifically went to whether the posts were defined as on-topic), and if anything simply proves my point that the only criteria a listmaster need use in determining whether virus warnings are permitted on his or her list is whether they are on-topic for the specific list based on the list charter (or, considering the painful lack of charters around today, the stated topic of the list that the subscriber was made aware of at the time of subscription). If you have no structure, then nothing's off-topic. If you do, then some things are - in your words, "Get used to it." A listmaster simply figures where virus warnings fit into that criteria...simple as that. Charlie From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 13:22:34 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA27469; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from green.syncronym.org (green.syncronym.org [216.118.17.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D63017EEE for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25310 invoked from network); 20 May 2001 20:19:38 -0000 Received: from citadel.in.taronga.com (10.0.0.43) by green.in.taronga.com with SMTP; 20 May 2001 20:19:38 -0000 Received: by citadel.in.taronga.com (Postfix, from userid 101) id CCE55413F5; Sun, 20 May 2001 15:21:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:21:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010520202117.CCE55413F5@citadel.in.taronga.com> From: arielle@taronga.com (Stephanie da Silva) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > And virus companies don't notify the masses. So many people get > them FROM virus companies and pass them on to their friends. And some people just blindly send warnings to everyone in their address book. So people like me who are immune to viruses (because I'm on a Unix workstation) get annoying virus warnings (that I already know about) from people I don't even know. On the virus front, yesterday I got 27 copies of the hybris worm (that's a lot lower than it's been). Re: mailing lists: one of the recipients of the rec.food.recipes mailing list started sending BadTrans to anyone who had posted, which got complaints to the (newsgroup) moderators that they were posting articles infected with viruses. *sigh* From list-managers-owner Sun May 20 14:07:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27904; Sun, 20 May 2001 14:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.oldradio.net (ns.oldradio.net [216.87.208.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADD117EB2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 14:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.104.7.25] (ip25.7.blca.blazenet.net [24.104.7.25]) by ns.oldradio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22819; Sun, 20 May 2001 17:04:44 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105202007.f4KK7xh29710@plaidworks.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:02:30 -0400 To: Chuq Von Rospach , Charlie Summers From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "Roger B.A. Klorese" , list-managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:15 PM -0400 5/20/01, Chuq Von Rospach is rumored to have typed: > you you, charlie -- if you tried, you could be even more judgemental > about this. This is just the kind of "if you don't do it exactly like I > think it ought to be done, you're an idiot" kind of message that makes > this place such fun... Of course I could be more judgemental. But should I ever desire a lesson, I need look no further than _your_ archived posts. That said, although I don't deny I personally find unstructured lists bothersome and unsubscribe from them at my earliest opportunity, it doesn't affect whatsoever my base point, and the fact that both of you need to desperately ignore that pretty much bears me out. We are spending time arguing about what _kind_ of viral message should/should not be distributed, while completely ignoring that the only thing that really matters is the _venue_ for the distribution. Either it is on-topic for the list (whatever list it might be) or it isn't...doesn't seem to be too many shades of grey there, and any that exist should be dealt with by the listmaster of whatever specific list we're talking about. Examples: if I determine that they are off-topic for a list I operate dealing with Nostalgic Television, because they do not fit the charter of the list, then those messages should not be distributed on that list, and subscribers should be discouraged from posting them. If you decide that they _are_ on-topic for a list you operate, even if the list discusses wedding dresses or kick boxing, then knock yourself out and run them - that they are permitted suggests that you believe them to be on-topic. It's really all a matter of what the list (and by extention the listmaster) expects from its subscribers. I honestly don't much care how you (or anyone else) runs their list, and I certainly wouldn't waste the word, "idiot" on someone who doesn't run a list the way I do; if I want a more focused discussion about whatever the list topic is than a given listmaster provides, I'll simply go elsewhere (lord knows nowadays everyone and their _dog_ runs a mailing list on Yahoo! or Topica), while those who desire a non-focused, what I might call rambling, discussion will stay on that list I have vacated. But each listmaster _must_ make the determination as to whether these specific types of postings fit his or her list. Making bizarre points that on some lists anything goes (which by definition suggests that the viral postings _are_ on-topic, what being part of "anything" and all), or that you don't like the _way_ I make the point (which only goes to show I must be on to something if you had to avoid it and blindly curmudgeon simply to maintain your reputation), is irrelevant to my point. Charlie From list-managers-owner Mon May 21 03:26:22 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA07538; Mon, 21 May 2001 03:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neptuno.ipimar.pt (unknown [193.137.98.89]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C2817EBE for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 03:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvert ([193.137.98.92]) by neptuno.ipimar.pt (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA11505 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 12:14:28 +0100 (WET DST) Message-ID: <00eb01c0e1e0$c30b5e80$99050a0a@silvert> Reply-To: "William Silvert" From: "William Silvert" To: "list-managers" Subject: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:28:20 +0100 Organization: IPIMAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk With all the followups to this and other draconian postings, I think that there is a point that is being missed. Most of us agree that the routine announcements of new viruses are irrelevant to most lists, but virus technology is changing, and I think that it is not out of line to warn subscribers of new developments that may catch them unaware. For example, given that some posters here have smugly commented that they use a Mac to avoid PC viruses, it was a shock for many us back in the pre-internet days to discover that the standard PC prophylaxis of not opening executables was not enough on other systems, that you could infect a Mac just by inserting a floppy in the drive. In the early days of the internet viruses were usually sent out in anonymous batches, the relatively recent development of getting personalised virus messages has probably caught many people by surprise. It is one thing to get a strange declaration of affection from a perfect stranger, but I worry about the following scenario - it is common for subscribers on our fisheries lists to request photos of a particular species, and it would not be a rare coincidence for a subscriber to get back a message from someone whom he or she knows saying: "You wrote - 'I need a picture of Dolus fictus for a report ....' The enclosed picture might be worth looking at." with an attachment called FISH.GIF.pif Something very similar happened to me in fact. And while McAffee and Symantec and all the rest have tons of information on all the viruses out there (over 50,000 now I think), and there are warnings about opening attachments, it is not common to see generic warnings about the potentially deadly .pif and .vbs endings that people may not spot unless they are alterted to them. So while I agree that YAV (Yet Another Virus) postings should be banned from most lists, the attitude that all subscribers should be sophisticated about the latest developments in virus technology is not justified in my opinion. I think that we owe it to our subscribers to help them know what to look for. We owe it to ourselves as well. One poster commented that she was blamed because a subscriber was infected and was sending out infected files - surely that calls for a brief warning to the list? That might have cut down on her junk mail too. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "JC Dill" To: "list-managers" Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists > I ban ALL virus warnings. Anyone who persists in sending virus warnings to > my mailing lists will get banned. If someone wants to know about the > latest viruses, they need to be proactive and visit the virus warning > websites, or subscribe to an announcement list that sends them official > warnings. Expecting to receive an emailed warning in an appropriate time > frame from friends or a mailing list is just stupid. From list-managers-owner Mon May 21 07:52:26 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA09461; Mon, 21 May 2001 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0617817E8B for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4LEoVu69354; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:50:31 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Bernie Cosell Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Message-ID: <20010521105031.J66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.3.32.20010519104844.020e8350@127.0.0.1>; <20010519221512.H66420@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <200105201400.f4KE0aw02967@mail.rev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105201400.f4KE0aw02967@mail.rev.net>; from bernie@fantasyfarm.com on Sun, May 20, 2001 at 10:00:35AM -0400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 10:00:35AM -0400, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 19 May 2001, at 22:15, Tim Pierce wrote: > > > On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 10:48:44AM -0400, Nick Simicich wrote: > > > > > > There are no legit virus notifications, except the ones that come from > > > virus companies. > > > > That's kind of the attitude I'm taking these days. If I thought > > that we could instruct the users how to tell a warning of a real > > virus from a bogus rumor, then we would pursue that. > > But *what* are you _warning_ them about? Nothing. We don't permit attachments to be posted to mailing lists. > Why not just send them a constant stream of "there are still zillions of > email viruses afoot, don't open attachments"? Because I don't believe it's our job. We don't allow attachments, we don't allow executable content, and we block most virus warnings. End of story. I don't want virus hysteria to distract me from doing my job. From list-managers-owner Mon May 21 11:37:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11207; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2034E17E8B for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 880A7350EF for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010521142152.020e8490@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:21:52 -0400 To: "list-managers" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <00eb01c0e1e0$c30b5e80$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:28 AM 5/21/2001 +0100, William Silvert wrote: >So while I agree that YAV (Yet Another Virus) postings should be banned from >most lists, the attitude that all subscribers should be sophisticated about >the latest developments in virus technology is not justified in my opinion. >I think that we owe it to our subscribers to help them know what to look >for. The point is that it is not just virus warnings. Virus warnings are just another example of a type of posting that is "so important that it must be posted even though it is off topic." If we accept that there are postings that are so important that they must be posted even they are off topic, the result will be that all lists will be about things so important that they override the topics of the list. For example, virus warnings are very important, and they should be posted to lists. Perhaps both e-mail and ebola. And missing childen are very important, and so appeals for them should be posted to all lists, including binary jpgs of them being cute. And appeals for dying children are important, so they must be posted to the list (please send a postcard to....) And genocide is very important, so notices about genocide should be important to all lists. And blue star lsd is very important and notices about it should be posted to all mailing lists. And aids infected needles in phone booths are really important (another virus warning, retro, this time). And exploding cactuses. And the US Presidential election was real important. And so on and so forth. Soon all mailing lists will be about very important things, and the original purpose of the lists will be lost. By the way, I understand about social lists. I am a member of one or two such lists, and anything that the people on the list feel like typing in is important. The rest of the lists I'm on and run are not social lists, and to allow such postings on the excuse, say, that "anything that affects scuba divers is on topic for a scuba diving list" makes it a list without a focus. Believe it or not, most subscribers prefer a focused list. So, where do you draw the line? Are virus warnings more important because they relate to computers and we use computers for our list work? Maybe we all drive to work in cars, should we all post recall notices on Firestone tires? >We owe it to ourselves as well. One poster commented that she was blamed >because a subscriber was infected and was sending out infected files - >surely that calls for a brief warning to the list? That might have cut down >on her junk mail too. Stupidity is very important. Perhaps all mailing lists should be about stupidity? :-) Maybe they all are.... :-) If the list owner thinks that a notice is important and related to the running of the list, the list owner can send it out, with the appropriate warnings that discussion of the notice is off topic as are continued vvirus warnings. There is a difference between the list owner doing something to run the lists and random list members making random off topic postings. But as to the rest, this is a slippery slope. Some of us started fighting it before the current e-mail virus warnings, with notices about missing children and urban legends. This is just another incarnation of a topic so important that it overrides the list purpose. Stay off the slippery slope. If your topic excludes it, just say no. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Mon May 21 14:52:29 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA12627; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FBA17E8B for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4LLbdN08586; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105212137.f4LLbdN08586@lists.apple.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:39:15 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "list-managers" To: Nick Simicich X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010521142152.020e8490@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Monday, May 21, 2001, at 11:21 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > Believe it or not, most subscribers prefer a focused list. Nick is mostly correct, but -- I think it depends on the list. When a list of mine develops a sense of community, I find it tends to wander. I find that it's that wandering that develops the community aspect, because that's where they're interacting as people, and not merely discussing the narrow topic at hand. So it depends on what kind of people you have on the list, and what they want out of the list. I've found letting a list wander is a lot more productive than playing topic-nazi; the list is pretty good at warning me when it wanders too far or heads away from what the list-consensus is willing to do. The only exception to that is -- the busier the list, the narrower the focus. So when a list is grinding away at some on-topic issue and generating traffic, I manage off the side-discussions. On a list in between arguments, I let that stuff through more. It helps people get to know each other over time, and I think it reduces the flamability of a list, since they're less anonymous addresses to each other. But that's only if the list shows an interest in developing some community interest. If not, not. But I let the list define that. > So, where do you draw the line? where I try to draw it these days is whether what's being said is relevant to the people on the list, not strictly whether it's on-topic. The list lets me know when I guess wrong, and I try to remember that the next time. And a virus warning might well be relevant, even on a hockey list, especially if lots of list members are getting nailed -- but that still doesn't mean any of the other stuff Nick worriesa bout magically becomes relevant because some piece of it does. By managing to the list's interests around the topic, it gives the list a lot more flexibility to be what it decides to be, while limiting the need to be hard-ass about it. It's more work, though, and it requires you to keep in touch with the members a lot. > > Stay off the slippery slope. If your topic excludes it, just say no. > Life is a slippery slope. You can live life without risk, but it's a pretty boring life. By adding some subjectivity and judgement and self-policing into a list, it adds some risk of abuse, or at least arguments when those judgements differ (but that's why I always reserve the "because I said so" veto -- ultimately, I win if you push it that far), but you get a lot more out of it as well. sometimes it blows up in your face, too. But I think it's worth the risk. I like the rewards. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier." From list-managers-owner Tue May 22 03:07:49 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA19532; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neptuno.ipimar.pt (unknown [193.137.98.89]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4CC17EB4 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 03:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvert ([193.137.98.92]) by neptuno.ipimar.pt (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22360 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 11:55:57 +0100 (WET DST) Message-ID: <005c01c0e2a7$630bafe0$99050a0a@silvert> Reply-To: "William Silvert" From: "William Silvert" To: "list-managers" Subject: More on: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:10:06 +0100 Organization: IPIMAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Good example Nick. I'm a scuba diver, and don't want my lists cluttered up with news about the ebola virus. But ... if a new virus crops up that loves to grow in compressed air tanks, or a computer bug that affects dive computers, I think that it should be posted to the list. If you will read the messages posted to the list, instead of launching tirades about virus warnings, you will see that no one is supporting the idea of posting missing child warnings to unrelated lists. My point was that sometimes a virus warning can be relevant to a specific list, and categorical standards for rejection do not serve the purposes of the list. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Simicich" To: "list-managers" Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists > At 11:28 AM 5/21/2001 +0100, William Silvert wrote: > >So while I agree that YAV (Yet Another Virus) postings should be banned from > >most lists, the attitude that all subscribers should be sophisticated about > >the latest developments in virus technology is not justified in my opinion. > >I think that we owe it to our subscribers to help them know what to look > >for. ... > to allow such postings on the excuse, say, that "anything that affects > scuba divers is on topic for a scuba diving list" makes it a list without a > focus. From list-managers-owner Tue May 22 22:33:39 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA01704; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2277117E8B for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [65.3.200.99] by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20010523052134.IJQT16644.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.3.200.99]> for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:21:34 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: meh@pop.sfrn.dnai.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105212137.f4LLbdN08586@lists.apple.com> References: <200105212137.f4LLbdN08586@lists.apple.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:20:17 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Mikael Hansen Subject: Re: Fw: Spam Filters vs. Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 2:39 PM -0700 5/21/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Monday, May 21, 2001, at 11:21 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > >>Believe it or not, most subscribers prefer a focused list. > >Nick is mostly correct, but -- I think it depends on the list. > >When a list of mine develops a sense of community, I find it tends >to wander. I find that it's that wandering that develops the >community aspect, because that's where they're interacting as >people, and not merely discussing the narrow topic at hand. In the Alfred Hitchcock movie classic entitled Vertigo from 1958, Madeleine Elster (Kim Novak) says to John Ferguson (James Stewart) something like "One wanders, two are always going somewhere." Someone may be off topic and someone else may follow up, so they're going somewhere, just somewhere else. As far as the list itself wandering is concerned, I dunno. >Life is a slippery slope. It is. Every list though naturally can't turn into a community where you can live your entire life. No list offers more than one little slice of life. But given that we're lazy, it's so much easier going off topic on the list whose members we know than subscribing to another list dedicated to the other topic whose list members we may not know. Emotions blend, the intellect separates. I read "Flowers for Algernon" on Saturday (prompted by seeing the movie Charly the same morning), and in the book there's a Fay Lillman who doesn't like the lines in the neighborly "My God! I have never seen a place as neat as this" room of the then intelligent main character. She drinks gin to wash them away, "It'll take the starch out of those straight lines." I wonder if the on topic scopes on lists are all that different from such lines. Anyway, Indiana Jones once said that Philosophy is down the hallway, so there I go. -- "There was a time when I would have paid you $1000 to watch you eat a popsicle." -Kelsey Grammer to Jean Smart, Frasier: A Day in May From list-managers-owner Wed May 23 13:39:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA11984; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B1B17E8B for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (A17-216-27-247.apple.com [17.216.27.247]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4NKXQq15516 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 13:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105232033.f4NKXQq15516@lists.apple.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:35:00 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) From: Chuq Von Rospach To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: user unknown with error 450? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I just ran into this, and I'm curious. Can anyone think of any rational reason why a site would return a user code 450 for "user unknown"? I had a subscriber backing up in the queue, and when I went and looked, they were being bounced as user unknown, but with a 450 code, deferring delivery instead of rejecting it. huh? (fwiw, the SMTP server is Interscan, whatever that is. And there are other subscribers successfully receiving mail on the domain, so it's not some obscure misplaced spamblock, at least as far as I can tell) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet. From list-managers-owner Fri May 25 12:21:19 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA10735; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F2C17E8C for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-1-127.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.77.127]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4PJ4F815834 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:04:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Subject: test Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:04:18 -0500 Message-ID: <00ab01c0e54d$7fa27690$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200105240343.UAA15760@honor.greatcircle.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk test > From list-managers-owner Fri May 25 12:36:29 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA10794; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B357A17E8C for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-1-127.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.77.127]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4PJAu818794 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:56 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:10:59 -0500 Message-ID: <00ad01c0e54e$6e94f700$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk albert/brenda zegiel FARMPRIDE PRODUCTS 223 MAIN STREET GAYS MILLS, WISCONSIN, 54631 ph-1-608-735-4667 fx 735-4994 talk and trade at "seedtalk" mail list http://www.farmpride.com/seedtalk.html From list-managers-owner Fri May 25 14:36:26 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11792; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B833117E8C for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 25A7A35013; Fri, 25 May 2001 17:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010525170525.00f81248@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:05:25 -0400 To: "albert" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: test Cc: In-Reply-To: <00ab01c0e54d$7fa27690$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <200105240343.UAA15760@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hmmm...Does anyone else have a strictpolicy forbidding user testing on mailing lists? At 02:04 PM 5/25/2001 -0500, albert wrote: >test > > >> > > > -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Fri May 25 16:25:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA12857; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7506917E8C for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 16:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-2-150.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.77.150]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4PNLa823079 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:21:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Subject: configuation pointer needed. Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:21:40 -0500 Message-ID: <00c101c0e571$73bbb340$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010525170525.00f81248@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hello,.. I am setting up our first list,.. seedtrader@farmpride.com and i would like to change the message header. Currently it reads: -----Original Message----- From: owner-seedtrader@farmpride.com [mailto:owner-seedtrader@farmpride.com]On Behalf Of albert Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:55 AM To: seedtrader@farmpride.com Subject: RE: [seedtrader] grow i would like the header to contain the name and address of the sender of the post so list members can easiely pick it or the list to reply to... our example file looks like: message_headers <; Fri, 25 May 2001 19:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pond.com (wanda.vf.pond.com [198.69.82.2]) by fish.vf.pond.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26279 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:50:08 -0400 Received: from pond.com (ascend2-42.vf.pond.com [205.160.4.107]) by pond.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA26217 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 22:55:32 -0400 From: Keith Flippin Reply-To: kflippin@indole.net Organization: NE-Raves Administrator X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: filtering (was Re: test) References: <200105240343.UAA15760@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010525170525.00f81248@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nick Simicich wrote: > > Hmmm...Does anyone else have a strictpolicy forbidding user testing on > mailing lists? Not just a policy, a filter. Speaking of which, anyone have such a filter that does a good job of catching tests without many false positives? -- Geoff Capp Productions NE-Raves Administrator http://DrJesus.djcentral.com under construction "Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum" From list-managers-owner Fri May 25 20:55:57 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA15007; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9633617E8C for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a205.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.205]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4Q3lXq15403; Fri, 25 May 2001 20:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105260347.f4Q3lXq15403@lists.apple.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 20:49:13 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: filtering (was Re: test) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: kflippin@indole.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Friday, May 25, 2001, at 07:55 PM, Keith Flippin wrote: > Not just a policy, a filter. > > Speaking of which, anyone have such a filter that does a good job of > catching tests without many false positives? > I never found one that didn't generate lots of false positives, and I finally decided the arguments about test messages were a lot worse than the messages were, so I ignore them unless they start having conventions or one user seems to need a chat. Then I talk to them quietly... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end. From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 03:12:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA18776; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5264A17E8C for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 03:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-2-191.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.77.191]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4QA1m816755 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 05:01:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Subject: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 05:01:55 -0500 Message-ID: <00c801c0e5ca$e52f4a10$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I am a member of at least 10 lists, i make my living on the internet, and now in the process of doing a few lists for myself and hosting for others. Now what i dislike worse than a test message is the many meaningless replies to them.. think about it, you get one note from a guy that wonders if the list is working, then you get 3 or 4 guys that got to reply to it, why? if you have 500 members, now you have 1500 or 2000 extra sends to to the list all just so a few guys can flex there index finger. how would i filter the meaningless replys to such notes which cost me more than the original test note? if the test message is such a mind blowing issue then let us figure out a configuration command that will grab the test message and send a reply to the sender outside of the list, in the same way that you can grab a bounce and put it in file/list to be sent a test message?? this would be a kind/community act and help the person looking for confirmation of the lists operational-ability... another pet peeve of mine is Spam, yours too, but what IRKS me worse is the 99 replies to the spammer to a list, why can not the community members write the spammer in person? how can i filter the replies to the spammer? which cost me now 99 x 500?? And i also sent a question to this list asking for a little configuration help, i got a couple "smart comments" but not advice or help, the reply to the test got more response than a plea for help... i have scoured the internet for help, read all the online manuals, and they are all standard clips and copies of the same manual. in closing may i ask .... will DList commands work in majordomo? albert. albert/brenda zegiel FARMPRIDE PRODUCTS 223 MAIN STREET GAYS MILLS, WISCONSIN, 54631 ph-1-608-735-4667 fx 735-4994 > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM > [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of Keith Flippin > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:56 PM > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > Subject: filtering (was Re: test) > > > Nick Simicich wrote: > > > > Hmmm...Does anyone else have a strictpolicy forbidding user testing on > > mailing lists? > > Not just a policy, a filter. > > Speaking of which, anyone have such a filter that does a good job of > catching tests without many false positives? > > -- > > Geoff Capp Productions > NE-Raves Administrator > http://DrJesus.djcentral.com under construction > "Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum" > From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 09:12:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA23717; Sat, 26 May 2001 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F59517EBF for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4QG3Rb18999 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:03:27 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105261603.f4QG3Rb18999@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:03:27 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <00c801c0e5ca$e52f4a10$14c8a8c0@dad> from "albert" at May 26, 2001 05:01:55 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Albert Zegiel, or maybe Brenda Zegiel, wrote, | Now what i dislike worse than a test message is the many meaningless | replies to them.. think about it, you get one note from a guy that wonders | if the list is working, then you get 3 or 4 guys that got to reply to it, and | another pet peeve of mine is Spam, yours too, but what IRKS me worse is the | 99 replies to the spammer to a list, why can not the community members | write the spammer in person? First guess: because you are munging Reply-To:. From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 10:42:10 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA24254; Sat, 26 May 2001 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.oldradio.net (ns.oldradio.net [216.87.208.245]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CC317EBF for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.104.7.234] (ip234.7.blca.blazenet.net [24.104.7.234]) by ns.oldradio.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06415 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 13:30:41 -0400 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00c801c0e5ca$e52f4a10$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:26:43 -0400 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re:test message,or reply's to, which worse? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 6:01 AM -0400 5/26/01, albert is rumored to have typed: > And i also sent a question to this list asking for a little configuration > help, i got > a couple "smart comments" but not advice or help, the reply to the test got > more > response than a plea for help... > will DList commands work in majordomo? In at least one case I know about, this person received a response requesting he not post majordomo-specific questions to this list, since many of us do not use it, and according to the GreatCircle.com webpage, this list is _not_ designed to handle them but rather is, "platform-neutral." Perhaps someone else made of sterner stuff might want to take a shot at educating this person as to which list he should be posting his majordomo-specific questions? Charlie From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 11:41:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA24768; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FD217ECB for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (user-vcaup28.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.100.72]) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17232; Sat, 26 May 2001 11:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B0FF5B8.9FB13639@postmodern.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:28:08 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Cc: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? References: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Charlie Summers wrote: > [...] > In at least one case I know about, this person received a response > requesting he not post majordomo-specific questions to this list, since many > of us do not use it, and according to the GreatCircle.com webpage, this list > is _not_ designed to handle them but rather is, "platform-neutral." > > Perhaps someone else made of sterner stuff might want to take a shot at > educating this person as to which list he should be posting his > majordomo-specific questions? I sent him a form letter explaining the difference between List-Managers and Majordomo-Users, and suggesting the use of the latter, which I do whenever I notice a Majordomo-specific question on List-Managers. It's usually effective. Others, of course, are free to echo the sentiment, but it's probably better to do so by private mail to avoid the "one [inappropriate] message - many replies" problem. -- Michael C. Berch List-Managers list manager mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 12:11:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA25116; Sat, 26 May 2001 12:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from repulse.cnchost.com (repulse.concentric.net [207.155.248.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F68417E8B for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 12:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by repulse.cnchost.com id PAA11334; Sat, 26 May 2001 15:00:55 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010526092145.02ff7270@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:00:11 -0700 To: "albert" , From: JC Dill Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: <00c801c0e5ca$e52f4a10$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <3B0F1B24.32BAF551@pond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 03:01 AM 5/26/01, albert wrote: >And i also sent a question to this list asking for a little configuration >help, i got >a couple "smart comments" but not advice or help, the reply to the test got >more >response than a plea for help... Maybe next time you will reconsider the wisdom of sending a "test post". There is NO REASON for sending a test post. None. Ever. If you have something to post, post it. If you don't have something to post, there's no need to send a test post. jc From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 13:40:56 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA25873; Sat, 26 May 2001 13:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D23117E8C for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-2-175.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.77.175]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4QKVV806589 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 15:31:31 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Subject: lets forget the silly test,...and , Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:31:43 -0500 Message-ID: <00cd01c0e622$e05d6eb0$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk platform neutral?? good, then give me a platform neutral opinion on how to handle the question i put forth Charlie,.. you do not use majordomo then why on the greatcircle list? what is wrong with asking if a Dlist command may work with majordomo? why don't you ,..Charlie, tell me just what is a list of appropriate questions for this list if not a question on managing , configuring, a list? > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM > [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of Charlie Summers > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:27 PM > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > Subject: Re:test message,or reply's to, which worse? > > > At 6:01 AM -0400 5/26/01, albert is rumored to have typed: > > > And i also sent a question to this list asking for a little > configuration > > help, i got > > a couple "smart comments" but not advice or help, the reply to > the test got > > more > > response than a plea for help... > > > will DList commands work in majordomo? > > In at least one case I know about, this person received a response > requesting he not post majordomo-specific questions to this list, > since many > of us do not use it, and according to the GreatCircle.com > webpage, this list > is _not_ designed to handle them but rather is, "platform-neutral." > > Perhaps someone else made of sterner stuff might want to take a shot at > educating this person as to which list he should be posting his > majordomo-specific questions? > > Charlie > > > From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 15:56:18 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA26982; Sat, 26 May 2001 15:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.wi.rr.com (fe2.rdc-kc.rr.com [24.94.163.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC4F17E8C for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 15:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([65.29.167.218]) by mail2.wi.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sat, 26 May 2001 17:39:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00cd01c0e622$e05d6eb0$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <00cd01c0e622$e05d6eb0$14c8a8c0@dad> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:39:51 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Mike Yuhas Subject: Re: lets forget the silly test,...and , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:31 PM -0500 5/26/01, albert wrote: >platform neutral?? > >good, then give me a platform neutral opinion on how to handle the question >i put forth Charlie,.. > >you do not use majordomo then why on the greatcircle list? > >what is wrong with asking if a Dlist command may work with majordomo? > >why don't you ,..Charlie, tell me just what is a list of appropriate >questions >for this list if not a question on managing , configuring, a list? > I'm not Charlie, but I'll take a stab at this. I'm on this list specifically to learn about the issues that face listmanagers in general. My particular list is hosted on a machine running Listserv, so, naturally, I'm also on the listserv-specific list to learn more about that MLM program. The beauty of this list, when it's on topic , is that I know I'd get a handful of good answers to any "list sociology" question I may raise. Perhaps the responses would differ, but each would be articulate, if not passionate. If list-managers became a majordomo support group, I'd leave. Thank you, Mike Yuhas listmom, folkdj-l http://folkradio.org From list-managers-owner Sat May 26 16:56:15 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA27586; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108EE17E8C for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4QNgfh23041; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:42:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200105262342.f4QNgfh23041@plaidworks.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:50:34 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "albert" , To: JC Dill X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010526092145.02ff7270@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Saturday, May 26, 2001, at 12:00 PM, JC Dill wrote: > There is NO REASON for sending a test post. None. Ever. If you have > something to post, post it. If you don't have something to post, > there's no need to send a test post. > And, ahem, you can test a list just as well by sending something ON TOPIC as you can by sending a test message. So even if you only want to test a list, you can do it in a way that nobody even notices -- with just a bit of thought... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. You know, I Remember When I Used To Speak In Capitals, Too. It's addictive. It also encourages people to poke sticks at you. Justifiably. (chuq, 1992) From list-managers-owner Sun May 27 21:10:55 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA12908; Sun, 27 May 2001 21:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fish.vf.pond.com (fish.vf.pond.com [198.69.82.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEFB17ED5 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 21:06:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pond.com (wanda.vf.pond.com [198.69.82.2]) by fish.vf.pond.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05217 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:06:40 -0400 Received: from pond.com (ascend1-26.vf.pond.com [205.160.4.27]) by pond.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA08700 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B11D013.130E432F@pond.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:12:03 -0400 From: Keith Flippin Reply-To: kflippin@indole.net Organization: NE-Raves Administrator X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? References: <200105261603.f4QG3Rb18999@ripco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "David W. Tamkin" wrote: > > Albert Zegiel, or maybe Brenda Zegiel, wrote, > > | another pet peeve of mine is Spam, yours too, but what IRKS me > | worse is the 99 replies to the spammer to a list, why can not the > | community members write the spammer in person? > > First guess: because you are munging Reply-To:. Not these days. That may have been true once upon a time, but so many lists now set the Reply-To: to sender (like this one, and the one I run) that people have just adapted, and badly. I still won't munge Reply-To: on my list, but virtually every zubscriber I have whose been on the list less than 6 years has learned the habit of always using their Reply-To-All feature. So not only does the list get replies to spam, but so does everyone in the To:/Cc: chain, which tends to grow directly with the length of the resulting thread. This, at least, is my experience. In some cases, I think it's almost worse than just munging, but I'm an anal standards-compliance weenie, so I'm not changing the headers without a far better reason. -- Geoff Capp Productions NE-Raves Administrator http://DrJesus.djcentral.com under construction "Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum" From list-managers-owner Sun May 27 23:38:35 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA14162; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (tarsus.cisto.org [151.196.211.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD7F17ED5 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quill (pop-zh-19-2-dialup-48.freesurf.ch [194.230.222.48]) by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04461 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 02:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f4S6I8N11858; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:18:08 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 08:18:08 +0200 Message-Id: <200105280618.f4S6I8N11858@quill> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <3B11D013.130E432F@pond.com> (message from Keith Flippin on Mon, 28 May 2001 00:12:03 -0400) Subject: Reply-To and usability measurements References: <200105261603.f4QG3Rb18999@ripco.com> <3B11D013.130E432F@pond.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > on my list, but virtually every zubscriber I have whose been on the list > less than 6 years has learned the habit of always using their > Reply-To-All feature. How can you be so sure of this? I mean, when a reply that was meant for the list accidentally goes to one person only, you prabably won't notice that? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland) Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 nb@freedevelopers.net From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 00:38:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA14601; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C21C17ED5 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4S7Iph25724; Mon, 28 May 2001 00:18:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200105280718.f4S7Iph25724@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:26:47 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Reply-To and usability measurements Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: Norbert Bollow X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105280618.f4S6I8N11858@quill> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sunday, May 27, 2001, at 11:18 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> on my list, but virtually every zubscriber I have whose been on the >> list >> less than 6 years has learned the habit of always using their >> Reply-To-All feature. > > How can you be so sure of this? The way I do it is by talking (and listening) to my users. The survey is a wonderful tool for finding out what the list thinks, as opposed to what the noisy people tell you they want... It's a lot more useful than guessing, but also a lot more work... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier." From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 08:00:05 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA20996; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7E717EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.5] ([160.43.47.9]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f4SElpG22941 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:48:28 -0400 From: Tom Neff To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> In-Reply-To: <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Most 'test message' users on my lists are not Replying to a posting to begin with, but creating a new message from scratch, either because they're just curious 'does this work' or they've been dropped the previous week from DNS/quota bounces and very sensibly infer that everyone else on the list must have stopped posting for some reason. :) Either way, Reply-to munging is a non issue in this respect. No matter how piously we observe the absolute letter of an arbitrary and somewhat misapplied RFC, we are still going to get test messages. If you want to minimize spam on your lists, allow only members to post, and disable the membership listing commands. I used to use bushels of filters, now I don't need any of them. If you don't want to force people to join before they can look up good info from your list postings, make searchable archives available on the web. If they want to post, they can join. If you want to know what people in your topic specialty would really like in a mailing list, don't just survey the people who like what you're already doing well enough to be current members. This invariably makes you look like a genius because everyone who hated your list has already left and isn't surveyed. Instead post a Web based survey and advertise it in other forums and publications for your specialty (model rockets, Janis Joplin or whatever). By giving those people what they want (consistent with your own aims and principles) you can grow your email community rather than just patting yourself on the back. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 08:30:05 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA21229; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735DF17EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4SFGca15830 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:16:38 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:16:37 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <3B11D013.130E432F@pond.com> from "Keith Flippin" at May 28, 2001 12:12:03 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Keith Flippin wrote, | ... so many lists now set the Reply-To: to sender ... Not my experience. Nearly all lists on Yahoogroups and Topica are set RTL because greenhorn listowners think "it encourages discussion" or "it makes it easier" and others who learn the drawbacks give in to members who are used to the tyros' lists and object to having to learn a different habit for a different list. I'd have to say that the RTS/RTL ratio has plummeted. | I still won't munge Reply-To: | on my list, but virtually every zubscriber I have whose been on the list | less than 6 years has learned the habit of always using their | Reply-To-All feature. So not only does the list get replies to spam, but | so does everyone in the To:/Cc: chain, which tends to grow directly with | the length of the resulting thread. Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. We agree that no mail client has a "read my mind, know all of netiquette, know the list rules, predict the text I plan to type, know the preferences of the poster to whom I'm replying, and figure out the exact right way to address my response" command. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 10:15:06 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA22008; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE9F17EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4SGmmh01153; Mon, 28 May 2001 09:48:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200105281648.f4SGmmh01153@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:56:44 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM To: Tom Neff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I used to use bushels of filters, now I don't need any of them. I used to, also. When I moved from majordomo to mailman, I dropped all of them, to see which ones it made sense to put back (if any). Based on user feedback, the filters my users WANT are: o a filter to trap people who reply to digests without changing the subject o a filter to trap people who reply to digests or messages without editing the included message. That's about it. When I implement this, I'm going to add one more filter, and that's a language filter, because there are a few words that I feel are never appropriate for my mailing lists (one rhymes with duck, another rhymes with tigger) -- but you need to be very careful here, because otherwise you can really upset people like my friend Igor Livshits.... The other thing that seems to bother people, based on a couple of small informal surveys and user feedback, are administrative messages ("remove me", "unsub..." etc) going to the list. Test messages just don't seem to bother my users much, as long as they're not happening often. your mileage will vary. (One thing I found interesting -- when I made the move from majordomo to mailman and removed all of my filters, I had at least six people who'd written me complaining about the filters write me again, and tell me that now that they were gone, they wanted me to put them back. Issues of the lesser evil...) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 10:31:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA22142; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6965417EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4SH0Fh01295; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:00:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200105281700.f4SH0Fh01295@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:08:11 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 08:16 AM, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Not my experience. Nearly all lists on Yahoogroups and Topica are set > RTL > because greenhorn listowners think "it encourages discussion" or "it > makes > it easier" Just had that argument again on one of my lists (sigh). Guy finally tried to force the issue and called for a public poll on the issue, and got about ~20 votes for the reply-to, out of 350 subscribers. About normal for this kind of thing. sigh. On yahoo and topica, I believe the default is RTL and most folks leave the default. And don't forget, those sites primary interest is to generate as much traffic as possible, because it distributes more advertising that way, not because it's better for discussions. > I'd have to say that the RTS/RTL ratio has plummeted. My experience is that when you survey a list, you find AT MAX about 15% of the list who want it that way. Most don't care. More usually want it set RTS -- but the RTL folks kvetch about it on the list, and the RTS folks send their feedback to the admin privately. Almost invariably. And as you talk to the people who run lists seriously and study this issue, you find fewer and fewer in the RTL camp. In all honesty, you can run lists just fine either way -- it's a good/better thing. My most recent comments about it are here: use "archives" and "archives" to get in. (and I'm open for suggestions on better ways of protecting archives without munging messages. I've tried a few things, and they all suck more than this, and I haven't had time to write a custom authenticator) > Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the > user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. which goes back to previous discussions here that reply needs to be tri-state: reply to author, reply to list, and reply to all. Unfortunately, there's no way to implement that, and the whole reply-to coercion 'thing' is simply an attempt to use reply-to to implement a bogus form of reply to list... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 10:43:02 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA22360; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD1E17EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154Qti-000453-00; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:33:42 -0700 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: Message from "David W. Tamkin" of "Mon, 28 May 2001 10:16:37 CDT." <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> References: <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:33:42 -0700 Message-ID: <15686.991071222@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:16:37 -0500 (CDT) David W Tamkin wrote: > Not my experience. Nearly all lists on Yahoogroups and Topica are > set RTL because greenhorn listowners think "it encourages > discussion" or "it makes it easier" and others who learn the > drawbacks give in to members who are used to the tyros' lists and > object to having to learn a different habit for a different list. > I'd have to say that the RTS/RTL ratio has plummeted. I recently surveyed one of my lists which has been RTL for several years abouit moving to RTL. It was universally (more than half the membership) denounced. The main complaints were: 1) Threads would wander off list and be lost from the list archives. 2) Private off-list discussions would be encouraged, disenfranchising lurkers or non-thread participants. 3) Threads would tend to fract more quickly #1 in particular was seen as a huge problem with many lurkers and members who read/participate in the lists via the archives coming forward (my web archives support posting replies to archived messages via a web browser). The current compleatness of the list archives, that they are in fact a canonnically compleat was repeatedly referenced as being a Good Thing. The general comment on #2 was that enough of that happened already, and if anything, we need less of it (the membership has a tendency to be individually parochial outside their specialised camp/employer/hobby horse). Aside: I originally set RTL back in '96 to increase internal feedback on the list by creating a positive feedback loop WRT messages, and thus more rapidly growing traffic and thus shared experience and community. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 11:42:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA22758; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A6E17EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER99.GVA.NET [216.80.135.103]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4SIRcT11193 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:27:38 -0400 Message-Id: <200105281827.f4SIRcT11193@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:27:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: test messages etc In-reply-to: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> References: <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 28 May 2001, at 10:48, Tom Neff wrote: > ...If you don't want to force people to join > before they can look up good info from your list postings, make searchable > archives available on the web. If they want to post, they can join. If you're going to do this, *dont*forget* to 'sanitize' the messages before you put them up on the web site. It is hard to tell for sure, but on one list I'm on the evidence was pretty strong that a spammer harvested list-email-addrs from the online archives. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 11:57:39 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA22939; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from refractory.homenet.firedrake.org (kaltwurm.demon.co.uk [158.152.147.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0226617EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roger by refractory.homenet.firedrake.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 154S2v-0004Ov-00 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:47:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:47:17 +0100 From: Roger Burton West To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <20010528194717.A16877@firedrake.org> Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM References: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105281648.f4SGmmh01153@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105281648.f4SGmmh01153@plaidworks.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 09:56:44AM -0700 X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (37% of Full) X-Discordian-Date: Pungenday, Confusion 2 3167 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 09:56:44AM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >That's about it. When I implement this, I'm going to add one more >filter, and that's a language filter, because there are a few words that >I feel are never appropriate for my mailing lists (one rhymes with duck, >another rhymes with tigger) -- but you need to be very careful here, >because otherwise you can really upset people like my friend Igor >Livshits.... It is IMHO impossible to filter effectively for this sort of thing. Say you dislike the word "biro". Quite apart from the false positives, you have to catch "b i r o", "b1r0", and a great many other variants. If it's really that important, human moderation seems to be the only way to go. Roger From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 12:12:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA22737; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tonnant.cnchost.com (tonnant.concentric.net [207.155.248.72]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E9A17EBD for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by tonnant.cnchost.com id OAA20464; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:12 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528112136.039f6bb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:24:16 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> References: <3B11D013.130E432F@pond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 08:16 AM 5/28/01, David W. Tamkin wrote: >Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the >user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. We agree that no mail >client has a "read my mind, know all of netiquette, know the list rules, >predict the text I plan to type, know the preferences of the poster to whom >I'm replying, and figure out the exact right way to address my response" >command. Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to implement selection of these two reply options in common email clients. When the reader has two "reply to" buttons active when reading any given list post, and can easily and quickly click on the appropriate button for the reply they plan to send (or even change it later, while composing, if the reply changes tone while they are writing), it would make it a lot easier for everyone to send the reply where they want it to go. Or has this already been done? I'm a bit behind in keeping up with email related RFCs. jc From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 12:27:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA23205; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC10D17E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154SLZ-0006VN-00; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:06:33 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Mon, 28 May 2001 10:08:11 PDT." <200105281700.f4SH0Fh01295@plaidworks.com> References: <200105281700.f4SH0Fh01295@plaidworks.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 12:06:33 -0700 Message-ID: <25006.991076793@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:08:11 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > which goes back to previous discussions here that reply needs to > be tri-state: reply to author, reply to list, and reply to > all. Unfortunately, there's no way to implement that, and the > whole reply-to coercion 'thing' is simply an attempt to use > reply-to to implement a bogus form of reply to list... A number of Unix MTAs such as mutt and exmh have support a tri-state reply function by adding a List-Reply capability when RFC 2369 headers are found. (Under exmh here it even adds a new GUI button and menu with all the 2369 controls for post, subscrube, unsubscribe etc) When AOL et al will catch up is another question, especially given their market driven focus on reduced complexity. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 12:42:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA23330; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EAD17E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4SJOA324866 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105281924.f4SJOA324866@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <200105281700.f4SH0Fh01295@plaidworks.com> from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 28, 2001 10:08:11 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk When I said, T> Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the T> user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. Chuq replied, V> which goes back to previous discussions here that reply needs to be V> tri-state: reply to author, reply to list, and reply to all. Quad-state, really: reply to author, reply to list, reply to list and author, and reply to administrator. Of those, list-and-author is needed least, ex- cept perhaps on moderated discussion lists or discussion lists with slow dis- tributions, and never on announcement lists (because the author is usually the same person as the administrator). [I had a digest-mode member who had sent his unsub request to the list, as commonly happened; I replied with sent my form letter explaining that such things should be sent to the -request address and that I'd be happy to deal with the matters in his message when it arrived in my admin mailbox. When he responded to that (its Reply-To: pointed to -request, so he couldn't get that wrong) he complained that I shouldn't be setting up traps by delibe- rately directing Reply-To: to a wrong address! Yes, the next time he was going to write, it was going to be about a subscription service matter, so in his view all digest issues had to go out to all digest-mode members with Reply-To: pointing to -request. I explained to him that there are any num- ber of things that people could think of sending while reading a digest issue of the list, each with a proper place to be sent to, and Reply-To: could point to only one. He reminded me of the AOLer on the list who, the first time he found a di- gest issue converted into a 2-Kb preview and a downloadable file, demanded that all digest issues be kept to 2Kb or shorter.] JCL gave reasons for keeping a list RTL, including: L> 2) Private off-list discussions would be encouraged, L> disenfranchising lurkers or non-thread participants. "Encouraged"? Not true; people have reply-to-all commands. Lawrence's other reasons might apply to that particular list, but that one just doesn't wash. How are off-list discussions encouraged? Does a spirit appear over the shoulder of a member as he or she reads mail from the list, saying, "I'll give you $10.00 to reply privately instead of publicly"? An RTL list *dis*courages off-list discussions, no argument there (well, no argument about whether it's the case, but perhaps an argument about whether that's good or bad or mixed); but to say that an RTS list *en*courages them is not equivalent. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 13:12:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA23690; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.rev.net (mail.rev.net [206.67.68.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08E717EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fantasy (USER99.GVA.NET [216.80.135.103]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4SK6F015335 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:06:16 -0400 Message-Id: <200105282006.f4SK6F015335@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:06:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-reply-to: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528112136.039f6bb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> References: <200105281516.f4SFGca15830@ripco.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 28 May 2001, at 11:24, JC Dill wrote: > On 08:16 AM 5/28/01, David W. Tamkin wrote: > > >Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the > >user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. We agree that no mail > >client has a "read my mind, know all of netiquette, know the list rules, > >predict the text I plan to type, know the preferences of the poster to whom > >I'm replying, and figure out the exact right way to address my response" > >command. > > Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a > "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to > implement selection of these two reply options in common email > clients. Gee, and you could call one of those 'reply' and the other 'followup' and almost have reinvented News... :o) /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 13:27:44 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA23676; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE34C17E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4SJvXh04300; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:57:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200105281957.f4SJvXh04300@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:05:29 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-657259003-1 Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM To: "Bernie Cosell" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105281827.f4SIRcT11193@mail.rev.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-657259003-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 11:27 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > It is hard to tell for sure, but > on one list I'm on the evidence was pretty strong that a spammer > harvested list-email-addrs from the online archives. > > Why all my archives are now behind passwords. It stops the robots and spam harvester bots, and to be blunt about it, if a person wants to manually harvest my list, I can't stop him -- but I simply don't see any of that, and I do see the machines trying. If you want to scare yourself, go to google and type in your email address, and go see how many mail lists have propogated you into the GLOBAL search engines, which are prime fodder for the spambots. My biggest problem these days is people who put up archives of my lists on their sites without telling me -- and leaving them wide open for the harvesters. I've run into one set of spam that was traced back to one of those... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell." --Apple-Mail-657259003-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 11:27 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: It is hard to tell for sure, but on one list I'm on the evidence was pretty strong that a spammer harvested list-email-addrs from the online archives. Why all my archives are now behind passwords. It stops the robots and spam harvester bots, and to be blunt about it, if a person wants to manually harvest my list, I can't stop him -- but I simply don't see any of that, and I do see the machines trying. If you want to scare yourself, go to google and type in your email address, and go see how many mail lists have propogated you into the GLOBAL search engines, which are prime fodder for the spambots. My biggest problem these days is people who put up archives of my lists on their sites without telling me -- and leaving them wide open for the harvesters. I've run into one set of spam that was traced back to one of those... 0000,0000,DEB7 -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome < [< = < = <] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. "When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell." --Apple-Mail-657259003-1-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 13:42:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA23710; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC18917E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4SK1Fh04354; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:01:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200105282001.f4SK1Fh04354@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:09:11 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1970477592-2 Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM To: Roger Burton West X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <20010528194717.A16877@firedrake.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-1970477592-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 11:47 AM, Roger Burton West wrote: > It is IMHO impossible to filter effectively for this sort of thing. I dunno about that. I've done it, I think it was done quite effectively. The tricks are to keep what you filter to an absolute minimum, and filter very, very carefully -- and monitor it so you know what's filtering properly and what's generating false positives. Anything generating more than the occasional false positive fix or remove. For me, I tried to keep the filtering to a very limited set of terms -- things which I, frankly, saw no purpose on my lists under any circumstance. At the widest, it was seven or eight terms, and some of those were variations of the same word done to get around the false positive issue. > If > it's really that important, human moderation seems to be the only way > to go. > Human moderation is always going to be necessary in some cases, but it's nice to take the standard cases and automate them, because I dunno about you, I like having a life away from babysitting mail lists. I'd rather spend my time on useful stuff, not robotic work. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. --Apple-Mail-1970477592-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 11:47 AM, Roger Burton West wrote: It is IMHO impossible to filter effectively for this sort of thing. I dunno about that. I've done it, I think it was done quite effectively. The tricks are to keep what you filter to an absolute minimum, and filter very, very carefully -- and monitor it so you know what's filtering properly and what's generating false positives. Anything generating more than the occasional false positive fix or remove. For me, I tried to keep the filtering to a very limited set of terms -- things which I, frankly, saw no purpose on my lists under any circumstance. At the widest, it was seven or eight terms, and some of those were variations of the same word done to get around the false positive issue. If it's really that important, human moderation seems to be the only way to go. Human moderation is always going to be necessary in some cases, but it's nice to take the standard cases and automate them, because I dunno about you, I like having a life away from babysitting mail lists. I'd rather spend my time on useful stuff, not robotic work. 0000,0000,DEB7 -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome < [< = < = <] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. --Apple-Mail-1970477592-2-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 14:41:43 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA24489; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C57617E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-3-204.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.78.204]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4SLQf800496; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:26:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: "JC Dill" , Subject: YES ! dual active replys..this is my quest... Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:27:07 -0500 Message-ID: <005101c0e7bc$f267f120$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528112136.039f6bb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk BINGO!! this is what i had in mind to begin with!! so, is there a dual reply or way to add this to one's list.. thanks JC ! albert. > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM > [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of JC Dill > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:24 PM > To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM > Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? > > > On 08:16 AM 5/28/01, David W. Tamkin wrote: > > >Blind faith in reply-to-all to do the right thing magically without the > >user's reviewing its choices is not perfect either. We agree > that no mail > >client has a "read my mind, know all of netiquette, know the list rules, > >predict the text I plan to type, know the preferences of the > poster to whom > >I'm replying, and figure out the exact right way to address my response" > >command. > > Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a > "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to > implement selection of these two reply options in common email > clients. When the reader has two "reply to" buttons active when reading > any given list post, and can easily and quickly click on the appropriate > button for the reply they plan to send (or even change it later, while > composing, if the reply changes tone while they are writing), it > would make > it a lot easier for everyone to send the reply where they want it to go. > > Or has this already been done? I'm a bit behind in keeping up with email > related RFCs. > > jc > > From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 15:41:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA25148; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD58A17E8C for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154VQt-0000Db-00; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:24:15 -0700 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: Message from "David W. Tamkin" of "Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 CDT." <200105281924.f4SJOA324866@ripco.com> References: <200105281924.f4SJOA324866@ripco.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:24:14 -0700 Message-ID: <841.991088654@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:24:10 -0500 (CDT) David W Tamkin wrote: > He reminded me of the AOLer on the list who, the first time he > found a di- gest issue converted into a 2-Kb preview and a > downloadable file, demanded that all digest issues be kept to 2Kb > or shorter.] I like this one. I have single posts to my lists that exceed 100K (and yes, they are all original flat text). > JCL gave reasons for keeping a list RTL, including: >> 2) Private off-list discussions would be encouraged, >> disenfranchising lurkers or non-thread participants. > "Encouraged"? Not true; people have reply-to-all commands. A minor leading detail: The reasons listed of which the above is one, were, as stated in the original message the responses from querying one of my list memberships. I'm a reporter in this aspect. The justifying reason for this is that more replies (certainly more than at present) will be simple off-list replies, and will thus "disenfranchise" the rest of the list from that thread, even if the original replying author had intended an on-list reply but had accidentally hit 'r' instead of R/g/^R/. One explanation as a supporting argument was (slightly paraphrased to protect the guilty and privacy): "If he really wants it private he can edit the To: header. I want people to have to make an extra and special effort to move threads off list. I want a barrier to exit for posts on the list." Another argument centered around my phrasing of the list as "occuring in my living room" (paraphrased again): "If we're all in your living room we can all hear each other. If you want to say something privatly you get up and go outside which means you get up and move your sorry arse. Editing the To: header is that same extra effort." > Lawrence's other reasons might apply to that particular list, but > that one just doesn't wash. Perhaps the above clarifies. > How are off-list discussions encouraged? Does a spirit appear > over the shoulder of a member as he or she reads mail from the > list, saying, "I'll give you $10.00 to reply privately instead of > publicly"? The assertion here was the old saw about "Reply" being more automatic/easy/unthinking than "Reply-To-All". In minor supporting regard I know that my automatic habit is to always do replies with a ^R (ReplyToAll), (which is so ingrained in my fingers at this point that I have to exercise concious thought to do otherwise. This doesn't necessarily support their argument however. And yes, my MUA supports Reply, ReplyToAll, and ListReply as distinct operations. > An RTL list *dis*courages off-list discussions, no argument there > (well, no argument about whether it's the case, but perhaps an > argument about whether that's good or bad or mixed); but to say > that an RTS list *en*courages them is not equivalent. My original post was written concerning a discussion I had with one of my lists on moving the list from RTL to RTS. They viewed RTS asn __encouraging__ off-list traffic due to the ease of doing a Reply versus a ReplyToAll, and they explicitly and fervently didn't want that (some reasons stated above). Admittedly its not an active "encouragment" -- there's no arm twisting going on. But then making something "easier" can be viewed as "encouraging it". -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 15:56:18 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA25306; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from westbyserver.mwt.net (westbyserver.westby.mwt.net [156.46.73.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A70417E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dad (pm3-3-204.gaysmills.mwt.net [207.190.78.204]) by westbyserver.mwt.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f4SMmU825800 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:48:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "albert" To: Subject: list to honey.. Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:48:56 -0500 Message-ID: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005E_01C0E79E.77BD7D50" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200105282001.f4SK1Fh04354@plaidworks.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C0E79E.77BD7D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit what do you all find as the best methods to market a list for revenues after it is rolling? I can see that at a certain size i will need revenue to keep it going and grow it. albert. ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C0E79E.77BD7D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
what=20 do you all find as the best methods to market a list
for=20 revenues after it is rolling?
 
I can=20 see that at a certain size i will need revenue to keep it going=20 and
grow=20 it.
 
albert.
------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C0E79E.77BD7D50-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 16:11:25 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25574; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381F017E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4SN5sY17396 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 28 May 2001 18:05:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105282305.f4SN5sY17396@ripco.com> Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:05:53 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <200105281957.f4SJvXh04300@plaidworks.com> from "Chuq Von Rospach" at May 28, 2001 01:05:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Thus spake Von Rospach: | Why all my archives are now behind passwords. It stops the robots and | spam harvester bots, and to be blunt about it, if a person wants to | manually harvest my list, I can't stop him -- but I simply don't see any | of that, and I do see the machines trying. I've only one list archived, and it, too, is behind a password. Nobody ever writes to me for the password (I announced it in my farewell letter as the list closed), but I don't know whether that's because people remember it or because nobody goes to the archives. (Long story, but there's no hit counter there and there won't be one.) So, Chuq, may I ask: do you get a lot of "What's the archive password?" re- quests from list members or others with legitimate rights to visit them? From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 16:27:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25526; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267FF17E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4SN0DU17009 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 28 May 2001 18:00:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105282300.f4SN0DU17009@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:00:12 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528112136.039f6bb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> from "JC Dill" at May 28, 2001 11:24:16 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JC (Dill, not Lawrence) wrote, | Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a | "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to | implement selection of these two reply options in common email | clients. That is what DJB had in mind with Mail-Followup-To: (for replying to the list) and Mail-Reply-To: (for responding to the author) headers. (RFC2369's List-Post: is Mail-Followup-To: in URL syntax.) Adding X-List-Author-Reply: with the sanctioned RFC2369 set wouldn't hurt either. | When the reader has two "reply to" buttons active when reading | any given list post, and can easily and quickly click on the appropriate | button for the reply they plan to send (or even change it later, while | composing, if the reply changes tone while they are writing), it would make | it a lot easier for everyone to send the reply where they want it to go. Oh, I don't know. An RTS list gives you two such buttons, and people still play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey instead of engaging their brains. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 16:42:33 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA25809; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023D617E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4SNZ6j19344 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105282335.f4SNZ6j19344@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <841.991088654@kanga.nu> from "J C Lawrence" at May 28, 2001 03:24:14 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JC Lawrence wrote, | The reasons listed of which the above is one, were, as stated in | the original message the responses from querying one of my list | memberships. I'm a reporter in this aspect. My apologies. I understood that on first reading, but by the time I got to replying it had slipped my mind. So the views expressed therein were some from members, not from JC. Sorry for thinking, much less posting, otherwise. | One explanation as a supporting argument was (slightly paraphrased to | protect the guilty and privacy): | | "If he really wants it private he can edit the To: header. I want | people to have to make an extra and special effort to move threads | off list. I want a barrier to exit for posts on the list." | | Another argument centered around my phrasing of the list as | "occuring in my living room" (paraphrased again): | | "If we're all in your living room we can all hear each other. If | you want to say something privatly you get up and go outside | which means you get up and move your sorry arse. Editing the To: | header is that same extra effort." Both of those say, "RTL discourages replying off-list." Well, no kidding. But "RTS encourages replying off-list" is not equivalent and is not true. Declining to discourage an act is very different from encouraging it. (In fact, "RTL encourages replying on-list" isn't accurate either, because nei- ther setup particularly encourages replying: it still takes more effort to send a response than not to. "RTL encourages those who reply to do so on- list rather than off" is true.) | They viewed RTS as __encouraging__ off-list traffic due to the ease of | doing a Reply versus a ReplyToAll ... Well, they're wrong. RTL discourages off-list traffic, yes. That's incon- trovertible. (It still leaves open the question of whether such discourage- ment is good or bad.) But "RTS encourages off-list traffic" is not the same. Besides, how is reply easier than reply-to-all? In Elm I press g or r; no difference in difficulty. In Outlook Express I click on one icon or the one next to it; again, the two are equally easy. Show me a list where the ma- jority of members use a client where reply-to-all is more difficult than reply, please. | Admittedly its not an active "encouragment" -- there's no arm twisting | going on. Encouragement does not require force, but it does require some promoting action. Passively declining to discourage it doesn't qualify. | But then making something "easier" can be viewed as "encouraging it". If that's their point, they should say "condone," not "encourage." Huge difference. Besides, RTS doesn't make one easier than the other; it is RTL that makes one harder than the other. It's doubly misrepresentative to say it the way they did. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 17:26:20 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA26136; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F8517E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.18] (ip18.proper.com [165.227.249.18]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07367; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:12:59 -0700 To: "albert" , From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: list to honey.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:48 PM -0500 5/28/01, albert wrote: >what do you all find as the best methods to market a list >for revenues after it is rolling? We all don't. Most of us run lists for pleasure or as an adjunct for work, for free. >I can see that at a certain size i will need revenue to keep it going and >grow it. Then you should probably stop now. Less than 0.1% of mailing lists make money, and that is probably a liberal estimate. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 17:41:29 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA26231; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F9517E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4T0EZh08125; Mon, 28 May 2001 17:14:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:22:31 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1518705777-3 Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: "David W. Tamkin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105282305.f4SN5sY17396@ripco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-1518705777-3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 04:05 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: > So, Chuq, may I ask: do you get a lot of "What's the archive password?" > re- > quests from list members or others with legitimate rights to visit them? > Yes. That's why I'm looking for better ways to protect an archive but make it easy for legitimate users to get to it. The spambots force my hand (IMHO) in protecting them, but putting them behind a password is awkward. I've tried a few other things, but nothing worth talking about, so I'm still looking. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"? --Apple-Mail-1518705777-3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 04:05 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: So, Chuq, may I ask: do you get a lot of "What's the archive password?" re- quests from list members or others with legitimate rights to visit them? Yes. That's why I'm looking for better ways to protect an archive but make it easy for legitimate users to get to it. The spambots force my hand (IMHO) in protecting them, but putting them behind a password is awkward. I've tried a few other things, but nothing worth talking about, so I'm still looking. 0000,0000,DEB7 -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome < [< = < = <] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. When an agnostic dies, does he go to the "great perhaps"? --Apple-Mail-1518705777-3-- From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 19:29:56 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA27522; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4408A17E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.18] (ip18.proper.com [165.227.249.18]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16040 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> References: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:09:41 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:22 PM -0700 5/28/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 04:05 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: > >>So, Chuq, may I ask: do you get a lot of "What's the archive password?" re- >>quests from list members or others with legitimate rights to visit them? >> >Yes. That's why I'm looking for better ways to protect an archive >but make it easy for legitimate users to get to it. The spambots >force my hand (IMHO) in protecting them, but putting them behind a >password is awkward. I've tried a few other things, but nothing >worth talking about, so I'm still looking. Just a thought. The idea is to stop the automatic harvesters; you can't really stop the humans, they'll just join the list to get the password. So you could write on the page leading to the archives "The archive is password-protected, and the user name is 'foo' and the password is 'bar'; we did this to reduce the chance that the archive will be harvested." --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 20:41:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA28312; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ajax.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1945A17E8B for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by ajax.cnchost.com id XAA12685; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:35:21 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528202506.03a18c30@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:35:59 -0700 To: List-Managers From: JC Dill Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: <200105282300.f4SN0DU17009@ripco.com> References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528112136.039f6bb0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 04:00 PM 5/28/01, David W. Tamkin wrote: >Oh, I don't know. An RTS list gives you two such buttons, Not on my client it doesn't. It gives me two options, reply to the author alone, or reply to BOTH the author and the list (which I consider to be rude most of the time). (Is it different on your email client's interface?) I want an easy option for any given list subscriber to elect to reply to the list ALONE, or reply to the author ALONE, no matter how the list itself is configured. (Perhaps I've overlooked something, and if so please clue me in, but I have yet to see a common mailer that has these as the two common reply options.) That way no one has any excuse for sending a private reply to any list. Yet it is easy to send a "meant for the list" reply to the list, without needlessly adding additional addresses. >and people still >play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey instead of engaging their brains. When you click on "reply to all" with lists configured with RTS like this, the client will address a reply to the author with a cc to the list. If numerous people do that in the thread, suddenly someone many posts back is being sent ALL the followups, even when the topic has drifted from *that* person's point (which is often the case). I consider this careless and rude, and fail to see the value in making that the default configuration when you want to reply to the list. If supposedly clued people like the subscribers of THIS list frequently get it wrong (and they do, I have the archives to prove it), we have no reason to act as if the general masses are "play(ing) pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey instead of engaging their brains". It is the user interface that sucks, not the people. Read Alan Cooper's _The Inmates are Running the Asylum_ for more rants on bad user interface design: jc From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 20:56:27 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA28325; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ajax.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39A717EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by ajax.cnchost.com id XAA15075; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:38:52 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528203807.03637cf0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:39:27 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) In-Reply-To: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> References: <200105282305.f4SN5sY17396@ripco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 05:22 PM 5/28/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 04:05 PM, David W. Tamkin wrote: > >>So, Chuq, may I ask: do you get a lot of "What's the archive password?"= re- >>quests from list members or others with legitimate rights to visit them? >Yes. That's why I'm looking for better ways to protect an archive but make= =20 >it easy for legitimate users to get to it. The spambots force my hand=20 >(IMHO) in protecting them, but putting them behind a password is awkward.= =20 >I've tried a few other things, but nothing worth talking about, so I'm=20 >still looking. Do you remember the following post? I found it to be quite interesting,=20 and marked it as "important" in my list archives. I'm curious if/why you=20 find this approach to be unacceptable. jc >Sender: Serge.Aumont@cru.fr >Message-ID: <3A9F48A2.4930168A@cru.fr> >Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 08:15:46 +0100 >From: Aumont >To: JC Dill >CC: List-Managers >Subject: Re: robots.txt > >JC Dill wrote: >> >> On 12:21 AM 2/28/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> >> >What do I do? That would be telling. Other than saying my archives are >> >behind a password, are protected by a robots.txt, and aren't in the=20 global >> >search engines or anywhere the spambots can get to without a lot of= work, >> >> robots.txt is widely ignored by spammer email harvester robots. > >Sympa MLM archives are protected by a cookie. This cookie is sent to= anyone >acknoledging a simple form (method post) saying "i'm not a spammer". >Currently no >harvester accept cookies nor post forms. >You can test it with a sample : http://listes.cru.fr/wws/arc/sympa-users > >Removing emails from messages headers in archives (using mhonarc nospam=20 option) >is not saqfe enough because there is a lot of emails in the message body >(signature etc). > > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------- >Serge Aumont Comit=E9 R=E9seaux des Universit=E9s > Campus Beaulieu > 35042 Rennes Cedex +33 2 998 471 47 From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 22:11:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA29117; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E68917EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4T4jSh12091; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:45:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200105290445.f4T4jSh12091@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:53:24 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: Paul Hoffman / IMC X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 07:09 PM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > Just a thought. The idea is to stop the automatic harvesters; you can't > really stop the humans, they'll just join the list to get the password. > So you could write on the page leading to the archives "The archive is > password-protected, and the user name is 'foo' and the password is > 'bar'; we did this to reduce the chance that the archive will be > harvested." > That's pretty much what I did. I still get questions from people who blow past that, hit the password prompt, and then write the admin for help... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 22:26:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA29161; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E1417EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a206.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.206]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4T4mIh12130; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:48:18 -0700 Message-Id: <200105290448.f4T4mIh12130@plaidworks.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:56:15 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: JC Dill X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528203807.03637cf0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 08:39 PM, JC Dill wrote: > Do you remember the following post? I found it to be quite > interesting, and marked it as "important" in my list archives. I'm > curious if/why you find this approach to be unacceptable. I don't remember it, but I've thought about it myself, and simply haven't had time to try implementing it. I think it's a nice approach, although one reason I haven't done it is because of the case where someone has a direct URL into the archives (like I posted yesterday into mine); I haven't found a way to cleanly intercept that, authenticate, adn then take them back where they wanted to go in the first place, at least not without more work than I've had time for. \ -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. USENET is a lot better after two or three eggnogs. We shouldn't allow anyone on the net without a bottle of brandy. (chuq von rospach, 1992) From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 22:56:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA29738; Mon, 28 May 2001 22:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEF317EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 22:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4T5mZo82961; Tue, 29 May 2001 01:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:48:35 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "David W. Tamkin" , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Message-ID: <20010529014835.A47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <200105282305.f4SN5sY17396@ripco.com> <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 05:22:31PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 05:22:31PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Yes. That's why I'm looking for better ways to protect an archive but > make it easy for legitimate users to get to it. The spambots force my > hand (IMHO) in protecting them, but putting them behind a password is > awkward. I've tried a few other things, but nothing worth talking > about, so I'm still looking. Nothing worth talking about? Bah. We have three different mechanisms in place to keep harvesters out: 1. Apache rewrite rules to deliver 404 errors to User-Agents known to be evil (e.g. EmailSiphon). 2. A hacked copy of Ron Guilmette's Wpoison tool that blackholes packets from sites which appear to be running rogue spiders. 3. On-the-fly munging of e-mail addresses into HTML entities (e.g. twp@rootsweb.com becomes twp@.... etc.) In six months, the trap addresses I have seeded our pages with have not been spammed. You can see the results at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/. From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 23:41:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA00374; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BDE17EB4 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154d33-0006KX-00; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:32:09 -0700 To: "albert" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list to honey.. In-Reply-To: Message from "albert" of "Mon, 28 May 2001 17:48:56 CDT." <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> References: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:32:09 -0700 Message-ID: <24334.991117929@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001 17:48:56 -0500 emmanuel wrote: > I can see that at a certain size i will need revenue to keep it > going and grow it. I've not done this (I fund everything out of my own pocket), however the most successful method I've seen to date is to open a PayPal account and to then encourage members to donate towards your operational expenses. When the bills are paid, you then close the account. For the few lists I know of that do this, they typically raise their costs within the first few days of each month. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Mon May 28 23:56:23 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA00475; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5291E17EB2 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154dGS-0005Xk-00; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:46:00 -0700 To: "David W. Tamkin" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: Message from "David W. Tamkin" of "Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 CDT." <200105282335.f4SNZ6j19344@ripco.com> References: <200105282335.f4SNZ6j19344@ripco.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:46:00 -0700 Message-ID: <21309.991118760@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:35:06 -0500 (CDT) David W Tamkin wrote: > JC Lawrence wrote, >> The reasons listed of which the above is one, > were, as stated >> in the original message the responses from > querying one of my >> list memberships. I'm a reporter in this > aspect. > My apologies. I understood that on first reading, but by the time > I got to replying it had slipped my mind. So the views expressed > therein were some from members, not from JC. Sorry for thinking, > much less posting, otherwise. No worries. I should apologise for being so snippy. I've been carving up a termie ridden deck with a bad back, and have not been in the ebst mood. Apologies. > Both of those say, "RTL discourages replying off-list." Well, no > kidding. > But "RTS encourages replying off-list" is not equivalent and is > not true. Perception appears the stronger battle. > Declining to discourage an act is very different from encouraging > it. We're arguing interpretation of the score at this point, when we both know the song. Yes, we can dispute exactly how transitive "encourages" has definitionally etc etc etc yada yada, but I don't see it gets us any further. > Besides, how is reply easier than reply-to-all? The argument there is human habit. They are as as used it hitting "r" for replies as I am to always hitting ^R for ReplyToAll. One can view as an excuse for human fallibility. > Show me a list where the majority of members use a client where > reply-to-all is more difficult than reply, please. Again, it is a perceived thing. Consider: By rote I always do . I am so used to this I do it without thinking. I think, "Oooo! I want to say something to that message!" and my fingers automatically reach out and hit . But, now you want to set up your list so that I'm going to have to stop myself and instead think about which reply type I'm going to want in each case, and in fact your going to insist that for me to effectively participate, I'm not only going to have to be familiar with the different types of reply, but I'm going to have to use them appropriately. Life was so much simpler when I just did . My brain hurts. Yes, functionally, physically, almost every MUA out there makes the two reply types equally accessable and "easy". Some even make RFC 2369 ListReply equally easy -- but using them both or all three means (l)users have to contextually think before they act... -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 00:11:25 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA00734; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (cu.nih.gov [128.231.160.111]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 993A317EB4 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08:30 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 03:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Message-Id: <20010529070830.993A317EB4@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I want an easy option for any given list subscriber to elect to reply to > the list ALONE, or reply to the author ALONE, no matter how the list itself > is configured. (Perhaps I've overlooked something, and if so please clue > me in, but I have yet to see a common mailer that has these as the two > common reply options.) That way no one has any excuse for sending a > private reply to any list. Yet it is easy to send a "meant for the list" > reply to the list, without needlessly adding additional addresses. What I'd like to see in email clients is a single Reply button. If it's a simple one person to one person message, it would just use the From address. But it there's a Reply-To header or To/cc addresses other than my own, it would bring up a dialogue asking to whom I want to reply. From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 00:26:24 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA00728; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CU.NIH.GOV (silkt.nih.gov [128.231.160.112]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 848FE17E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 00:08:29 -0700 (PDT) To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 03:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Message-Id: <20010529070829.848FE17E8B@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hmmm. It seems we have an opportunity to write an RFC that would spec a > "reply-to-list" header and a "reply-to-author" header, and discuss how to > implement selection of these two reply options in common email > clients. When the reader has two "reply to" buttons active when reading > any given list post, and can easily and quickly click on the appropriate > button for the reply they plan to send (or even change it later, while > composing, if the reply changes tone while they are writing), it would make > it a lot easier for everyone to send the reply where they want it to go. > > Or has this already been done? I'm a bit behind in keeping up with email > related RFCs. Reply-to has been discussed many times in IETF working groups and been found to be a topic that there's no agreement on. From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 01:58:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA02865; Tue, 29 May 2001 01:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7522517E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 01:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154f9n-0003GK-00; Tue, 29 May 2001 01:47:15 -0700 To: "Roger Fajman" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: Message from "Roger Fajman" of "Tue, 29 May 2001 03:07:55 EDT." <20010529070830.993A317EB4@honor.greatcircle.com> References: <20010529070830.993A317EB4@honor.greatcircle.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:47:15 -0700 Message-ID: <12540.991126035@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 May 2001 03:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Roger Fajman wrote: > What I'd like to see in email clients is a single Reply button. > If it's a simple one person to one person message, it would just > use the From address. But it there's a Reply-To header or To/cc > addresses other than my own, it would bring up a dialogue asking > to whom I want to reply. Actually Ultimail/Lite under OS/2 used to do this. Kinda. While its been quite a few years since I've looked at it, I semi (and this could be in error (have I CYA enough yet?)) recall XFMail doing something similar. That said it would be a fairly trivial hack to add to exmh should you be so inclined -- one of the niceties of user-extensible MUAs written in scripting languages (tcl/TK in this case). Aside: There are those of us, such myself, that flatly refuse to use software that insists on asking the user for confirmation. I've used such products (thus the depth of my antipathy) and found I always (no exceptions, and that encludes FORMAT.COM under DOS) reduced every such query to an automatic instinctual finger macros that bypassed te query without my every having to notice that it was ever there. Now I simply refuse to use products that insist I'm too inept to actually tell it to do what I want. "Do what I said damnit!" -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 02:44:19 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA03373; Tue, 29 May 2001 02:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from listes.cru.fr (listes.cru.fr [195.220.94.165]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520CA17E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 02:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home.cru.fr (home.cru.fr [195.220.94.79]) by listes.cru.fr (8.11.2/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id f4T9c6I03816 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:38:06 +0200 Received: from cru.fr (lustu.cru.fr [195.220.94.78]) by home.cru.fr (8.11.0/jtpda-5.3.1) with ESMTP id f4T9c6101717 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:38:06 +0200 Message-ID: <3B136DFE.25ED16D@cru.fr> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:38:06 +0200 From: Aumont Organization: Comite Reseaux des Universites X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach write about the solution used into Sympa software (use a cookie in ordre to protect archive agains harvester) > >I don't remember it, but I've thought about it myself, and simply >haven't had time to try implementing it. I think it's a nice approach, >although one reason I haven't done it is because of the case where >someone has a direct URL into the archives In Sympa solution, archive are not passive HTML file as mhonarc output. All pages are dynamically provided by a cgi. This allows a large choice of control to archives such as : -public but not for robot -restricted to list subscriber -restricted to list owner -restricted local network - ... Any unauthenticated access or access without the cookie named "not a robot" is redirected to a page for authentication or a form to accept the cookie and access to requested page. This way, what ever is the URL used to access some part of the archive, access without the cookie is impossible. Even if this mail is archived in a unprotected archives, the following link will not be scanned by email sniffers:-) Try it ! http://listes.cru.fr/wws/arc/sympa-translation/2001-05/msg00008.html -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Serge Aumont Comité Réseaux des Universités Campus Beaulieu 35042 Rennes Cedex +33 2 998 471 47 From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 10:59:31 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA09268; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from repulse.cnchost.com (repulse.concentric.net [207.155.248.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4024A17EB5 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by repulse.cnchost.com id NAA14629; Tue, 29 May 2001 13:45:19 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010529104402.036bee00@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:44:51 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) In-Reply-To: <200105290448.f4T4mIh12130@plaidworks.com> References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528203807.03637cf0@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 09:56 PM 5/28/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >On Monday, May 28, 2001, at 08:39 PM, JC Dill wrote: > >> Do you remember the following post? I found it to be quite >> interesting, and marked it as "important" in my list archives. I'm >> curious if/why you find this approach to be unacceptable. > >I don't remember it, but I've thought about it myself, and simply >haven't had time to try implementing it. I think it's a nice approach, >although one reason I haven't done it is because of the case where >someone has a direct URL into the archives (like I posted yesterday into >mine); I haven't found a way to cleanly intercept that, authenticate, >adn then take them back where they wanted to go in the first place, at >least not without more work than I've had time for. I think there's a server hack that would prevent the archive page from being displayed/linkable except through the form button. Can't remember how, though. jc From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 11:59:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09842; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC45017EB6 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B66EC350EE; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010529144504.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:45:04 -0400 To: Paul Hoffman / IMC From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters (was test messages) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: References: <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> <200105290014.f4T0EZh08125@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:09 PM 5/28/2001 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >Just a thought. The idea is to stop the automatic harvesters; you >can't really stop the humans, they'll just join the list to get the >password. So you could write on the page leading to the archives "The >archive is password-protected, and the user name is 'foo' and the >password is 'bar'; we did this to reduce the chance that the archive >will be harvested." As I said in an earlier message, I do that and people still write for the password. -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns 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 29 12:14:37 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA09841; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDEA817E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 362C435076 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:43:22 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: <200105281827.f4SIRcT11193@mail.rev.net> References: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:27 PM 5/28/2001 -0400, Bernie Cosell wrote: >On 28 May 2001, at 10:48, Tom Neff wrote: > >> ...If you don't want to force people to join >> before they can look up good info from your list postings, make searchable >> archives available on the web. If they want to post, they can join. > >If you're going to do this, *dont*forget* to 'sanitize' the messages >before you put them up on the web site. It is hard to tell for sure, but >on one list I'm on the evidence was pretty strong that a spammer >harvested list-email-addrs from the online archives. My current method is to require a well known userid and password to access the archives, on the principle that every gleaner is stymied by having to use basic authentication. So far that seems to have worked - my web logs seem to show no gleaners working them. I do occasionally get notes asking what the password is, even though it is given in both the pages that link to it (and now, and this seems to have cut about 1/2 the requests, in the error message returned when authentication fails). I have heard that people claim that having the archives behind a form that requires a "post" action will effectively keep gleaners out. It would certainly be friendlier to have a lot of post pushbuttons to get to the archives than to require that the user type in a userid and password. (I read the later letters about sympa, that sounds interesting). By the way, since many people have given their opinion about tests, my reaction to a test message is to unsub the tester and to invite them to resubscribe "when their mail is fixed". I remind them that the list is not a place to test their e-mail. My experence is colored by incidents where people have posted test after test because their inbound mail is broken, and they never see the response, and where 10 tests arrive all at once when people's outbound mail is broken. I invite them to bounce posts off of the majordomo userid if they need to test mail round trips to my server. -- Pasta is really just kibble, boiled until soft. 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 29 12:44:40 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA10289; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B728417E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4TJQ5g12443 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:26:05 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105291926.f4TJQ5g12443@ripco.com> Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:26:05 -0500 (CDT) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List-Managers) In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528202506.03a18c30@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> from "JC Dill" at May 28, 2001 08:35:59 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk JC Dill wrote, | Not on my client it doesn't. It gives me two options, reply to the author | alone, or reply to BOTH the author and the list ... (which I consider to be | rude most of the time). Same here. My usual way of dealing with it is to delete the previous author's address from To: and send only Cc: when a direct copy is unwarranted. (It's still much easier than sending a private reply on an RTL list.) There are people don't do that and let the direct copy go out all the time. Some of the time the direct copy is good, some of the time it's unnecessary but harmless, some of the time it's rude. I wouldn't give any of the three a "most." | I want an easy option for any given list subscriber to elect to reply to | the list ALONE, or reply to the author ALONE, no matter how the list itself | is configured. That would be nice, but so far any MUA has to rely on the article's headers to do that, so "no matter how the list itself is configured" is unachievable. (Mutt gives it a good try, as I understand.) The list has to be configured in a way that gives the MUA a fighting chance. From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 14:29:42 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11271; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ripco.com (pop2a.ripco.com [209.100.227.25]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484C217E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by ripco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4TLEB817763 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 29 May 2001 16:14:11 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <200105292114.f4TLEB817763@ripco.com> Subject: Re: protecting archives from harvesters To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:14:11 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010529144504.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> from "Nick Simicich" at May 29, 2001 02:45:04 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Nick wrote, | As I said in an earlier message, I do that and people still write for the | password. *Nobody* has asked me for the password, and nobody has complained during the times when (by either my fault or that of the host site) the archives have been unavailable. That's why I figure that no one is visiting the archives. From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 14:44:33 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11304; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from glatton.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.47]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA4217E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 14:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by glatton.cnchost.com id RAA23157; Tue, 29 May 2001 17:18:27 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010529141715.035cd130@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:19:17 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM (List-Managers) From: JC Dill Subject: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse? In-Reply-To: <200105291926.f4TJQ5g12443@ripco.com> References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528202506.03a18c30@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 12:26 PM 5/29/01, David W. Tamkin wrote: > >That would be nice, but so far any MUA has to rely on the article's headers >to do that, so "no matter how the list itself is configured" is unachievable. >(Mutt gives it a good try, as I understand.) The list has to be configured >in a way that gives the MUA a fighting chance. Right. That's why I'd like an RFC that specifies how lists could send headers that make it clear which header contains the "list address" and which contain the "author address". Then the client would know which is which, and the user could select the appropriate reply address, preferably before, during, and/or when the user is done composing a reply. That's the way to FIX the user interface problem to give ordinary people a good chance to select the reply option that meets their particular needs for any given message. From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 20:29:38 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA14280; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6084917E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154wTA-0005Lk-00; Tue, 29 May 2001 20:16:24 -0700 To: Nick Simicich Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from Nick Simicich of "Tue, 29 May 2001 14:43:22 EDT." <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> References: <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:16:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20564.991192584@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 May 2001 14:43:22 -0400 Nick Simicich wrote: > My current method is to require a well known userid and password > to access the archives, on the principle that every gleaner is > stymied by having to use basic authentication. Which also prevents Google/Inktomi/Infoseek et al from indexing your list archives, something I find is fairly critical to my user base (they need/want public indexing). -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Tue May 29 22:13:07 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA15135; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rodney.cnchost.com (rodney.concentric.net [207.155.252.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8769517E8B for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by rodney.cnchost.com id BAA18061; Wed, 30 May 2001 01:05:08 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.11] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010529215709.03461710@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:58:00 -0700 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: JC Dill Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: <20564.991192584@kanga.nu> References: <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 08:16 PM 5/29/01, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Tue, 29 May 2001 14:43:22 -0400 >Nick Simicich wrote: > >> My current method is to require a well known userid and password >> to access the archives, on the principle that every gleaner is >> stymied by having to use basic authentication. > >Which also prevents Google/Inktomi/Infoseek et al from indexing your >list archives, something I find is fairly critical to my user base >(they need/want public indexing). In that case, you have to munge email addresses at a minimum, AND warn your subscribers that email is publicly indexed (so that posted email addresses are also munged by the subscribers, if they don't want spam). jc From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 10:12:59 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA23730; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED0A17E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D24835011 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010530125919.01af0ee0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:59:19 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: <20564.991192584@kanga.nu> References: <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:16 PM 5/29/2001 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: >On Tue, 29 May 2001 14:43:22 -0400 >Nick Simicich wrote: > >> My current method is to require a well known userid and password >> to access the archives, on the principle that every gleaner is >> stymied by having to use basic authentication. > >Which also prevents Google/Inktomi/Infoseek et al from indexing your >list archives, something I find is fairly critical to my user base >(they need/want public indexing). I provide private indexing/searching. Public would probably be better, but my users have specifically asked that I do someting to protect their e-mil addresses from spam harvesting. I wonder if there is a way around this (without filtering every e-mail address statically or dynamically). What is the specific characteristic of your list that requires public indexing as opposed to just privately searchable indexes? -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 10:28:03 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA23859; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FB217E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4UHIQL98817; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:18:26 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: JC Dill Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <20010530131826.E47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <20564.991192584@kanga.nu> <5.0.0.25.2.20010529215709.03461710@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010529215709.03461710@pop3.vo.cnchost.com>; from inet-list@vo.cnchost.com on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:58:00PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 09:58:00PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > > > >Which also prevents Google/Inktomi/Infoseek et al from indexing your > >list archives, something I find is fairly critical to my user base > >(they need/want public indexing). Same here. Getting our list archives into the public search engines was an absolute requirement and a big reason we quit using username/password protection. (A clever solution would be to demand a username and password *unless* the user's host was *.google.com, *.inktomi.com, *.altavista.com, etc., so you could open the archives to legit spiders but keep unknown ones out.) > In that case, you have to munge email addresses at a minimum, AND warn your > subscribers that email is publicly indexed (so that posted email addresses > are also munged by the subscribers, if they don't want spam). We encode anything that even looks like an e-mail address in the message body, leading to the geekly-amusing result that Message-IDs which happen to appear in a message body get munged. From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 12:27:59 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA25226; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD4D17E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155BYo-0000KC-00; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:23:14 -0700 To: Nick Simicich Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from Nick Simicich of "Wed, 30 May 2001 12:59:19 EDT." <3.0.3.32.20010530125919.01af0ee0@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <3204430420.991046908@[192.168.0.5]> <200105280800.BAA14998@honor.greatcircle.com> <3.0.3.32.20010529144322.019cfc30@127.0.0.1> <3.0.3.32.20010530125919.01af0ee0@127.0.0.1> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:23:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1249.991250594@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001 12:59:19 -0400 Nick Simicich wrote: > What is the specific characteristic of your list that requires > public indexing as opposed to just privately searchable indexes? Many (~13%) users use Google and other search engines in preference to my internal (UdmSearch/MnoGoSearch) based search supports. Other users have external community sites which link to archive pages, or which implement specialised/special-case search engines for specific views (in the DB sense) of the archives (cross linking to the archives is actually very popular -- I've identified a couple thousand posts which are regularly outside linked). There is a general perception of the list archives as being the field's library and historical archive. In the end I look at it as questions of public record. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 13:58:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA25801; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E392517E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4UKf0108118; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:42:51 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM To: J C Lawrence X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <1249.991250594@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 12:23 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > There is a > general perception of the list archives as being the field's library > and historical archive. > > In the end I look at it as questions of public record. > I agree with that, but I don't agree that this implies a need for it to be in the global search engines. but it's an interesting question to explore. Because if you're in the global engines, it's not only a public record, it's potential marketing and advertising. But to do that, you have to do something about those email addresses to protect them. But if you do, you make it tough for someone who sees a message in the archive to write for (or with!) more info that the author might find useful. What's do folks think about this? What kind of address munging is adequate? Or should addresses be fully cloaked, or perhaps accessible only through some CGI? Imagine inserting those addresses in a CGI, and you can only e-mail through a lookup through the database -- you could then track (and ban) abusers, and limit how much of that address data a user could get to. That might, thinking about it, also deal with the problem of people setting up outside, unapproved archives without permission if they're grabbing them from the master archive. It wouldn't solve folks who generate archives directly from the mail list deliveries, though. Unless you wanted ot munch all e-mail addresses in all cases, and we don't want to go there. Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. How about never? Is never good for you? From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 14:13:01 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26049; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (tarsus.cisto.org [151.196.211.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CB317E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quill (pop-mu-14-1-dialup-104.freesurf.ch [194.230.157.104]) by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15170 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 17:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f4UL3JR28154; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:03:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:03:19 +0200 Message-Id: <200105302103.f4UL3JR28154@quill> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: (message from Paul Hoffman / IMC on Mon, 28 May 2001 17:12:59 -0700) Subject: Re: list to honey.. References: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "albert" wrote: > >I can see that at a certain size i will need revenue to keep it going and > >grow it. Paul Hoffman replied: > Then you should probably stop now. Less than 0.1% of mailing lists > make money, and that is probably a liberal estimate. I agree that it is not normally a good idea to try turning a mailing list into something that generates revenue directly (through selling advertising space or even trying to charge for subscriptions). However you can use a mailing list to win the trust and goodwill of subscribers, and if you sell some product or service that is somewhat related to the topic of the list, then the list can be an important part of your marketing plan. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland) Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 nb@freedevelopers.net From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 14:43:00 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26233; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D5917E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155DYh-0006lI-00; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:31:15 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Wed, 30 May 2001 13:42:51 PDT." <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com> References: <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:31:15 -0700 Message-ID: <25994.991258275@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001 13:42:51 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 12:23 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> There is a general perception of the list archives as being the >> field's library and historical archive. >> >> In the end I look at it as questions of public record. >> > I agree with that, but I don't agree that this implies a need for > it to be in the global search engines. True. Most of my reasoning comes down to members asking for it to be. The fact that it then acts as free advertising also helps. > but it's an interesting question to explore. Because if you're in > the global engines, it's not only a public record, it's potential > marketing and advertising. Yup. At this point the vast majority of my archive traffic comes from users of public search engines. > But to do that, you have to do something about those email > addresses to protect them. But if you do, you make it tough for > someone who sees a message in the archive to write for (or with!) > more info that the author might find useful. (I know you/Chuq know this, but the rest of the list might not) My web archives support writing replies to archived messages via a web form submission, which are then sent to the list. Its not a massively used feature (half a dozen posts per month, max), but I have a few people who only post that way (and read the list off the web rather than via mail) and a number of people say they value it very highly despite its their infrequent use of the feature. Stated reasons: -- Ability to read/reply to mail I may have missed due to -- Ability to research the archives on a topic and to directly query continue researching/discussing something found there. -- Ability to reply to old threads and bring them back into currency as topical to current interests. I'm looking to add a feature to allow individual posts to be emailed to a provided address. There are some obvious controls I'll have to put in so you can't mail bomb a hapless individual via the archives, but its a fairly simple problem. What I ___*REALLY*___ want is to hook up MHonArc to an SQL backend for archive message storage with all the thread links stored in under SQL. I've got users clamouring for things like being able to limit searches to specific threads, for building abstract and user-dfined views of the archived message base, etc that this would make very nifty. > What's do folks think about this? What kind of address munging is > adequate? I normally do something ala: s/@/#/ s/.([A-Za-z]*)$/,\1/ I've toyed with rondomly varying the above pattern across a variety of replacement characters/strings, but haven't yet. s/@/_AT_/ s/.([A-Za-z]*)$/_DOT_\1/ My intent has been to leave them human readable, but annoying to machine parse. > That might, thinking about it, also deal with the problem of > people setting up outside, unapproved archives without permission I've politely asked a couple people not to do this (for other reasons which I now regret), and they've willingly complied. I'm aware of several companies which run internal archives of my lists for their internal staff. I haven't said anything about that, and don't think I should or properly could. > if they're grabbing them from the master archive. ATM that's impossible for me as I don't provide the archive messages in any raw format. (I used to) When I stopped providing quarterly mboxes only two users complained. Checking the Apache logs, only one of them appeared to have ever made use of the mbox availability. Not much of a loss. > It wouldn't solve folks who generate archives directly from the > mail list deliveries, though. Unless you wanted ot munch all > e-mail addresses in all cases, and we don't want to go there. Quite. That's rather too invasive. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 14:58:19 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26403; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B621E17E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4ULnC113954; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105302149.f4ULnC113954@lists.apple.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:51:02 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: user unknown with error 450? Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: "Mark E. Mallett" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105302141.RAA22657@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:41 PM, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > Thus, email lint -- little bits of email transactions that produce > tiny bits of server load forever. Interesting point, but an admin not paying attention to bounces isn't likely to notice lint in the mail queues, which is even more obscure. If a site really wanted to do that, they should instead send copies of every bounce to postmaster@sitename with a really annoying "fix your damn mailing list" message. But fi they do, they should wait until stuff has bounced for a couple of weeks, or they risk really annoying someone for no reason,s ince auto-bounce systems need to be given time to do their work. > It's been a tactic employed by some people to in response to attempted > relay operations: fail with a soft error rather than a hard error, so > that the mail queues up on the sender side (although I'm sure that > spam generators are smart enough to deal with this these days). point is, the spam generators DON'T CARE -- because the queues fill up in the open relays, not anywhere the spam operators see. And if you're still running an open relay, you either don't care, either, or you're not watching... And all those 4xx's cause extra processing on both sides of the link, not just the open relay queue machine... > I can > imagine some enterprising young mail server operator taking this > approach on an individual basis for select defunct mailboxes for which > incoming activity is still seen. and that makes as much sense, IMHO, as rejecting mail because the word "homepage" is on it, just in case it happens to have the homepage virus is in it. But I know a number of sites doing that, too. Simple approaches that solve the wrong problem... well, I guess that's why some of us make the semi-big bucks, right? -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me. From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 15:13:05 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA26667; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D435717E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4UM4Q115039; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105302204.f4UM4Q115039@lists.apple.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:17 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Nick Simicich To: J C Lawrence X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <18644.991259954@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:59 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> And I keep telling myself it's not THAT much work, which is my >> hint to go lie down in a dark room until the impulse passes... > > Wuss. nope. Just an old phart taking a break.. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 15:28:10 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26514; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD6C17E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155Dzm-0004qj-00; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:59:14 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Wed, 30 May 2001 14:46:26 PDT." <200105302144.f4ULiZ113596@lists.apple.com> References: <200105302144.f4ULiZ113596@lists.apple.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:59:14 -0700 Message-ID: <18644.991259954@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001 14:46:26 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:31 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> What I ___*REALLY*___ want is to hook up MHonArc to an SQL >> backend for archive message storage with all the thread links >> stored in under SQL. > Me -- I've sort of decided at some point to throw mhonarc out > completely, because from what I've seen, it'd be a lot cheaper > computationally to stuff it all in a database, and generate index > pages and data pages on the fly than it is to have mhonarc update > the indexes and everything every time we insert a message in case > a user might want to visit before the next insertion... I've looked at the code and logic surrounding properly handling charsets, all of MIME, all the attachment crap (I allow actual signal-contributing attachments) etc, and said, "No!" rather loudly. Its taken a long time for MHonArc to get as good as it is at this stuff. I'd rather leverage that than recreate it. I've talked to Eric Hood about this (its a fairly regular Q on the MHonArc list), and he's interested, but states taht it would be extremely invasive of the current MHonArc code as it wasn't designed with anything like a storage/index abstraction concept in mind. Every so often I toy with using MHonArc as a front end processor that produces script files which when run do the appropriate SQL magic... I've got most of it done with my current MHonArc->PHP setup. The only bit really left hanging is handling the thread linkage stuff fully (expecially multi-tree joins etc). Like you say, every so often I tell myself it couldn't be too hard, and then I make sure I go play with the kids instead (which rapidly results in me lieing down). > this seems like a wonderful place to put a database-driven dynamic > system and to stop pre-generation pages that get generated 10 > times or more for every access... > I just have other priorites right now, like my front yard and my > woodshop. But you could get a search engine more or less for free, > too... One of the nice things about MnoGoSearch is that it can index directly off SQL tables. > ... and save having to build all that technology, indexes and > etc... > And I keep telling myself it's not THAT much work, which is my > hint to go lie down in a dark room until the impulse passes... Wuss. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 15:43:02 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA26354; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D9717E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4ULiZ113596; Wed, 30 May 2001 14:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105302144.f4ULiZ113596@lists.apple.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:46:26 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: test messages etc Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM To: J C Lawrence X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <25994.991258275@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:31 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > What I ___*REALLY*___ want is to hook up MHonArc to an SQL backend > for archive message storage with all the thread links stored in > under SQL. Me -- I've sort of decided at some point to throw mhonarc out completely, because from what I've seen, it'd be a lot cheaper computationally to stuff it all in a database, and generate index pages and data pages on the fly than it is to have mhonarc update the indexes and everything every time we insert a message in case a user might want to visit before the next insertion... this seems like a wonderful place to put a database-driven dynamic system and to stop pre-generation pages that get generated 10 times or more for every access... I just have other priorites right now, like my front yard and my woodshop. But you could get a search engine more or less for free, too, and save having to build all that technology, indexes and etc... And I keep telling myself it's not THAT much work, which is my hint to go lie down in a dark room until the impulse passes... > I've toyed with rondomly varying the above pattern across a variety > of replacement characters/strings, but haven't yet. my problem with munging addresses is that any attempt to mung in some standardized way (or one of a few more or less standard variants) is just as easy for the spambots to unmung. And if you randomize it against the bots, you confuse the newbies. But if you stuff it all in a database and force people to access it, you have some chance of controlling it. >> if they're grabbing them from the master archive. > > ATM that's impossible for me as I don't provide the archive messages > in any raw format. the only reason my users complain is lack of a working search engine, which I'm working on. But it's enough to cause private archives to spring up, and since I understand why, I try to be reaosnable about it, within reason. >> It wouldn't solve folks who generate archives directly from the >> mail list deliveries, though. Unless you wanted ot munch all >> e-mail addresses in all cases, and we don't want to go there. > > Quite. That's rather too invasive. Yah. I'm of firm belief that the archives need to be secured from spammers and trolls -- but there's no reason to be MORE secure than the list itself is. That concept of "more secure" has led to all sorts of discussions, because for some reason many people seem to think lists are inherently secure from spammers, so all of the hacking has to come from the archives, which must be provably safe... Of course, that's false -- and barring personally vetting every subscriber, if a spammer really wants my addresses, they'll get them, and I can't stop them. I sort of view archive security as "the Club" for addresses -- convince the spammer to go bother someone else who's easier to steal from... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. I wish I could say your enthusiasm was contagious... From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 15:58:03 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA27147; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACC017E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155EpF-0006Iq-00; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:52:25 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, Nick Simicich Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:17 PDT." <200105302204.f4UM4Q115039@lists.apple.com> References: <200105302204.f4UM4Q115039@lists.apple.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:52:25 -0700 Message-ID: <24230.991263145@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:17 -0700 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:59 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >>> And I keep telling myself it's not THAT much work, which is my >>> hint to go lie down in a dark room until the impulse passes... >> Wuss. > nope. Just an old phart taking a break.. You missed the " Aye, been there, more than once. Constant reinvention of the self can be draining. This is one of the reasons all my main lists are hand moderated -- I get to (un)subtlely steer list character and evolution before its leading me by the nose. Sadly, its not scalable, either in time/effort, or in terms of me. -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 16:13:02 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA27330; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E95917EB7 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a203.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.203]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4UMvBh27337; Wed, 30 May 2001 15:57:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200105302257.f4UMvBh27337@plaidworks.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:17 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: user unknown with error 450? Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Mark E. Mallett" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <200105302241.SAA01710@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 03:41 PM, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > I think it makes more sense than your "homepage" example, which I > can't even attempt to make up a rational explanation for :-) I sure can -- you have an admin who's not really an email hack with a VP on the phone screaming because the company is imploding from the infection... So you do something fast, not something clean. > > well, I guess that's why some of us make the semi-big bucks, right? > > Best wishes on that :-) > thanks1 -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. Shroedinger: We can never really be sure which side of the road the chicken is on. It's all a matter of chance. Like a game of dice. Einstein, refuting Schroedinger: God does not play dice with chickens. Heisenburg: We can determine how fast the chicken travelled, or where it ended up, but we cannot determine why it did so. From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 16:28:02 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA27454; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE36717E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4UNKAQ02271; Wed, 30 May 2001 19:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:20:10 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: J C Lawrence , Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <20010530192010.F47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <1249.991250594@kanga.nu> <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:42:51PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:42:51PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > What's do folks think about this? What kind of address munging is > adequate? Or should addresses be fully cloaked, or perhaps accessible > only through some CGI? Imagine inserting those addresses in a CGI, and > you can only e-mail through a lookup through the database -- you could > then track (and ban) abusers, and limit how much of that address data a > user could get to. This is essentially what yahooeonelistgroups does: you can send mail to the author of a message by clicking on the link over their name and filling out a WWW form. You don't get to see the e-mail address, but you do get to send them a short message. It's not a bad solution, and probably the way we'll go when/if our existing measures prove ineffective. From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 16:43:06 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA27322; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFB817E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155EzK-00037G-00; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:02:50 -0700 To: Norbert Bollow Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: list to honey.. In-Reply-To: Message from Norbert Bollow of "Wed, 30 May 2001 23:03:19 +0200." <200105302103.f4UL3JR28154@quill> References: <005d01c0e7c8$60938550$14c8a8c0@dad> <200105302103.f4UL3JR28154@quill> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:02:49 -0700 Message-ID: <11981.991263769@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:03:19 +0200 Norbert Bollow wrote: > I agree that it is not normally a good idea to try turning a > mailing list into something that generates revenue directly > (through selling advertising space or even trying to charge for > subscriptions). For those lists that take this route I tend to have one of two simple responses: 1) Unsubscribe and tell the list/list owner why. 2) Write a procmail recipe to strip the advertising from the messages so I never see them. I then post tht recipe to the list as/when the subject arises. I see little need to suffer advertising in email. It is inherently offensive. > However you can use a mailing list to win the trust and goodwill > of subscribers, and if you sell some product or service that is > somewhat related to the topic of the list, then the list can be an > important part of your marketing plan. Precisely. Lists are valuable marketing tools for *people*, not for advertising. I take a fairly simple tack with my lists: If a member posts an advertisment or other marketing chest puffing to the list they, and everyone else from that domain, and all known affiliates are instantly unsubscribed, no questions asked. Corporate representation has no place on any list of mine. Personal representation however is the name of the game. Aside: I've only had to apply this death penalty twice. In both cases given that they couldn't advertise to the list, they saw no reason to continue participating (conversations with them after the ban)). In one case they tried to do the bombing run from a throw-away Hotmail account -- I nuked everyone from the domain being sold by the ad after checking it was them (Hotmail nicely embeds the posting IP). Note: I don't prevent them from re-subscriubing unless the offense is repeated (it never has been). -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 20:58:04 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA29939; Wed, 30 May 2001 20:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3796A17E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 20:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4V3pTg04301; Wed, 30 May 2001 23:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 23:51:29 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: J C Lawrence , Nick Simicich , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <20010530235129.G47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <25994.991258275@kanga.nu> <200105302144.f4ULiZ113596@lists.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105302144.f4ULiZ113596@lists.apple.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:46:26PM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:46:26PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 02:31 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > > > What I ___*REALLY*___ want is to hook up MHonArc to an SQL backend > > for archive message storage with all the thread links stored in > > under SQL. > > Me -- I've sort of decided at some point to throw mhonarc out > completely, because from what I've seen, it'd be a lot cheaper > computationally to stuff it all in a database, and generate index pages > and data pages on the fly than it is to have mhonarc update the indexes > and everything every time we insert a message in case a user might want > to visit before the next insertion... That is exactly what we found. Our archive server with 7-8 million messages took about 12 hours to reindex the Mhonarc archives every night. The archive required three times as much disk as the raw messages occupied, in order to build an HTML version of everything. And only a fraction of the messages in the archive ever got viewed *at all*. We're much happier now. I keep DBM files to cache threading and index metadata, and render each message on the fly. If we decide to give the messages a different background or layout, I spend ten minutes tweaking code, not 48 hours rebuilding the whole archive. The machine hums and we have enough disk to last us at least another year. > > I've toyed with rondomly varying the above pattern across a variety > > of replacement characters/strings, but haven't yet. > > my problem with munging addresses is that any attempt to mung in some > standardized way (or one of a few more or less standard variants) is > just as easy for the spambots to unmung. A wise man once compared archive security to "The Club" -- you just have to make it easier for the spammers to go steal from someone else. :-) From list-managers-owner Wed May 30 22:26:52 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA00891; Wed, 30 May 2001 22:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tom.iecc.com (tom.iecc.com [208.31.42.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7867017E8B for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 22:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18027 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 01:12:54 -0400 Received: (ofmipd 208.31.42.38); 31 May 2001 05:12:32 -0000 Date: 31 May 2001 01:12:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Tim Pierce" Cc: "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: <20010530235129.G47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > We're much happier now. I keep DBM files to cache threading and > index metadata, and render each message on the fly. I do more or less the same thing, each message is a separate plain text file, the thread stuff is in a DBM file, web pages are generated on the fly. Currently I don't have a threaded display but that'd be straightforward to implement without having to do anything to the 280,000 messages in the archive. 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 31 06:44:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA08032; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neptuno.ipimar.pt (unknown [193.137.98.89]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DB417EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 06:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvert ([193.137.98.92]) by neptuno.ipimar.pt (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA02129 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 15:29:43 +0100 (WET DST) Message-ID: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Reply-To: "William Silvert" From: "William Silvert" To: "list-managers" Subject: Cute new hoax Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:38:07 +0100 Organization: IPIMAR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk After I posted my comment about innovative new directions in virus attacks, the following warning appeared in my mailbox: ----- Original Message ----- > The following hoax email ... asks recipients to delete the Sulfnbk.exe file. I don't know whether I will bother posting advice about this to any lists, but it shows that the SOBs who propagate viruses are ingenious - this is so much like the standard procedure for cleansing many viruses that I suspect that some people would be taken in by it. After all, the key to computer sabotage is to get the user to do something dangerous, and con men have a long record of being able to fool people. In any case, it is this sort of development that I think we should be prepared to warn subscribers about. If hoaxes of this sort become widespread, and not well-publicised, they are legitimate grounds for postings. Bill Silvert From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 07:58:33 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA08515; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9693917EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (a204.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.204]) by plaidworks.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4VEUjh11933; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:30:45 -0700 Message-Id: <200105311430.f4VEUjh11933@plaidworks.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:38:51 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Cute new hoax Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , "list-managers" To: "William Silvert" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thursday, May 31, 2001, at 06:38 AM, William Silvert wrote: > this is so > much like the standard procedure for cleansing many viruses that I > suspect > that some people would be taken in by it. It's taking a lot of people. A good friend of mine got nailed because he was warned by a good friend of his that he'd been using as resident computer expert for the last decade... it's an interesting hack. If it doesn't teach peopel to check first, nothing will. I'm betting on nothing... > If hoaxes of this sort become > widespread, and not well-publicised, they are legitimate grounds for > postings. > define "well publicised". This is, I think, 2-3 weeks old. It's now in all the hoax databases, and I believe news.com covered it yesterday, about the time I found out about my friend's falling for it (because it ended up on the mailing list run about him, which led to the standard discussions...) -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 08:43:31 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA09136; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E2417EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4VFbJY21968 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA11004 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:37:18 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: list-managers Subject: Re: Cute new hoax In-Reply-To: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 May 2001, William Silvert wrote: > After I posted my comment about innovative new directions in > virus attacks, the following warning appeared in my mailbox: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > The following hoax email ... asks recipients to delete the > > Sulfnbk.exe file. I saw the warning and found a copy of SULFNBK.EXE... I read my email via telnet to a Unix machine so I really have to go out of my way to infect my home machine. I didn't decode this file and FTP it to my command directory. I figured the warning was a hoax but what does SULFNBK.EXE do? - murr - From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 09:43:32 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA09680; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from glatton.cnchost.com (unknown [207.155.248.47]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF7F17EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Erwin.vo.cnchost.com (c1503859-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com [65.5.22.231]) by glatton.cnchost.com id MAA02017; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:36:32 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.13] Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010531092921.02d59460@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Sender: inet-list%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:35:36 -0700 To: "list-managers" From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Cute new hoax In-Reply-To: <200105311430.f4VEUjh11933@plaidworks.com> References: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 07:38 AM 5/31/01, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >It's taking a lot of people. A good friend of mine got nailed because he >was warned by a good friend of his that he'd been using as resident >computer expert for the last decade... I've heard that since the hoax, someone has actually started sending a file with this name as a virus. The virus is a different file size (original file ~45k, virus ~77k, IIRC), and is put in a different directory from the resident file. See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/sulfnbk.exe.warning.html The virus/worm W32.Magistr.24876@mm can arrive as an attachment named Sulfnbk.exe. The Sulfnbk.exe file used by Windows is located in the C:\Windows\Command folder. If the file is located in any other folder, or arrives as an attachment to a email message, See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.magistr.24876@mm.html From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 09:58:31 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA09728; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castro.queernet.org (castro.queernet.org [209.157.101.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C13217EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:42:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rogerk@localhost) by castro.queernet.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4VGgRG07032 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:42:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: murr rhame Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Cute new hoax 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, 31 May 2001, murr rhame wrote: > I figured the warning was a hoax > but what does SULFNBK.EXE do? It's a normal Windows utility used in the restoration of long file names. -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114 "There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 10:13:39 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA09733; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B748617EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Inspiron7000.gurus.com (max2-71.shoreham.net [208.144.253.75] (may be forged)) by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25467 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010531124506.028273e0@imap.iecc.com> X-Sender: margy@imap.iecc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:45:27 -0400 To: list-managers From: Margaret Levine Young Subject: Re: Cute new hoax In-Reply-To: References: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I saw the warning and found a copy of SULFNBK.EXE... I read my >email via telnet to a Unix machine so I really have to go out of >my way to infect my home machine. I didn't decode this file and >FTP it to my command directory. I figured the warning was a hoax >but what does SULFNBK.EXE do? It translates between short and long file names. Margy Levine Young Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies" and "Poor Richard's Building Online Communities" . Looking for kids' videos? Check out From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 10:28:51 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA09800; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (unknown [198.144.204.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3B717EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (kanga.nu) [127.0.0.1] by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 155VhL-0006Mi-00; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:53:23 -0700 To: "John R Levine" Cc: "Tim Pierce" , "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: test messages etc In-Reply-To: Message from "John R Levine" of "31 May 2001 01:12:54 EDT." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:53:23 -0700 Message-ID: <24470.991328003@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 31 May 2001 01:12:54 -0400 John R Levine wrote: >> We're much happier now. I keep DBM files to cache threading and >> index metadata, and render each message on the fly. > I do more or less the same thing, each message is a separate plain > text file, the thread stuff is in a DBM file, How do you generate/maintain the DBM? What have you used to handle national charsets and assorted MIME types for your display engine? -- J C Lawrence claw@kanga.nu ---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ The pressure to survive and rhetoric may make strange bedfellows From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 10:43:47 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA10117; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A1117EB8 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [165.227.249.18] (ip18.proper.com [165.227.249.18]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12209; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:17:48 -0700 To: murr rhame , list-managers From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: Cute new hoax Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:37 AM -0400 5/31/01, murr rhame wrote: >I figured the warning was a hoax >but what does SULFNBK.EXE do? It's a Windows core utility that lives in c:\Windows\Command. The funny thing about all this is that it is a *partial* hoax. According to Symantec at , there is a virus that can arrive in a file of that name. The hoax may or may not be related to that real virus. The hoax's supposed solution (delete the file without checking it for a virus) is obviously bogus, but completely understandable. How does this relate to what we allow and don't allow on our lists? Assume that the first message on your list says "this file is a virus file; just delete it" (and assume that your list is not about viruses or hoaxes). Do you: - research it to see if it is hoax (wasting your listmom time yet again)? - cut off the discussion as being off topic, even though a follow-up to this message will save many of your subscribers butts because they read the first message? - let the thread run for "a while" and then cut it off, making you look not really on top of things? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 11:43:45 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA10888; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DBA17EC4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (A17-216-27-247.apple.com [17.216.27.247]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4VIYB120313; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105311834.f4VIYB120313@lists.apple.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:36:04 -0700 From: Chuq Von Rospach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-682199303-4 Subject: Re: Cute new hoax Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , murr rhame , list-managers To: Paul Hoffman / IMC X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-682199303-4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii On Thursday, May 31, 2001, at 10:17 AM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > How does this relate to what we allow and don't allow on our lists? > Do you: > - research it to see if it is hoax (wasting your listmom time yet > again)? I research it. > - cut off the discussion as being off topic, what I do depends on what I find. If it's a hoax, I cut off discussion, explain the hoax, tell everyone that if they passed it along, pass along that it was a hoax, and usually publically flog the person who did it. If it's not a hoax, it depends on the situation. but usually, I'll affirm it's a legitimate problem and tell people to take it offline as off-topic, and remind folks this stuff doesn't belong on the list and where to get the information if it's needed. And privately chastise the person for posting it. In some circumstances, I have reinforced the warning, if I felt the virus was particularly nasty or needed to be discussed further -- but that's something a list admin should make a decision on, not a list member. Admins (at least in theory) know when to suspend the rules because of extenuating circumstances.... Once it's brought up, it has to be dealt with in some way. If it's a hoax, I think it's important to break the loop in terms of getting members to stop forwarding it. If it's not a hoax, I have to evaluate what impact it might have on my users and deal with that, even if it's not strictly on-topic. Since my lists can't forward viruses, in general, my impact on them is minimal, but if this latest thing appeared on a list, it's possible for users to do harm to themselves by falsely believing the hoax, and so more followup and education would be needed. I think one way to sidetrack these problems is education -- so when they do come up, I try to discuss how these things SHOULD be handled. Sometimes, I think they even listen a bit. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome [ = = ] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. --Apple-Mail-682199303-4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii On Thursday, May 31, 2001, at 10:17 AM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: How does this relate to what we allow and don't allow on our lists? Do you: - research it to see if it is hoax (wasting your listmom time yet again)? I research it. 0000,0000,DEB7 - cut off the discussion as being off topic, what I do depends on what I find. If it's a hoax, I cut off discussion, explain the hoax, tell everyone that if they passed it along, pass along that it was a hoax, and usually publically flog the person who did it. If it's not a hoax, it depends on the situation. but usually, I'll affirm it's a legitimate problem and tell people to take it offline as off-topic, and remind folks this stuff doesn't belong on the list and where to get the information if it's needed. And privately chastise the person for posting it. In some circumstances, I have reinforced the warning, if I felt the virus was particularly nasty or needed to be discussed further -- but that's something a list admin should make a decision on, not a list member. Admins (at least in theory) know when to suspend the rules because of extenuating circumstances.... Once it's brought up, it has to be dealt with in some way. If it's a hoax, I think it's important to break the loop in terms of getting members to stop forwarding it. If it's not a hoax, I have to evaluate what impact it might have on my users and deal with that, even if it's not strictly on-topic. Since my lists can't forward viruses, in general, my impact on them is minimal, but if this latest thing appeared on a list, it's possible for users to do harm to themselves by falsely believing the hoax, and so more followup and education would be needed. I think one way to sidetrack these problems is education -- so when they do come up, I try to discuss how these things SHOULD be handled. Sometimes, I think they even listen a bit. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome < [< = < = <] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. --Apple-Mail-682199303-4-- From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 12:13:47 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11181; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scifi.squawk.com (glock.squawk.com [208.176.124.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD03F17EC4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpad (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scifi.squawk.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B8F0135014; Thu, 31 May 2001 15:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20010531150031.020dfbe0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:00:31 -0400 To: "William Silvert" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Cute new hoax Cc: "list-managers" In-Reply-To: <05d701c0e9d6$efd28bc0$99050a0a@silvert> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:38 PM 5/31/2001 +0100, William Silvert wrote: >After I posted my comment about innovative new directions in virus attacks, >the following warning appeared in my mailbox: > >----- Original Message ----- >> The following hoax email ... asks recipients to delete the Sulfnbk.exe >file. > >I don't know whether I will bother posting advice about this to any lists, >but it shows that the SOBs who propagate viruses are ingenious - this is so >much like the standard procedure for cleansing many viruses that I suspect >that some people would be taken in by it. After all, the key to computer >sabotage is to get the user to do something dangerous, and con men have a >long record of being able to fool people. I filter on "virus" in the subject line. Some idiot got the bounce and changed the subject to "important, please read and act on immediately" and posted it before I could get b ack to him. I'm now filteing on Sulfnbk.exe in the body. >In any case, it is this sort of development that I think we should be >prepared to warn subscribers about. If hoaxes of this sort become >widespread, and not well-publicised, they are legitimate grounds for >postings. To a totally unrelated list (like a scuba or rally list)? Or to a community list? -- We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high. We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons, Cows With Guns Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World! From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 12:45:27 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11471; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DC817EC4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postmodern.com (user-vcauncp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.93.153]) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24346 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B169D8B.A202E611@postmodern.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:37:47 -0700 From: "Michael C. Berch" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List-Managers List Subject: Re: Cute new hoax References: <200105311834.f4VIYB120313@lists.apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At Postmodern.com (my own site, as distinguished from GreatCircle.com, which hosts business and software-related lists, including this one), my lists are typically music/entertainment/recreation-oriented, and I don't see any reason to use them to disseminate virus warnings, hoax alerts, or the like. I filter on "virus", "warning", and various other things in the subject line, and if a message is trapped it is returned to the sender with this note: > Please do not send chain letters, petitions, virus warnings, urban > legends, appeals for funds, hoax alerts, forwarded lists of jokes, etc., > to mailing lists hosted at postmodern.com. > > Your message was blocked by the list server from going out and > is being returned to you. > > Thanks, > -- > Michael C. Berch > Postmaster and list manager, Postmodern.com > mcb@postmodern.com If it was not trapped the sender gets the letter minus the second paragraph. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 14:12:05 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA12381; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.spempervigilans.org (miles.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.45]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBA117E8B for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ma-1.rootsweb.com (ma-1.rootsweb.com [209.192.148.153]) by lists.spempervigilans.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA6D1459B for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from twp@localhost) by ma-1.rootsweb.com (8.10.0.Beta10/8.10.0.Beta10) id f4VKd4q20743; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:39:04 -0400 From: Tim Pierce To: J C Lawrence Cc: John R Levine , "List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: test messages etc Message-ID: <20010531163904.I47841@ma-1.rootsweb.com> References: <24470.991328003@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <24470.991328003@kanga.nu>; from claw@kanga.nu on Thu, May 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote: > On 31 May 2001 01:12:54 -0400 > John R Levine wrote: > > >> We're much happier now. I keep DBM files to cache threading and > >> index metadata, and render each message on the fly. > > > I do more or less the same thing, each message is a separate plain > > text file, the thread stuff is in a DBM file, > > How do you generate/maintain the DBM? Stash key headers when a message comes in: References/In-Reply-To, Subject, Message-ID, etc. When a Web user reads a message or calls for an index, the parent and followup data is at our fingertips, so we can render a thread tree pretty cheaply. > What have you used to handle national charsets and assorted MIME > types for your display engine? I haven't worried a great deal about international charsets; I pulled out some of the internationalization stuff from Mhonarc (mostly Perl implementations of the ISO-8859-* charsets) and use that to render the most common non-ASCII characters. Right now we don't support non-text messages on the mailing lists, so different MIME types are a non-issue for us. From list-managers-owner Thu May 31 16:12:09 2001 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA13288; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendmail.cisto.org (tarsus.cisto.org [151.196.211.15]) by honor.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4827417E8B for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from quill (pop-be-3-2-dialup-207.freesurf.ch [194.230.165.207]) by sendmail.cisto.org (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26194 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 19:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from norbert@localhost) by quill (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f4VN0ea03485; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:00:40 +0200 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:00:40 +0200 Message-Id: <200105312300.f4VN0ea03485@quill> From: Norbert Bollow Prefer-Language: de, en, fr To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: [mparcens@hushmail.com: Yahoo/Hotmail scripting vulnerability, worm propagation] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Here is a new type of possible malware that is not stopped by standard demime/attachment stripping. I have just added a check for the regular expression /https?:\S*(%3a|\:)(%2f|\/)(%2f|\/)/i and messages which match this regexp will be bounced to the moderators as containing a "Potentially malicious link". You may want to consider doing the same. Greetings, Norbert. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- X-From_: bugtraq-return-229-nb=thinkcoach.com@securityfocus.com Thu May 31 18:38:05 2001 X-Envelope-To: X-Real-To: Mailing-List: contact bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: From: mparcens@hushmail.com Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:18:08 -0500 (EDT) To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Hushpart_boundary_dAfMJfpqUApfpvnobyxrXSpSoIJaULVu" Subject: Yahoo/Hotmail scripting vulnerability, worm propagation - --Hushpart_boundary_dAfMJfpqUApfpvnobyxrXSpSoIJaULVu Content-type: text/plain Title: Yahoo/Hotmail scripting vulnerability, worm propagation Synopsis Cross-site-scripting holes in Yahoo and Hotmail make it possible to replicate a Melissa-type worm through those webmail services. Description An email is sent to the victim, who uses Yahoo Mail or Hotmail. Inside the email is a link to yahoo or hotmail's own server. The link contains escaped javascript that is executed when the page is loaded. That javascript then opens a window that could nagivate through the victim's inbox, sending messages with the malicious link to every email address it finds in the inbox. Because the malicious javascript executes inside a page from the mail service's own server, there is no domain-bounding error when the javascript is controlling the window with the victim's inbox. Who is vulnerable Users of the Yahoo Mail and Hotmail service. Although the exploit requires a user to click on a link, two things work for this exploit. (1) The email comes from a familiar user (sent by the worm), and (2) The link is to a familiar, trusted server. Theoretically, more services are vulnerable, due to the proliferation of these holes, but the worm is limited to web mail services. Proof-of-Concept Sample links and the worm code can be found at: http://www.sidesport.com/webworm/ Solution Escaping all query data that is echoed to the screen eliminates this problem. This must be done on every page on a server that can send or read mail for the service. Vendor Status Both Yahoo and Hotmail were notified on May 23 2001. - -mparcens mparcens@hushmail.com Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com - --Hushpart_boundary_dAfMJfpqUApfpvnobyxrXSpSoIJaULVu-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are not using HushMail, this message could have been read easily by the many people who have access to your open personal email messages. Get your FREE, totally secure email address at http://www.hushmail.com. ------- End of forwarded message -------