From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 08:45:00 2003 Received: from bp.ucs.louisiana.edu (bp.ucs.louisiana.edu [130.70.132.231]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881061959F8 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from louisiana.edu (h144172.louisiana.edu [130.70.144.172]) by bp.ucs.louisiana.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/ull-ucs-server_1.6) with ESMTP id h17Gio826160 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:44:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:46:55 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers Subject: Majordomo hole Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/1 X-Sequence-Number: 1064 Hi there, There is a report of a major security hole in most versions of Majordomo available at http://www.net-security.org/vuln.php?id=2416 I suggest folks get on top of this, otherwise the evil spammers may make our lives even more hellish. All the best, Istvan -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. istvan@louisiana.edu Philosophy and Cognitive Science The University of Louisiana at Lafayette Tel: (337) 482-6807 P. O. Box 43770, Lafayette Fax: (337) 482-5002 Louisiana, 70504, U.S.A. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 09:27:01 2003 Received: from novus.isp.gweep.ca (novus.isp.gweep.ca [64.69.80.178]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47345195AAB for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:26:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by novus.isp.gweep.ca (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.1 (i386), from userid 10) id 51DF13FB4A; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:26:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by yuri.aq2.gweep.ca (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8C17D56B63; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:20:58 -0800 (PST) To: list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole References: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> From: Brian Edmonds Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:20:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> (Istvan Berkeley's message of "Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:46:55 -0600") Message-ID: Lines: 10 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon, i386-suse-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200302/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1065 Istvan Berkeley writes: > I suggest folks get on top of this, otherwise the evil spammers may > make our lives even more hellish. I don't know about other list admins, but I've had which_access set to "list" for all my majordomo lists pretty much from day one. It just seemed like common sense to me, and this was years ago, well before email spam became quite the issue it is today. Brian. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 12:19:03 2003 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676F5195A9D for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18hExg-00047a-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:19:00 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18hExg-0001ck-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:19:00 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id H9YGFO-000G5H-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:19:00 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:19:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole In-Reply-To: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> Message-ID: References: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1066 On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Istvan Berkeley wrote: > Hi there, > There is a report of a major security hole in most versions of Majordomo > available at http://www.net-security.org/vuln.php?id=2416 I suggest > folks get on top of this, otherwise the evil spammers may make our lives > even more hellish. I know that this was discussed on the MD list many years ago. I know that I modified a local copy of MD to set which access to list and also to return no more than 5 matches (if I recall correctly) many years ago. But I agree with the report that it is bad design to have the default so open. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 13:06:05 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6518195A61 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B08825B221; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:05:57 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:06:39 -0500 To: Istvan Berkeley , list-managers From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: <3E43E2FF.1070208@louisiana.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40A34F4C; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/4 X-Sequence-Number: 1067 At 10:46 AM 2003-02-07 -0600, Istvan Berkeley wrote: >Hi there, >There is a report of a major security hole in most versions of Majordomo >available at http://www.net-security.org/vuln.php?id=2416 >I suggest folks get on top of this, otherwise the evil spammers may make >our lives even more hellish. This is total bullshit. Someone got on the MJ2 list with this crap a few days ago and irritated everyone there - they were going to publish a "alert". Hey, I will publish a major security alert, which affects every system: If you have a weak password, someone can guess it, log in and steal your data! Here is another security alert: You are subject to data loss because few systems are strong enough to resist being struck by lightning or being smashed by a concrete block! A "major" security hole would be, "Someone can break into your system because you are running Majordomo", or "Majordomo can be used to relay a worm". This is actually: The default for "which" is open, and it has been for 10 years now, so someone can extract e-mail addresses from your system unless you have closed it. It is the default because Majordomo was designed in a kinder, gentler day, and everyone who cares changes the default. As described in the "alert", it is a case of "RTFDOC". Guess what? You should not be running a MLM *unless* you read the doc, and the Mj2 leads you through a set of defaults that they suggest you review for applicability when you set up a new list, and one of them is this one, the default for which. You know, I have another alert: You might have meant for no one to sign up for this list, but the default is to let people sign up! The most restrictive defaults should be picked in all cases, of course, so the default should be to not let people sign up! And to not let people use the list at all! And to restrict all English words from being in a posting, because if people are allowed to use language in mailing list postings, they could accidentally give away secrets! Lots of people have open archives, some, by policy, however misguided, require that their subscriber lists are public. These defaults are perfectly appropriate, and, if the reporter had actually bothered to use Majordomo2, they would have understood the process. This is known and has been well known for a number of years. It is only being described as a major hole by someone who wants to inflate their self-importance. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 13:13:59 2003 Received: from mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.97]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6772195A98 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (ori.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.243]) by mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01215; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:13:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h17LDG9S000403; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:13:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ori.ccmr.cornell.edu: mitch owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:13:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mitch Collinsworth To: Nick Simicich Cc: Istvan Berkeley , list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1068 On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Nick Simicich wrote: > This is total [...]. Someone got on the MJ2 list with this crap a few > days ago and irritated everyone there - they were going to publish a "alert". This item was listed on SANS's Security Alert Consensus yesterday. -Mitch From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 13:33:44 2003 Received: from mail.vjs.org (cust13781.lava.net [64.65.85.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FE5196294 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (64.65.85.212) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:32:18 -1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> X-Mailer: Eudora 8.0b19 for Cray SV-2 (beta release), unregistered Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:33:33 -1000 To: list-managers From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200302/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1069 ** Sometime around 15:06 -0500 02/07/2003, Nick Simicich sent everyone: >You know, I have another alert: You might have meant for no one to >sign up for this list, but the default is to let people sign up! >The most restrictive defaults should be picked in all cases, of >course, so the default should be to not let people sign up! And to >not let people use the list at all! And to restrict all English >words from being in a posting, because if people are allowed to use >language in mailing list postings, they could accidentally give away >secrets! Nick, I agree with your overall assessment that the "security alert" is B.S. However, default settings should be reasonable. For example, setting defaults so that no one can sign up for a new list is arguably not particularly useful in most cases [1]; OTOH, defaulting which_access to closed/list/private/something-anything other than "open" is probably smarter than defaulting it to open. Other comments still apply, including RTFM/RTFDOC when setting up a server of any sort. And as we all know, sysadmins have nothing but time on their hands... ;-) -- __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org [1] Yes, I know you were merely making a point. I borrowed your point to make another one. ;-) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 13:45:04 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730A6196292 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:45:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mnjazz.com (unknown [63.78.137.249]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31F9102DE for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:45:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E4428DE.38837DB8@mnjazz.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:45:02 -0600 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/7 X-Sequence-Number: 1070 Vince Sabio wrote: > > ** Sometime around 15:06 -0500 02/07/2003, Nick Simicich sent everyone: > > >You know, I have another alert: You might have meant for no one to > >sign up for this list, but the default is to let people sign up! > >The most restrictive defaults should be picked in all cases, of > >course, so the default should be to not let people sign up! And to > >not let people use the list at all! And to restrict all English > >words from being in a posting, because if people are allowed to use > >language in mailing list postings, they could accidentally give away > >secrets! > > Nick, > > I agree with your overall assessment that the "security alert" is > B.S. However, default settings should be reasonable. For example, > setting defaults so that no one can sign up for a new list is > arguably not particularly useful in most cases [1]; OTOH, defaulting > which_access to closed/list/private/something-anything other than > "open" is probably smarter than defaulting it to open. Agreed, and it's to protect us, other internet users, from the stupidity of a person running a site badly. Same thing for open relays, if something ships today as an open mail relay, then it's brokenware, in my opinion. True, somebody running a mail server or list manager should RTFM. We can't force them too though, and if them not paying attention is going to cause OTHER internet users pain, it's time to reconsider what the default is gonna be. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 14:35:05 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E671962D1 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:35:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18hH0z-00075W-00; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:30:33 -0800 To: Mitch Collinsworth Cc: Nick Simicich , Istvan Berkeley , list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: Message from Mitch Collinsworth of "Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:13:16 EST." References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> 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: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:30:33 -0800 Message-ID: <27249.1044657033@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1071 On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:13:16 -0500 (EST) Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Nick Simicich wrote: >> This is total [...]. Someone got on the MJ2 list with this crap a >> few days ago and irritated everyone there - they were going to >> publish a "alert". > This item was listed on SANS's Security Alert Consensus yesterday. SANS would list their dead uncle's blood pressure if they could dream up a reason to. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Fri Feb 7 15:00:27 2003 Received: from mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.97]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4E3195A61 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (ori.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.243]) by mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03376; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:00:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h17N0N2P001077; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:00:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ori.ccmr.cornell.edu: mitch owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: Mitch Collinsworth To: J C Lawrence Cc: Nick Simicich , Istvan Berkeley , list-managers Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: <27249.1044657033@kanga.nu> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <27249.1044657033@kanga.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/9 X-Sequence-Number: 1072 On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:13:16 -0500 (EST) > Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Nick Simicich wrote: > > >> This is total [...]. Someone got on the MJ2 list with this crap a > >> few days ago and irritated everyone there - they were going to > >> publish a "alert". > > > This item was listed on SANS's Security Alert Consensus yesterday. > > SANS would list their dead uncle's blood pressure if they could dream up > a reason to. You won't hear any defense of SANS from me. I was just pointing out that an alert had happened already, and attempting to avoid offering an opinion either way on what I think of SANS.... -Mitch From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Feb 8 01:10:59 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C048B1959F4 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 01:10:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 695F425B2AF for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 04:10:54 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030208005724.283dbaf8@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 01:07:09 -0500 To: list-managers From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40A34F4C; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1073 At 11:33 AM 2003-02-07 -1000, Vince Sabio wrote: >** Sometime around 15:06 -0500 02/07/2003, Nick Simicich sent everyone: > >>You know, I have another alert: You might have meant for no one to sign >>up for this list, but the default is to let people sign up! The most >>restrictive defaults should be picked in all cases, of course, so the >>default should be to not let people sign up! And to not let people use >>the list at all! And to restrict all English words from being in a >>posting, because if people are allowed to use language in mailing list >>postings, they could accidentally give away secrets! > >Nick, > >I agree with your overall assessment that the "security alert" is B.S. >However, default settings should be reasonable. And, they made the false claim that the vendor had agreed and released patches for Mj1, when the patches were actually created by the reporter. As to whether or not Mj2 agreed, I think that they did, only to shut the reporter up. I would argue that was a bad tactic. Again, Majordomo has not been updated for quite a while - the last update was done when there was an actual vulnerability in the package, which was some time ago. People have released patches, but that is not germane to the code base. Anyone applying source patches is also likely to read the doc. The patch released by the reporter will not be incorporated into any code bases, as I believe that the license on the code prohibits releasing modified versions. > For example, setting defaults so that no one can sign up for a new list > is arguably not particularly useful in most cases [1]; OTOH, defaulting > which_access to closed/list/private/something-anything other than "open" > is probably smarter than defaulting it to open. I agree. However, my point is that the real alert is "read the manual". And my point is that I agree, you should read the manual, and that the defaults may not be appropriate no matter what they are set to. >Other comments still apply, including RTFM/RTFDOC when setting up a server >of any sort. And as we all know, sysadmins have nothing but time on their >hands... ;-) And if they do not have the time, and they still try to do the job, guess what: They are likely to configure systems incorrectly and leave all sorts of holes and they will be a lot more damaging than the release of subscriber lists. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Feb 8 19:00:52 2003 Received: from rauterkus.com (rauterkus.com [128.121.220.18]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F13195A0E for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 19:00:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [12.227.92.72] (12-227-92-72.client.attbi.com [12.227.92.72]) by rauterkus.com (8.12.6) id h1930nXC091929 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 22:00:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200302090300.h1930nXC091929@rauterkus.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:57:24 -0500 Subject: Announcing: Mailman 2.0.13 gets eVoting capabilities with add on utility From: "Mark Rauterkus" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/11 X-Sequence-Number: 1074 Hi *, This alert comes for a number of reasons. Do check out the magazine as LISTS & Blogs is on the cover for March. And, of course, eVote's roots are alive and still functional in MJ 1.x. Ta. Mark Rauterkus mark@Rauterkus.com http://Rauterkus.com http://CLOH.Org http://Sunnyhill.org http://www.Deliberate.com - - - An open source software utility, eVote(R)/Clerk, has been recently enhanced to cooperate with GNU Mailman 2.0.13. The eVote code, now available , provides a facility for taking polls among the subscribers of email discussion lists. The project's developer, Marilyn Davis, Ph.D., marilyn@deliberate.com of California, http://www.Deliberate.com, has provided eVote with a telnet interface since 1994; and since 1996 as an add-on utility to the Majordomo listserve. FEATURES * Enables any member of an email list to generate a new poll for the group. * Polls can be: + Public - where everyone can see everyone's votes, or + Private - where no one can see anyone else's vote, or + If-Voted - where everyone can see who voted, but not how they voted. + Numeric - where votes are from 1 to 10, or -10 to 10, etc., or + Yes/No. + Visible - where everyone can see the tally while the poll is open, or + Hidden - where no one can see the results until the poll is closed. + Single item - or, + Grouped items - where participants vote for one of a number of choices, or for three of the choices, or they can distribute their 100 vote points over the choices. * Supports petitions. Petitions are generated and collaboratively administered by the members of a "petition" list. Petition features: + Open for anyone to sign. + Supported in English, Spanish and French. + Can be: - Signature-only petitions - Petitions with voting items - Petitions with forms The Linux Journal, , the monthly magazine of the Linux Community, is featuring an article about eVote in the March, 2003 issue. On the Linux Journal website, Don Marti, the Journal's editor says: "On page 72, Marilyn Davis explains that true democracy needs both elections and deliberation. Most systems offer one or the other, but not both. However, Marilyn's eVote system makes it possible for any user of a Mailman-based mailing list to start a wide variety of single-choice or multiple-choice polls. After the initial setup, there's no need for an administrator." From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 10 11:20:04 2003 Received: from befriend2.dnsservers.us (befriend2.dnsservers.us [64.246.20.65]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8CC195B33 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshibasatellite (pool-209-158-201-101.rich.east.verizon.net [209.158.201.101]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by befriend2.dnsservers.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AJG4A17069 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:16:04 -0500 Message-ID: <00cd01c2d139$467e0440$6401a8c0@toshibasatellite> From: "Steve Werby" To: "list-managers" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:19:03 -0500 Organization: Befriend Internet Services LLC 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 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Archive-Number: 200302/12 X-Sequence-Number: 1075 "Vince Sabio" wrote: > However, default settings should be reasonable. Or force you to configure the software and provide adequate documentation. IIRC, 1.94.x hasn't been updated since 1997 or so. In 1997 the default for which_access was fairly reasonable. It's not really right to form an opinion based on what's reasonable today. Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the phrase "evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think? -- Steve Werby President, Befriend Internet Services LLC http://www.befriend.com/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 10 19:10:06 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860111959D7 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:10:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B0725B2AF for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:09:54 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:00 -0500 To: "list-managers" From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: <00cd01c2d139$467e0440$6401a8c0@toshibasatellite> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7B37382A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/13 X-Sequence-Number: 1076 At 02:19 PM 2003-02-10 -0500, Steve Werby wrote: >"Vince Sabio" wrote: > > However, default settings should be reasonable. > >Or force you to configure the software and provide adequate documentation. >IIRC, 1.94.x hasn't been updated since 1997 or so. In 1997 the default for >which_access was fairly reasonable. It's not really right to form an >opinion based on what's reasonable today. Part of the alert was against Mj2. Mj2 does not *force* you to configure these items, but it does have strong suggestions that it is important to look at a subset, and I believe that the which default is in the subset. >Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the phrase >"evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think? It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often enough :-). Especially after I spend the day looking at spam. I have an individual system, I've tried to maintain a single e-mail address for a number of years, and I am about to replace it with an autoresponder that gives people who want to contact me my address-of-the-month. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 10 22:52:53 2003 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CAD195F90 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.5/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h1B5JSNE007459 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:19:29 -0800 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18iScA-0004hf-00; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:05:50 -0800 To: Nick Simicich Cc: "list-managers" Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! In-Reply-To: Message from Nick Simicich of "Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:00 EST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:05:50 -0800 Message-ID: <18082.1044939950@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/14 X-Sequence-Number: 1077 On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:01:00 -0500 Nick Simicich wrote: > It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often > enough :-). Especially after I spend the day looking at spam. I have > an individual system, I've tried to maintain a single e-mail address > for a number of years, and I am about to replace it with an > autoresponder that gives people who want to contact me my > address-of-the-month. Blech. Just use TMDA with dated or sender addresses. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 06:29:38 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C758E1959DA for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:29:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from admin3 (natpool7.rev.net [63.148.93.7] (may be forged)) (authenticated) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1BETXC30564 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:29:33 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:28:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Hotmail rejections Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3E48C25B.10933.4D389CE2@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1044973773.gnDz8W@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200302/15 X-Sequence-Number: 1078 I've been getting a bunch of bounce messages from hotmail this morning. The message looks like this: --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. [everyone on my list with a hotmail acct] --9B095B5ADSN=_01C2D139C121E18F001564D5mc7?s19.law1.hot Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;mc7-s19.law1.hotmail.com Received-From-MTA: dns;mc7-f36.law1.hotmail.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:24:13 -0800 Original-Recipient: Final-Recipient: rfc822;XXXXXX@hotmail.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Original-Recipient: Final-Recipient: rfc822;YYYYYYY@hotmail.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 [...] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there some way to figure out what this is about? Has hotmail decided that my mailing list is spam? /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 06:44:55 2003 Received: from pengo.systems.pipex.net (pengo.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.193]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64AF0195AFB for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from andybev.com (81-86-125-15.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.125.15]) by pengo.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D244C0034E; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:44:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3E490C83.1010209@andybev.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:45:23 +0000 From: Andrew Beverley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Hotmail rejections References: <3E48C25B.10933.4D389CE2@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3E48C25B.10933.4D389CE2@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1079 I've been getting them all morning as well. Every so often hotmail seems to refuse to deliver messages. Give it a day or two and it'll probably start working again. It does seem to affect only 'bulk' messages, but I don't think it's because hotmail thinks they're junk, because it happens fairly randomly. Hotmail has its own 'junk mail' box on the user's inbox that is designed to catch junk mail. Andy Beverley Bernie Cosell wrote: > I've been getting a bunch of bounce messages from hotmail this morning. The > message looks like this: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. > > Delivery to the following recipients failed. > > [everyone on my list with a hotmail acct] > > > --9B095B5ADSN=_01C2D139C121E18F001564D5mc7?s19.law1.hot > Content-Type: message/delivery-status > > Reporting-MTA: dns;mc7-s19.law1.hotmail.com > Received-From-MTA: dns;mc7-f36.law1.hotmail.com > Arrival-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:24:13 -0800 > > Original-Recipient: > Final-Recipient: rfc822;XXXXXX@hotmail.com > Action: failed > Status: 5.0.0 > > Original-Recipient: > Final-Recipient: rfc822;YYYYYYY@hotmail.com > Action: failed > Status: 5.0.0 > > [...] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is there some way to figure out what this is about? Has hotmail decided that > my mailing list is spam? > > /bernie\ > > From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 06:47:56 2003 Received: from befriend2.dnsservers.us (befriend2.dnsservers.us [64.246.20.65]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3381195AFA for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from befoffice1 (pool-209-158-202-19.rich.east.verizon.net [209.158.202.19]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by befriend2.dnsservers.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BEiqA18524 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:44:52 -0500 Message-ID: <027301c2d1dc$8de1c8f0$6401a8c0@befoffice1> From: "Steve Werby" To: "list-managers" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:45:38 -0500 Organization: Befriend Internet Services LLC 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 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Archive-Number: 200302/17 X-Sequence-Number: 1080 "Nick Simicich" wrote: > Part of the alert was against Mj2. Mj2 does not *force* you to configure > these items, but it does have strong suggestions that it is important to > look at a subset, and I believe that the which default is in the subset. I didn't see that it was about mj2 as well. I think we're all on the same page, just some of us probably have different views about what should be expected in a default configuration, what should be expected of the admin and what qualifies as a securiy alert. I think I'll release a security alert April 1 about web pages that have email addresses displayed in plain text... > > Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the > > phrase > > "evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think? > > It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often enough > :-). I'm with you on that. I was just making light of the fact that the word "evil" in "evil spammers" is redundant. > Especially after I spend the day looking at spam. I have an > individual system, I've tried to maintain a single e-mail address for a > number of years, and I am about to replace it with an autoresponder that > gives people who want to contact me my address-of-the-month. Since much of the populace loves bloated software, why not build anti-spam and TMDA-like behavior into demime? Just kidding! -- Steve Werby President, Befriend Internet Services LLC http://www.befriend.com/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 10:31:16 2003 Received: from foobar.noderunner.net (foobar.noderunner.net [66.92.167.43]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086201959DB for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (foobar.noderunner.net [66.92.167.43]) by foobar.noderunner.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5686E2A8106 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:36:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:30:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: "Michael S. Johnson" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Hotmail rejections In-Reply-To: <3E48C25B.10933.4D389CE2@localhost> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: michj@michj0-xp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/18 X-Sequence-Number: 1081 On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bernie Cosell wrote: > I've been getting a bunch of bounce messages from hotmail this morning. [...] > Is there some way to figure out what this is about? Has hotmail > decided that my mailing list is spam? Hotmail Support replied to my inquiry with a message implying that I had complained to them about virus-laden e-mail, specifically something called "W32/Yaha". There was no such virus on my list, of course, but it appears to be a form letter (no surprise). It is likely that handling this virus has temporarily overloaded the mail servers' ability to accept mail. -- Michael S. Johnson Owner: Nausicaa.net and Miyazaki Mailing List michj@nausicaa.net http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/mailing-list On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 support_x@css.one.microsoft.com wrote: > > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:36:09 -0800 > From: support_x@css.one.microsoft.com > To: michj@nausicaa.net > Subject: CST105131634ID - RE:NAUSICAA: error report from MAIL.HOTMAIL.COM (fwd) > > [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] > [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] > [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] > > Dear Michael: > > > Thank you for writing to Hotmail Support. > > > Michael, I am sorry to hear that you are receiving virus e-mail. I > apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and look forward > to providing you with assistance today. > > I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail. Every message > that Hotmail receives is very important. Unfortunately, we recently > received an extremely high volume of e-mail messages and are working > diligently to catch up. > > I understand your concern towards the virus mail you received in your > account. I realize that such issues can be frustrating and look > forward to providing you with assistance today. > > I would like to let you know that the mail you have received is most > likely related to viruses that is currently spreading on the Internet, > called W32/Yaha viruses. Such type of viruses mostly affect the > address book of affected account. These e-mail viruses perpetuate > themselves by causing e-mail with the virus attached to be sent to all > the entries in your contacts list without your knowledge. This does > not necessarily mean that your computer is infected, but that a > computer is infected that contains your MSN E-mail address in its > address book or contact list. > > W32/Yaha Virus is a mass-mailing email worm that attempts to to email > itself to all the contacts in the Windows Address Book, MSN Messenger, > .NET Messenger and all the files whose extensions contain the letters > HT. The worm sends an email message to these addresses with itself as > an attachment using its own SMTP engine. The worm also attempts to end > the antivirus and firewall processes. > > The "From" address is randomly chosen from email addresses that the > worm finds on the infected computer. It uses random subject lines, > message bodies, and attachment file names. The worm tries to copy > itself to Windows system folder. The reason for receiving the virus > mail in your account is that the virus has picked up your email > address on an infected computer and is automatically sending them > without the knowledge of the person whose computer is infected with > this virus. > > The virus email message has the following characteristics: > > The subject line is one of the following: > > Looking for Friendship > Feel the fragrance of Love > True Love > make ur friend happy > Who is ur Best Friend > hey check it yaar > Check this shit > Hello > Hi > I am in Love > I Love You > You are so sweet > U realy Want this > to ur lovers > to ur friends > Find a good friend > Learn How To Love > Are you looking for Love > Wowwwwwwwwwww check it > Check ur friends Circle > The world of Friendship > Shake it baby > How sweet this Screen saver > war Againest Loneliness > Need a friend? > Say 'I Like You' To ur friend > love speaks from the heart > Let's Dance and forget pains > Hardcore Screensavers 4 U > XXX Screensavers 4 U > We want peace > Wanna be a HE-MAN > Visit us > One Virus Writer's Story > One Hacker's Love > The Hotmail Hack > > The body of the mail may contain one of the following: > > hey, > did u always dreamnt of hacking ur friends hotmail account.. > finally i got a hotmail hack from the internet that really works.. > ur my best friend thats why sending to u.. > check it..just run it..enter victim's address and u will get the pass. > > hi, > check the attached love screensaver > and feel the fragrance of true love.. > > Hi, > check the attached screensaver.. > its really wonderfool.. > i got it from freescreensavers.com > > Hi, > check the attached screensaver > and enjoy the world of friendship.. > > The name of the attachment file can be one of the following: > > Love.scr > Hotmail_hack_exe.scr > Friend_finder_exe > Be_happy.scr > Sweet.scr > Shake.scr > World_of_friendship.scr > Friendship.scr > Funny.scr > Free_Love_Screensavers.scr > The_Best.scr > Codeproject.scr > SQL_4_Free.scr > I_Love_You.scr > Hardcore4Free.scr > xxx4Free.scr > Screensavers.scr > > Unfortunately, we cannot determine the true source of such mails as > these has the ability to spoof e-mail addresses. This means that when > it attempts to send copies of itself out via e-mail (via the infected > computer's default SMTP server), it chooses a random e-mail address > from an address book and uses it to send copies of itself to the other > entries in the address book instead of the e-mail address of the > infected user. This makes the virus very difficult to track. > > Note: Hotmail detects most viruses, but new ones are created all the > time. We update our software with McAfee regularly, but as new viruses > come into being, some viruses may pass through undetected. The best > way to protect yourself is not to open an attachment from someone you > don't know or from a suspicious address. > > If your computer has anti-virus protection software installed, we > recommend that you contact the support group of your anti-virus > software to get the latest signature file, which can help protect your > computer. In addition, we also suggest you download the latest > Microsoft updates. > > To download the latest updates for your Microsoft software, please > visit the following sites: http://www.windowsupdate.com and > http://office.microsoft.com/productupdates/. > > I hope that the support information I have provided with the reason > for receiving virus mail is helpful. If you have any additional > questions or need further assistance, please reply to this message. > Thank you for your patience. > > Michael, please remember that MSN Hotmail also has comprehensive > online help--just click Help in the upper right corner. > > > Sincerely, > > > Jose > MSN Hotmail Customer Support Representative > > --- Original Message --- > From: michj@nausicaa.net > To: support_x@css.one.microsoft.com > Sent: Mon Feb 10 16:59:51 UTC+0900 2003 > Subject: NAUSICAA: error report from MAIL.HOTMAIL.COM (fwd) > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > What is the nature of this outage? Is this the same bug that rejected > mail on August 24th, 2002 for several days? > > -- > Thanks, > Michael [...] From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 10:58:35 2003 Received: from mail.vjs.org (cust13781.lava.net [64.65.85.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B843195A0D for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.8] (64.65.85.212) by mail.vjs.org with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:57:01 -1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <027301c2d1dc$8de1c8f0$6401a8c0@befoffice1> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> <027301c2d1dc$8de1c8f0$6401a8c0@befoffice1> X-Mailer: Eudora 8.0b19 for Cray SV-2 (beta release), unregistered Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:58:13 -1000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Vince Sabio Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200302/19 X-Sequence-Number: 1082 ** Sometime around 09:45 -0500 02/11/2003, Steve Werby said: >"Nick Simicich" wrote: >>** Sometime around 14:19 -0500 02/10/2003, Steve Werby said: > > >>Anyway, I just don't give any security alert creedence if it uses the > >>phrase "evil spammers" not once, but twice. Redundant, don't you think? > > > >It may well be, but sometimes I don't think it can be said often enough > >:-). > >I'm with you on that. I was just making light of the fact that the word >"evil" in "evil spammers" is redundant. It certainly is. However, I agree with the sentiment in your first post. IMO, the use of the word "evil" attempts to pass judgment -- and the purpose of a security alert is not to pass judgment, but to objectively summarize a vulnerability. I'd feel the same way if the security alert used the phrase "evil hackers." We can probably all agree that spammers (hackers, pedophiles, [1] etc.) are evil -- but stating that in a security alert is unnecessary and dilutes the apparent validity of the alert. Of course, in this case, the "security alert" was B.S., anyway. -- __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio vince@vjs.org [1] Reference to Dubya's "Axis of Evil" elided to avoid the obvious political commentary that would ensue. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 12:11:20 2003 Received: from befriend2.dnsservers.us (befriend2.dnsservers.us [64.246.20.65]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AE71959E9 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:11:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from befoffice1 (pool-209-158-202-19.rich.east.verizon.net [209.158.202.19]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by befriend2.dnsservers.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BK8FA01140 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:08:15 -0500 Message-ID: <043801c2d209$bc890470$6401a8c0@befoffice1> From: "Steve Werby" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030207144827.23da88a0@199.74.151.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20030210215051.03786008@199.74.151.1> <027301c2d1dc$8de1c8f0$6401a8c0@befoffice1> Subject: Re: Majordomo hole my rear end! Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:09:43 -0500 Organization: Befriend Internet Services LLC 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 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Archive-Number: 200302/20 X-Sequence-Number: 1083 "Vince Sabio" wrote: > It certainly is. However, I agree with the sentiment in your first > post. IMO, the use of the word "evil" attempts to pass judgment > and the purpose of a security alert is not to pass judgment, but to > objectively summarize a vulnerability. I agree. In fact, now that I think about it, it shouldn't have said "spammers" at all. That was just an attempt to play into the general hatred of spam. It probably should have said protect their lists against "email address harvesting" or "email address harvesters". Semantics maybe, but a security alert should be objective and factual. > Of course, in this case, the "security alert" was B.S., anyway. Right. I think I've been beating a dead horse and then handing off the stick so I'll refrain from contributing to this thread after this email so we can focus on other relevant topics...or wait patiently for another "security alert". And no, I'm not discouraging others from continuing this thread; I'm just saying I'm sitting it out. -- Steve Werby President, Befriend Internet Services LLC http://www.befriend.com/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 11 22:16:59 2003 Received: from rly-ip04.mx.aol.com (rly-ip04.mx.aol.com [64.12.138.8]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E66195A6F for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:16:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from logs-ntc-ti.proxy.aol.com (logs-ntc-ti.proxy.aol.com [198.81.20.2]) by rly-ip04.mx.aol.com (v89.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN9-0212011333; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:13:33 -0500 Received: from LPsDELL.earthlink.net (ACC3EC72.ipt.aol.com [172.195.236.114]) by logs-ntc-ti.proxy.aol.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1C6ECh9016186 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:14:51 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030211230518.00b722a0@pop.youruniverse.com> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.youruniverse.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:06:00 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Hotmail rejections In-Reply-To: References: <3E48C25B.10933.4D389CE2@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: Lppland@aol.com X-Archive-Number: 200302/21 X-Sequence-Number: 1084 Hotmail is subject to occasional and random failures. It has been like that for YEARS! It's just plain flaky. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 12 15:11:13 2003 Received: from ruth.NWCIowa.edu (ruth.nwciowa.edu [198.178.167.5]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A96F195A49 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:11:12 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: strange problem Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:11:10 -0600 Message-ID: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B7B@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: strange problem Thread-Index: AcLS6+LH4ZV2In6hQSSgKfwPamWSZw== From: "Vellinga, Mark" To: X-Archive-Number: 200302/22 X-Sequence-Number: 1085 Hello, I am running RedHat Linux 7.3 and majordomo 1-94.4-7. Majordomo seems to work fine when sending emails to subscribers with the same domain as the server (edu). Any other address (e.g., .org or .gov) does not seem to work. I have no idea what is happening. Any suggestions? Please? Thanks, Mark From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 12 17:57:19 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5191959F8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1D1v6gU029881; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:57:06 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1D1v6nk029880; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:57:06 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302130157.h1D1v6nk029880@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: strange problem To: vellinga@nwciowa.edu (Vellinga, Mark) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:57:06 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B7B@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> from "Vellinga, Mark" at Feb 12, 2003 05:11:10 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/23 X-Sequence-Number: 1086 hi ya > I am running RedHat Linux 7.3 and majordomo 1-94.4-7. Majordomo seems > to work fine when sending emails to subscribers with the same domain as > the server (edu). Any other address (e.g., .org or .gov) does not seem > to work. I have no idea what is happening. Any suggestions? Please? what is the output of the following: what is the contents of /etc/resolv.conf can you ping those machines listed ?? am guessing these will not resolve for you ping www.berkeley.edu ping www.mit.edu ping www.kernel.org c ya alvin From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 13 13:35:26 2003 Received: from ruth.NWCIowa.edu (ruth.nwciowa.edu [198.178.167.5]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781DE195FA0 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:35:22 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: strange problem Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:35:10 -0600 Message-ID: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B88@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: strange problem Thread-Index: AcLTAzyoZQgWPvgfTM69nCeLqGcAwQApD1Dw From: "Vellinga, Mark" To: "Alvin Oga" Cc: X-Archive-Number: 200302/24 X-Sequence-Number: 1087 Thank you for your response. You're correct that I cannot ping these machines. Sorry to ask this, but is that a problem? For example, from the machine running majordomo I can send an email to my .org account and the message is sent successfully. It's just when I include my .org account in a majordomo mailing list that the message does not go through successfully. Do you think my problem is still as you identified? Please accept my apology if I am asking too many questions, but I am very puzzled by this situation. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Alvin Oga [mailto:alvin@planet.fef.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:57 PM To: Vellinga, Mark Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: strange problem hi ya > I am running RedHat Linux 7.3 and majordomo 1-94.4-7. Majordomo seems > to work fine when sending emails to subscribers with the same domain as > the server (edu). Any other address (e.g., .org or .gov) does not seem > to work. I have no idea what is happening. Any suggestions? Please? what is the output of the following: what is the contents of /etc/resolv.conf can you ping those machines listed ?? am guessing these will not resolve for you ping www.berkeley.edu ping www.mit.edu ping www.kernel.org c ya alvin From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 13 13:46:44 2003 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6804195A3D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-154-98.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.154.98] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18jRBo-0001GT-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:46:40 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18jRBo-0005MF-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:46:40 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HA9OHS-000HPE-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:46:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:46:40 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@betty.goldmark.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: Re: strange problem In-Reply-To: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B88@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> Message-ID: References: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B88@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/25 X-Sequence-Number: 1088 On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Vellinga, Mark wrote: > [...] For example, from the machine running majordomo I can send an > email to my .org account and the message is sent successfully. Please send me a test message from that machine that way (telling me the name of the majordomo machine in that test message). I suspect that it isn't actually going through the mail transport system on that machine, but need to confirm. > It's just when I include my .org account in a majordomo mailing list > that the message does not go through successfully. Logs of the attempts to send such mail would be very useful. What MTA is that system using? Is it sendmail? By the way: A: No Q: Is top posting a good way to have a discussion? -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 13 21:49:31 2003 Received: from www.lofcom.com (oldradio.net [216.105.35.108]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39BF195A03 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.123.10] (lof@washdc3-ar1-4-46-251-038.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net [4.46.251.38]) by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20653; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:49:14 -0500 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B88@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> <128C3FC0721D9E4BA255D9D24752D861021D2B88@ruth.NWCIowa.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:38:09 -0500 To: List Managers Mailing list From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: strange problem X-Archive-Number: 200302/26 X-Sequence-Number: 1089 Folks; Shouldn't this discussion be taken to the majordomo mailing list ( http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/ )? According to the GreatCircle website, this is NOT the place for MLM-specific discussions, but rather is a, "platform-neutral forum for discussing issues related to managing Internet mailing lists." "Technical questions regarding particular software packages (for instance, Majordomo, LISTPROC, ListServ, etc.) are not appropriate for the List-Managers mailing list." Charlie From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 16 11:48:14 2003 Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBA51959DB; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-128-47.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.128.47] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18kUlk-0002Rh-00; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:48:08 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:48:08 -0700 To: majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: TLS handshake error Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/27 X-Sequence-Number: 1090 This problem has still not been resolved after almost 4 weeks. Several address, at several different domains, continuously bounce with the reason: (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) From what I understand about this, the mail server on which the lists reside is somehow detecting TLS capable incoming mail servers and is requesting a secure connection. This needs to be turned off. For the record, I manage mailing lists which reside on donated server space. I do not run the server itself, so do not have access to its configuration. Any questions about that should go to the guy who does: ben@exoticwarranty.com He runs sendmail (not sure what version) using Linux 2.4.18-17.7.x Would anyone know how to fix this? ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 16 12:41:56 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63661959DB; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18kVbe-0007Sl-00; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:41:46 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: TLS handshake error In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:48:08 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:41:46 -0800 Message-ID: <28690.1045428106@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/28 X-Sequence-Number: 1091 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:48:08 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > This problem has still not been resolved after almost 4 weeks. > Several address, at several different domains, continuously bounce > with the reason: > (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) You can get this with self-signed keys if they're configured to only accept keys signed by accepted registrars (eg Baltimore, Verisign, etc). > Would anyone know how to fix this? Sure, just disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect unlikely to happen. He's doing the Right Thing. Its the remote end which is being silly. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 16 13:26:24 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F3A195F62; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:26:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-128-47.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.128.47] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18kWIl-0002IY-00; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:26:19 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216142431.00b6d948@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:26:19 -0700 To: J C Lawrence From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: TLS handshake error Cc: majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <28690.1045428106@kanga.nu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/29 X-Sequence-Number: 1092 At 01:41 PM 2/16/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: > > (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) > > Would anyone know how to fix this? > >Sure, just disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect >unlikely to happen. Any clues as to how to do so? > He's doing the Right Thing. Its the remote end >which is being silly. This is one reason this problem has remained unresolved for so long: conflicting opinions on this. We've heard it's on our end, no, it's on their end, no, it's on our end, etc., etc. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 16 13:30:33 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16B1195A19; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18kWMm-0007sq-00; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:30:28 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM, list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: TLS handshake error In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:26:19 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030216142431.00b6d948@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216142431.00b6d948@pop.earthlink.net> 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:30:28 -0800 Message-ID: <30307.1045431028@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/30 X-Sequence-Number: 1093 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:26:19 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > At 01:41 PM 2/16/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: >> Sure, just disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect >> unlikely to happen. > Any clues as to how to do so? Under sendmail? No. I avoid sendmail fairly aggressively. The most I can say is that I've seen the configs in web wandering and noted to myself that Postfix and Exim were slicker. >> He's doing the Right Thing. Its the remote end which is being silly. > This is one reason this problem has remained unresolved for so long: > conflicting opinions on this. We've heard it's on our end, no, it's > on their end, no, it's on our end, etc., etc. Rejecting SMTP/TLS negotiations with self-signed certificates is silly. Whether that's the cause is another question. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 16 15:18:18 2003 Received: from MAIL03.toast.net (mail.toast.net [206.244.185.10]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EADA195A24; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:18:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from HOME (unverified [68.49.10.220]) by MAIL03.toast.net (Vircom SMTPRS 1.4.232) with SMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:13:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3E501C21.000001.00780@HOME> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:17:53 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Content-Type: Multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_TPCFQL80000000000000" X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (1850924) From: "Jim" References: <30307.1045431028@kanga.nu> X-FID: BA285063-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E11 X-FVER: X-FIT: X-FCOL: X-FCAT: X-FDIS: X-BG: <08AD7636-F78F-44E8-B683-3EB0CB833D3D> X-BGT: repeat X-BGC: #eff3f7 X-BGPX: left X-BGPY: 0px X-ASN: ANIM3D00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-ASNF: 0 X-ASH: ANIM3D00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-ASHF: 1 X-AN: 6486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-ANF: 0 X-AP: 6486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-APF: 1 X-AD: C3C52140-4147-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-ADF: 0 X-AUTO: X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: TLS handshake error X-Archive-Number: 200302/31 X-Sequence-Number: 1094 --------------Boundary-00=_TPCFQL80000000000000 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_UPCFLVC0000000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_UPCFLVC0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: J C Lawrence=0D Date: Sunday, February 16, 2003 4:55:06 PM=0D To: Bob Bish=0D Cc: majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM; list-managers@greatcircle.com=0D Subject: Re: TLS handshake error=0D =0D On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:26:19 -0700 =0D Bob Bish wrote:=0D > At 01:41 PM 2/16/2003, J C Lawrence wrote:=0D =0D >> Sure, just disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect=0D >> unlikely to happen.=0D =0D > Any clues as to how to do so?=0D =0D Under sendmail? No. I avoid sendmail fairly aggressively. The most I=0D can say is that I've seen the configs in web wandering and noted to=0D myself that Postfix and Exim were slicker.=0D =0D >> He's doing the Right Thing. Its the remote end which is being silly.=0D =0D > This is one reason this problem has remained unresolved for so long:=0D > conflicting opinions on this. We've heard it's on our end, no, it's=0D > on their end, no, it's on our end, etc., etc.=0D =0D Rejecting SMTP/TLS negotiations with self-signed certificates is silly.=0D Whether that's the cause is another question. =0D =0D -- =0D J C Lawrence =0D ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. =0D claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? =0D http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.=0D .=20 --------------Boundary-00=_UPCFLVC0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: Sunday, Februa= ry 16, 2003 4:55:06 PM
Subject: Re: TLS han= dshake error
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:26:19 -0700
Bob Bish <bobbish@earthlink.net> wrote:
= > At 01:41 PM 2/16/2003, J C Lawrence wrote:

>> Sure, just = disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect
>> unlikely= to happen.

> Any clues as to how to do so?

Under sendmail= ? No. I avoid sendmail fairly aggressively. The most I
can say is that I= 've seen the configs in web wandering and noted to
myself that Postfix a= nd Exim were slicker.

>> He's doing the Right Thing. Its the r= emote end which is being silly.

> This is one reason this problem= has remained unresolved for so long:
> conflicting opinions on this.= We've heard it's on our end, no, it's
> on their end, no, it's on ou= r end, etc., etc.

Rejecting SMTP/TLS negotiations with self-signed c= ertificates is silly.
Whether that's the cause is another question.
=
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonat= as.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a de= vil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~cl= aw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
.
____________________________= ________________________
=3D""  IncrediMail - Email has finally evo= lved - Click Here --------------Boundary-00=_UPCFLVC0000000000000-- --------------Boundary-00=_TPCFQL80000000000000 Content-Type: unknown/unknown; name="IMSTP.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhFAAPALMIAP9gAM9gAM8vAM9gL/+QL5AvAGAvAP9gL////wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh+QQJFAAIACwA AAAAFAAPAAAEVRDJSaudJuudrxlEKI6BURlCUYyjKpgYAKSgOBSCDEuGDKgr AtC3Q/R+hkPJEDgYCjpKr5A8WK9OaPFZwHoPqm3366VKyeRtE30tVVRscMHD qV/u+AgAIfkEBWQACAAsAAAAABQADwAABBIQyUmrvTjrzbv/YCiOZGmeaAQA IfkECRQACAAsAgABABAADQAABEoQIUOrpXIOwrsPxiQUheeRAgUA49YNhbCq K1kS9grQhXGAhsDBUJgZAL2Dcqkk7ogFpvRAokSn0p4PO6UIuUsQggSmFjKX dAgRAQAh+QQFCgAIACwAAAAAFAAPAAAEEhDJSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oBAAh +QQJFAAIACwCAAEAEAANAAAEShAhQ6ulcg7Cuw/GJBSF55ECBQDj1g2FsKor WRL2CtCFcYCGwMFQmBkAvYNyqSTuiAWm9ECiRKfSng87pQi5SxCCBKYWMpd0 CBEBACH5BAVkAAgALAAAAAAUAA8AAAQSEMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmgEADs= --------------Boundary-00=_TPCFQL80000000000000 Content-Type: Image/unknown; name="BackGrnd.jpg" Content-ID: <08AD7636-F78F-44E8-B683-3EB0CB833D3D> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA/+4AIUFk b2JlAGTAAAAAAQMAEAMCAwYAAAHbAAAC1gAABZX/2wCEABALCwsMCxAMDBAX Dw0PFxsUEBAUGx8XFxcXFx8eFxoaGhoXHh4jJSclIx4vLzMzLy9AQEBAQEBA QEBAQEBAQEABEQ8PERMRFRISFRQRFBEUGhQWFhQaJhoaHBoaJjAjHh4eHiMw Ky4nJycuKzU1MDA1NUBAP0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQP/CABEIAGUAcwMBIgACEQED EQH/xACAAAEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIGAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ARABAAICAwEAAgMAAAAAAAAAAQARIQIxQRIiQDIQMFARAAICAgIBBAIDAQEA AAAAAAERACExQVFhcYGRobECEsHhMtHxEgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQ/9oA DAMBAAIRAxEAAADtRZYE1ASghQFgUZoCkKSwLmhcllAEqkSkqFAlhUomoAS3 IoJqFlDNpFEAQFE1AIVYAWIVKAJRNZpYCwVmmshKACA0CBAUCBYGwf/aAAgB AgABBQD8B/yP/9oACAEDAAEFAPz6/or8H//aAAgBAQABBQC2+ZeHjbD+saX6 hwXeDW1Rg4xLLTa+m7ZiIEsI1MTiHP1dYpvFADiFM1/X6nq9byuwdPPz5oFo fWlEMQ9ULKrWq2ppG9Y2J6INQma9lVTRdlUKgHzXXSEECw1SYu5WsGoJPkis ZYpx31GvXZQ/JM3VwShzVTsp1EZbBI8LcaUSih86+s2Zl4Wp6+lAZnVsDkjd ku5m+lJTdXDG2SHM9M2wKX1YxsaZTTwmoVrYnqsMrM652yjs01K0mtbGAz6Y 5dpfqNz06qpq5QNjiIjiZtbhtceNuf0jyeqGgu6rXMvI4omPWbPMYzEfMI+a xHnFvOP4/9oACAECAgY/AGP/2gAIAQMCBj8AY//aAAgBAQEGPwB72Yucb1Bf IhFEaeZ+xRXFQELN+HEUQdjU0Xn4g9gRCQcpw1yajGYsP/kFvUzvjUBWrIMF HI2OJQNEAjiEEFdTmfG/MTHq5RFOnpTV3kzCBx7x4YOD1AV5uYJvnqMA0hep jfwpYCwC4Bx3q55zeZRBCw9TkoIuHw78RdczSNH2mgqcLpRC+RASAkA3B13m cYd5mR84c/yOx4lWtRAZ6mGDhiP9WgXVyhWA+xDgMOWGMsTg/wBTz8SjjXrP 8hHIlX1MZ6mDzgc/cIV/iyN1GBR0MQMKjnEzvvMz8mUkErKlfqU63iV+IKNH 7mNZBLFQEpEDeDOV32IVn8WR4caoywqI2p695mbZzNUQIcKfk0bo+0NpCqn7 CiQiNGXkdQen1DpjGeZ7WNw3pK+I93maCPc16+Zkf6XxMCsFwAkaiIB57vc/ IAhZ/HqZBBbB0ZokAEOGxsYqBgPp8agQBu4VSMJdqx6SwDsGBrTmAR93uZGX 6KePowEADAIjoX8gw459CICaW/MLGvodQfkDW71zBxRHtB3j3jC4PMIYoAgK NfPMCQNN7jCzvlzXPopzhQvNZY3CRya9ZrEFfRE0iCB5mscZuVYfKmAi94uE 3Q8qfytQ7xD0svmFcmaxNPI8iMjh3pmF2HbzqeUi+YkiD/MrOl5LmbwPuWVf mXpv3hDH8qAjPpiZHXkRnSd6ZhB53mejzKV6US0K9TCCLyCeIhtETX5MsHBG JkD/ANiFkMCE2qGoCdZ8Q8AMGpYFqEhdhRIYH3CF3d1M/Mexma+4CwdQ2Ddc x0exAlmj04QUQd8QWLB/iB5GxmEg5TENVZqPYzFV8eHAy9T/AEc8a4n3Ov6g /VwvE6lpQ4VNysXzhS8esOO8w/rlF/rypjV3B5H1Knr8T//Z --------------Boundary-00=_TPCFQL80000000000000-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sat Feb 22 19:18:59 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD101959DB for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:18:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00903 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:24:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:19:53 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/32 X-Sequence-Number: 1095 >From the latest EFF mailer... -------------------- snip snip -------------------- * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. EFF believes that delivery of legitimate e-mail needs to be carefully protected as a fundamental part of any solution to the spam problem. Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in mailing lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. EFF is looking for people who administer opt-in e-mail mailing lists and have had difficulty because their messages have been mislabeled as spam, causing delivery to fail. Our hope is to connect the folks facing this problem so that they can work together to find a global solution that both respects the Internet as a place of free speech (and e-mail as a vital organizing tool) while protecting Internet users and sysadmins from the problems that *real* spam causes. Contact mailinglistsheadaches@eff.org. ------------------------------------------------------ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 06:26:37 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD57195ADD for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 06:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-89.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.89]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NEQNal006888 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NEOHx09847 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NEQQHx021452 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NEQQsi021451 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:26:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:26:26 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/33 X-Sequence-Number: 1096 On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 07:19:53PM -0800, JC Dill wrote: > >From the latest EFF mailer... > > -------------------- snip snip -------------------- > * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. > > Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in mailing > lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". I am aware of a number of improperly-run mailing list which are either not opt-in (but claim to be -- a common spammer lie) or which are improperly run (without closed-loop confirmation) that are blocked. This is an entirely good thing, and should be encouraged in order to prod list-owners into behaving as responsible members of the Internet community. Of course, individual users may forget that they've signed up for something and report it as spam: but that's easily fixed simply by hanging onto all subscribe/unsubscribe logs permanently. (I've got mine, or at least I think/hope I do. They compress nicely. ;-) ) JC: perhaps you might want to share here the information that you sent to spam-l about the link between the EFF and well-known spamhaus Topica. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 07:36:52 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16178195A50 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 07:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NFg63w010230; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 07:42:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 07:36:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> Message-Id: <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/34 X-Sequence-Number: 1097 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:26 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have > been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". > Not FUD. mailing lists are losing an increasingly significant number of messages to badly written and managed spam filters. So are regular users, because of false positives. Definitely not FUD. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 08:03:33 2003 Received: from host4.ctc.net (host4.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453D4195A93 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host4.ctc.net (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license 2d687b22c655f23831a2faa19b737467) with ESMTP id <20030223160447.IQLX3575.host4@katie.vnet.net>; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:04:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1NG3Nl24532; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:03:23 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:03:22 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Rich Kulawiec , Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/35 X-Sequence-Number: 1098 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:26 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have > > been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". > > > > Not FUD. mailing lists are losing an increasingly significant > number of messages to badly written and managed spam filters. > So are regular users, because of false positives. > > Definitely not FUD. I agree that bad filtering is a problem. Bad filtering appears to hit mailing lists more often than regular email. So far, I haven't seen a huge problem... Then again, I'm getting a much greater volume of delivery failures, many I can't explain. - murr - From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 08:07:29 2003 Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [192.43.244.124]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FB4195FE0 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6848124013 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:07:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from infohigh.infohigh.com (portal.ipsec.ucar.edu [128.117.64.105]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A46124013 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:07:18 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] From: Greg Woods To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 23 Feb 2003 09:07:17 -0700 Message-Id: <1046016438.2219.13.camel@infohigh> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=FWD_MSG,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJECT_IS_LIST version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200302/36 X-Sequence-Number: 1099 On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 08:36, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > Not FUD. mailing lists are losing an increasingly significant number of > messages to badly written and managed spam filters I don't consider it a *huge* problem at our site, but there have been some incidents of users that were using SpamAssassin having some legitimate mail blocked. Usually these were messages of a commercial nature, but coming from mailing lists that the user asked for. Unfortunately it is hard to tell the difference between solicited and unsolicited commercial mail; it requires the user to install explicit whitelists for their commercial mailing lists, or not use SpamAssassin. Another problem has been mismanaged hosts with legitimate users on them. One example is a woman here whose mother is a schoolteacher, and trying to send her mail from a k12 site that had been blacklisted because it was installed by someone who didn't really know what they were doing and it was an open relay. We tried for days to contact someone at the school who even knew what we meant by "open relay", but it was hopeless. So the user was forced to choose between turing off spam blocks and dealing with the spam, or not being able to get mail from the one person on the net she cared about getting mail from. Now, this is just one example. Overall, I think our spam filtering here has been very effective, blocking large numbers of spams with very few false positives. But these situations can and do happen despite our best efforts. Frankly, I can't think of any way to block spam that doesn't also risk losing at least a small amount of legitimate mail too. On the other hand, we can't not take any measures to block spam. We've had some users here (including me) who were getting hundreds of spams a day prior to the installing of DNS-based blacklisting and SpamAssassin. It was getting to the point where it was difficult to use e-mail for its legitimate purposes due to the volume of spam. So what do we do? I'm all for looking for better answers, but I'm not convinced that there can ever be an answer that is 100% perfect at blocking spam and only spam. And I can guarantee that anti-spam legislation can and will be used to control things other than spam that the government doesn't like, so I don't think there is a good legal answer either. The last thing we need is getting lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats involved. Those are the same people who brought us the DMCA. And since most spam crosses international borders, it's not clear how effective a law can be anyway. --Greg From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 08:27:43 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC69195A19 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-89.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.89]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NGRVal021823 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NGPEx10263 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NGRNHx025395 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NGRNSl025394 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:27:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:27:23 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223162723.GA25339@gsp.org> References: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96E29AE2-4744-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/37 X-Sequence-Number: 1100 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 07:36:34AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Not FUD. mailing lists are losing an increasingly significant number of > messages to badly written and managed spam filters. So are regular > users, because of false positives. Okay, let's assume you're right and I'm wrong. Solution: Exterminate the spamming vermin. If the spammers go away, then the need to filter their effluent goes away as well. Unfortunately, some/many/too many ISPs refuse to terminate their spammers instantly, and this pro-spam/pro-abuse policy (whether out of greed or just incompetence) allows spammers to stay online in the same place for months or years at a time, with predictable consequences. So IMNSHO going after poorly-written filters (or in the case of some, filters written/sold by spammers themselves, e.g. Sunbelt Software) is treating the symptom, not the disease. The focus needs to be on getting as many ISPs as possible to remove their spammers quickly -- and on blocking all mail traffic from ISPs which refuse to do so. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 08:52:09 2003 Received: from folkserv.net (64.90.176.26.nyinternet.net [64.90.176.26]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470E5195F39 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h1NGq6KG084104 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1NGq5YW084065 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:52:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tneff@grassyhill.net) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:52:05 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <267663125.1046001125@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) X-Archive-Number: 200302/38 X-Sequence-Number: 1101 --On Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:26 AM -0500 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 07:19:53PM -0800, JC Dill wrote: >> > From the latest EFF mailer... >> >> -------------------- snip snip -------------------- >> * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. >> >> Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in mailing >> lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. > > FUD. It's wrong to call this FUD, because even if the EFF is *wrong* on this, they're not trying to grind an axe or sell us something. They're trying to help, because they are the good guys. They would certainly like nothing better than to be able to attach a new footer to next month's mailings saying "Fortunately, we did some more research and we found that essentially no opt-in mailing lists are being wrongly blocked, so relax and have a good Net." Anyone who wants that outcome should volunteer to help the EFF expand its understanding. I don't think it's likely because I think they are hearing real complaints that are not easy to explain away. > ... I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have > been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". Yeah, right, but this is the classic slippery generalism. Any list that does get spam-blocked is not being "properly run" by definition, since preventing such an eventuality is one of the listowner's responsibilities. Until it's blocked, it's just an average list. After it's blocked, we can always find _something_ to point to and say, sure, if you hadn't set this or if you'd added that filter, this particular ISP wouldn't have blocked you. It should not be necessary for a list to be **PERFECTLY** configured, against some excruciatingly fussy and ever-changing checklist of do's, don'ts and gotchas - in order to avoid being blocked by one or more of an ever-growing gaggle of Net::Torquemadas. This is not about airheaded list admins buying Goldmine Address Blaster 4.0 and using it on an open relay to send block party announcements to everyone in Cleveland. This is about ordinary, working, responsible list admins (the kind who have lives) who have been running ordinary lists for 5-6-7-10 years, with never a problem worth mentioning or a complaint from anybody - and then either in a huge batch one day, or bit by bit over the weeks and months, they find delivery to members starts being blocked because the resident genius at an ISP (or a University or company or whatever) has installed a Spam Protection layer with God alone knows what configuration settings -- if any -- and it has suddenly decided that it doesn't like the Digest because it has a line of dashes in it, or instructions to join/leave at the bottom, or because the IP address of the list engine doesn't match the domain name of someone in a From: header, etc, etc, etc. It's about services like Hotmail deciding that they just can't handle the spam overwhelm, so anything that doesn't look like { From: Janey / To: Joey / Subj: When is the picnic? } gets silently dropped. I don't know whether the EFF can actually help or not, but if they want to expend some energy on an issue that really matters to the average Netizen, rather than just defending people who want to clone Bjork videos, I'm all for it. > Of course, individual users may forget that they've signed up for > something and report it as spam: but that's easily fixed simply by hanging > onto all subscribe/unsubscribe logs permanently. (I've got mine, or at > least I think/hope I do. They compress nicely. ;-) ) Nov 20 16:52:40 youradhere.net majordomo[9455] {rsk@gsp.org} subscribe mkmonfast rsk@gsp.org It would take about five minutes to write a script that generates a bogus subscribe/unsubscribe log for any database of addresses. Enough to confuse any ISP at least. A smart ISP knows this and would rely on other criteria... From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 09:39:09 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CEA1959F8 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06149 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:44:29 -0800 Message-ID: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:40:06 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/39 X-Sequence-Number: 1102 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 07:19:53PM -0800, JC Dill wrote: > >>>From the latest EFF mailer... >> >>-------------------- snip snip -------------------- >>* Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. >> >>Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in mailing >>lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. > > FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have > been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". It happened to the inet-access list when some dofus subscriber accidentally/mistakenly/ignorantly (your pick) sent a list post to SpamCop. I've read about *many* legitimate opt-in discussion lists that have been blocked at AOL, and the onerous contract AOL wants list owners to sign to be unblocked. In one case, the contract stated that if you signed it you couldn't disclose it. A list owner discussed this *proposed* contract with his lawyer and they determined that if he *didn't* sign it, he *could* disclose the terms of the contract, and that's what he did. It's out there on the web somewhere. It is a very depressing story, he had to let his AOL subscribers lose so that the rest of us could know what AOL was up to (and may still be up to, who knows?). > I am aware of a number of improperly-run mailing list which are either not > opt-in (but claim to be -- a common spammer lie) or which are improperly > run (without closed-loop confirmation) that are blocked. This is an > entirely good thing, and should be encouraged in order to prod list-owners > into behaving as responsible members of the Internet community. In neither of the above cases were these improperly run mailing lists. They were being *improperly blocked* by bone-headed ISP admins. List owners should not have to continually jump thru these hoops because those ISP admins who seek to block spam keep on throwing the baby out with the bath water. > Of course, individual users may forget that they've signed up for > something and report it as spam: but that's easily fixed simply by hanging > onto all subscribe/unsubscribe logs permanently. (I've got mine, or at > least I think/hope I do. They compress nicely. ;-) ) > > JC: perhaps you might want to share here the information that you sent > to spam-l about the link between the EFF and well-known spamhaus Topica. I didn't "share the information" with spam-l, I corrected a mispost that implied that the information was new, or the relationship startling. Anyone who knows Brad Templeton or the EFF knows what both are about, (and if they don't know, there's Google to find out). Brad's involvement with Topica goes back 4 years (and is openly disclosed on both Topica's site and in Brad's bio) and his involvement with EFF issues goes back more than 10 years (per groups.google.com). There's nothing new here. For many of us, it IS possible to support a single project (such as ensuring that legitimate opt-in discussion lists are not blocked) even when other goals of the organization (or its members, even the Chairman of its Board) are not perfectly aligned with one's own goals or views. If this isn't possible for you Rich, please don't try to limit the rest of us and insist that we see the world thru your murky colored glasses, OK? jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 10:23:09 2003 Received: from firehouse.net (machine-254.firehouse.net [192.160.237.254]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DFF719602E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 58529 invoked by uid 85); 23 Feb 2003 18:23:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO machine-254.firehouse.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.ncren.net with SMTP; 23 Feb 2003 18:23:02 -0000 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:23:00 -0500 To: JC Dill Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223182300.GA56490@shazam.wetworks.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KsGdsel6WgEHnImy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: "Alan B. Clegg" X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.69 (Count Fleet) X-TMDA-Fingerprint: 1X+z1AOfRnr9jOWMvkSPLdf/vic X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 X-Archive-Number: 200302/40 X-Sequence-Number: 1103 --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unless the network is lying to me again, JC Dill said:=20 > I've read about *many* legitimate opt-in discussion lists that have been= =20 > blocked at AOL, and the onerous contract AOL wants list owners to sign=20 > to be unblocked. In one case, the contract stated that if you signed it= =20 > you couldn't disclose it. A list owner discussed this *proposed*=20 > contract with his lawyer and they determined that if he *didn't* sign=20 > it, he *could* disclose the terms of the contract, and that's what he=20 > did. It's out there on the web somewhere. It is a very depressing=20 > story, he had to let his AOL subscribers lose so that the rest of us=20 > could know what AOL was up to (and may still be up to, who knows?). That would be me: http://www.mailinglists.org/aol AlanC {who has sent mail to the EFF address already} --=20 I must study politics and war that my sons |=20=20 may have liberty to study mathematics and | alan@clegg.com philosophy. -- John Adams | --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+WRGEyJP8xSfQVdsRAnduAJ4zeaksyGLDIMP9LUOmeRPBhEmp/gCfdx0n Cy9urxmdDF4/nyhQLwP14TY= =k6oh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 11:26:50 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CF9195A87 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n1lr-0004lb-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:26:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:27:07 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/41 X-Sequence-Number: 1104 Rich Kulawiec wrote: >FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have >been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". > Well, then it's an awareness issue at your side. Many service providers block lists based on receipt patterns without considering whether the subscriptions were validly requested by the recipients. While it is possible to get "whitelisted" by them once you explain and demonstrate your white-hattedness, they don't make it possible to do this in advance, nor in most cases do they even acknowledge that it's possible without weeks of wrangling. In other cases, complaints of spam came *because* of confirmation messages -- we've been listed at Spamcop because of users getting subscribe-slammed and reporting our confirmation messages as spam. >Of course, individual users may forget that they've signed up for >something and report it as spam: but that's easily fixed simply by hanging >onto all subscribe/unsubscribe logs permanently. > That doesn't fix it -- that gives you the ammo to enter into a manual process to fix it, one by one, each time it's reported. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 11:28:43 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835F8195FFD for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n1nl-0007OT-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:28:41 -0800 Message-ID: <3E592101.2030305@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:29:05 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JC Dill Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> In-Reply-To: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/42 X-Sequence-Number: 1105 JC Dill wrote: > I didn't "share the information" with spam-l, I corrected a mispost > that implied that the information was new, or the relationship > startling. Anyone who knows Brad Templeton or the EFF knows what both > are about, (and if they don't know, there's Google to find out). > Brad's involvement with Topica goes back 4 years (and is openly > disclosed on both Topica's site and in Brad's bio) and his involvement > with EFF issues goes back more than 10 years (per groups.google.com). > There's nothing new here. So what are you saying -- because Brad Templeton is affiliated with Topica, and Brad Templeton is affiliated with EFF, there's somer smarmy connection that makes EFF spam-friendly? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 11:52:38 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E351959E8 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NJw63w012954; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:58:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:52:26 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Rich Kulawiec , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> Message-Id: <55A37F9C-4768-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/43 X-Sequence-Number: 1106 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >> FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have >> been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". >> > Well, then it's an awareness issue at your side. Here's some stuff to help awareness. First, the couple of links you should read if you don't want to go through all these links: http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000118.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000109.html Other stuff I've blogged on the topic: http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000081.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000144.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000149.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000170.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000170.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000182.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000184.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000200.html http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/000096.html It's getting brutal out there. I've got a bunch more stuff I haven't had time to write up. I'm glad rich doesn't think there's a problem. I wish I could live in whatever bubble of reality he's found, because out here with the rest of us, e-mail is rapidly falling apart, not just because of spam, but because of the increasingly hysterial (and badly done) reactions to the spam. I have great sympathy for the people trying to stop the spam, but it's gone beyond "baby with the bathwater" to "turning the flame thrower on the fricking bathtub". And they are increasingly uninterested in hearing when their "anti-spam" efforts backfire and turn into an even bigger problem. > In other cases, complaints of spam came *because* of confirmation > messages -- we've been listed at Spamcop because of users getting > subscribe-slammed and reporting our confirmation messages as spam. I've found spamcop quite clueful about these problems, and have been more than willing to remove those complaints and ban the complainers from submitting to Spamcop in the future. They're one of the few blackhole groups I've looked at that I'm willing to support. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 12:51:10 2003 Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BB11959E8 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n35U-0000CD-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:51:05 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:51:04 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Spam vs. viruses (was:EFF Mailing List Query) In-Reply-To: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/44 X-Sequence-Number: 1107 I get some addresses occasionally bounce messages back with something like (from an actual bounce message): (reason: 554 5.7.1 Message seems to be spam, rejected) although not ALL list messages are rejected by that member's ISP. Many ISPs, including big ones like AOL, go to great lengths in attempts to block spam. I hate spam as much as anyone, but if you think about it, it's just advertising. Check your snail mail, turn on the TV, open a magazine, take a drive down the street.....advertising permeates your life everywhere. Why is it such a big deal that it also comes in your e-mail? Why are the same kind of efforts NOT being made regarding viruses? They run rampant all over the Internet. They can also be spread among members of mailing lists, not through the mailing lists themselves, but by infected list members who have list messages stored on their computers. The senders of those messages will receive copies of the virus from the infected member. If all the ISPs attempting to block spam would block viruses, they would not spread very far at all and just die. They would not be worth the effort of those low-life scum who create and release them. Spammers are NOT going to go away. Viruses COULD go away if people on the 'net were as determined to defeat them as they are to defeat the undefeatable spam. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 13:24:42 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2823C1959F5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:24:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLOaal008305 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NLMUx10889 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLOeHx026566 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:24:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NLOe6a026565 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:24:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:24:40 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223212440.GA26559@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/45 X-Sequence-Number: 1108 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:27:07AM -0800, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Well, then it's an awareness issue at your side. Could well be. I *do* read an embarrassingly large number of mailing lists and newsgroups as well as a smattering of web sites, and I run a couple dozen mailing lists, most of which are US-centric, but a couple of which have [roughly] worldwide membership -- so perhaps I'm simply not reading the right things and/or I've just been dumb-lucky. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 13:30:11 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D311959F5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLU3an018499 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:30:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NInax10588 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NIplHx025974 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:51:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NIpl6g025973 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:51:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:51:47 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/46 X-Sequence-Number: 1109 Let me make something clear: I support a number of the EFF's positions. I think they've done some good. I think they are trying to do some good in other areas, with success/failure TBD at a later date. I am, however, very disappointed in their weak anti-spam position. They do not seem to have grasped yet that the largest threat to online free speech is spam and that therefore spammers and their supporters are the mortal enemy of everyone who values online free speech. They have not yet -- as far as I can tell -- focused on the core of the problem: spammers/spam-supporters, and have instead focused on the secondary after-effects, such as erroneous blocking/filtering. IMNSHO, this is nibbling around the edges of the problem rather than attacking it at the center. I would expect to see, for example, the EFF strongly denouncing the astroturf campaign covered here: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-985023.html which is nothing more than a coalition of spammers unhappy that netizens are finding ways (some good, some not-so-good) to defend themselves. I would expect to see the EFF strongly supporting major antispam blacklists. I would expect to see the EFF strongly critizing large spam operations. I would expect to see the EFF organizing boycotts of ISPs which refuse to remove their spammers. I would expect all these things (and more) because I view them all as steps toward ensuring the continued viability of email as a communications medium -- free speech doesn't mean squat if the medium by which it's exercised doesn't work. Obviously, my expectations haven't been met and probably aren't going to be met. Thus my disappointment. Others, who have different expectations, may be more or less disappointed, as they see fit. So be it. But it is worth remembering that (to pick a quasi-random point in time) ten years ago we didn't have to face this issue: erroneous spam-blocking was almost unknown. The difference between now and then -- and the blame for it -- lies solely with spammers and their supporters, who have made the situation so bad that even poor solutions look reasonable to people who are desperate for relief. That sucks all the way around, especially when some of people peddling anti-spam "solutions" are spammers themselves. But here we are. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 13:43:43 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3E0195FDC for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLhRal031618 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NLfLx10915 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:41:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLhWHx026592 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:43:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NLhWIW026591 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:43:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:43:32 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> References: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> <55A37F9C-4768-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55A37F9C-4768-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/47 X-Sequence-Number: 1110 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 11:52:26AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Here's some stuff to help awareness. [...] Thanks. Duly bookmarked and will read after suitable application of coffee. ;-) > I'm glad rich doesn't think there's a problem. I wish I could live in > whatever bubble of reality he's found, because out here with the rest > of us, e-mail is rapidly falling apart, not just because of spam, but > because of the increasingly hysterial (and badly done) reactions to the spam. 1. "Bubble"? Try "31 inches of snow". ;-) 2. I agree with the rest of your comment: (to borrow a bit from what you went on to say) I too have great sympathy for the people trying to stop the spam -- UNLESS they're also the people responsible for the spam. For instance, I have no sympathy at all for Yahoo, since Yahoo Stores allows spammers to operate with impunity from its space: doesn't matter who reports them, how many times, how clear/murky the evidence is, etc.: they do *nothing*. And then they turn around and tout their anti-spam measures to their subscribers. It would solve not only some/much of their problem to take the time/effort/money put into the latter and instead put it into clobbering their own pet spammers. s/Yahoo/XO/ s/Yahoo/Rackspace/ s/Yahoo/Verio/ s/Yahoo/Level 3/ s/Yahoo/C & W/ s/Yahoo/ATT/ and so on, with different variations on the theme, but the same song. Part of this may be due to economic conditions: turning off a paying customer, even a spammer, doesn't go over well when co-lo centers sit mostly empty. But I recognize that spam victims are desperate. My little ISP operation passed the spam event horizon last year: the point at which the volume of spam rejected exceeded the amount of legitimate mail being delivered. It's now running at about 65-70% spam -- and that's with a custom anti-spam config that's been tuned to include whitelisting for all customers so that (I sure hope) I don't block anything they've asked for plus blacklisting of a decent chunk of the most volumnious spammers (e.g. azooogle, hispeedmedia, and so on) and a few other things. Hence the proliferation/popularity of DNSBLs (of which there are now roughly 500), server-side filtering tools (dozens?) and end-user tools (I don't even have an estimate). Some of these are clever and accurate; others hew with a broadsword. NONE of them would exist if ISPs would just Do The Right Thing, because we all have better things to do with our time than spend it tweaking the anti-spam stuff. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 13:52:49 2003 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231A5195FD3 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n43D-0001T7-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:52:47 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:51:23 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> References: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/48 X-Sequence-Number: 1111 At 11:51 AM 2/23/2003, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >They do not seem to have grasped yet that the largest threat to online >free speech is spam and that therefore spammers and their supporters are >the mortal enemy of everyone who values online free speech. I'm sorry, but I see this as contradictory. Some might argue that spam is "free speech". You want "free speech" on the Internet EXCEPT for those whose messages you don't want to see??? I was in college in the late 1960s. There was a "free speech" demonstration after a professor was fired over something he said. During this, an anti-war activist stood up and said Army recruiters should not be allowed on campus. He was shouted down by those who said this was a "free speech" demonstration, so why should the Army recruiters be denied theirs? They had a point. "Free speech" must be applied to all, whether you agree with them or not. ...Bob PS - I am not defending spammers here. I am only attempting to point out a flaw in this logic. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 13:56:59 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571F31962A5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLural023501 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NLslx10983 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NLuxHx026635 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NLuwkh026634 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:56:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:56:58 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses (was:EFF Mailing List Query) Message-ID: <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/49 X-Sequence-Number: 1112 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:51:04PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > Why are the same kind of efforts NOT being made regarding viruses? They are. The best way to eliminate them, however, is to not run operating systems and applications which are readily susceptible to being infected by them and/or propagating them, and many (MANY) users are unwilling to do this. Hence the problem of viruses and the need for many anti-virus products, constant updating of rulesets for them, and so on. [ In fact, there have been several discussions on Spam-L about whether or not viruses ARE spam: they do fit the definition ("unsolicited bulk email"), and they do cause many of the same problems. Consensus seems to be emerging -- though I don't purport to speak for anyone other than myself -- that yes, this does make sense, and so it may be appropriate to consider strategies for both problems together, even though the tactics used may be different. ] As to the rest of your article, which I'm going to glibly boil down to "What's all the fuss over spam?" I would suggest that you read any/all of: http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined http://www.cauce.org/about/problem.shtml http://mail-abuse.org/manage.html http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2635.html http://www.cauce.org http://www.spamhaus.org http://www.honet.com/Nadine http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l http://cluelessmailers.org http://www.Suespammers.org http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/index/spam.html http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam http://www.spamfaq.net http://www.spamlaws.com http://www.duh.org/spamblock http://www.spews.org http://junkfilter.zer0.org where you will find varied explanations, case histories, etc. You can do this while I'm reading all those URLs that Chuq sent along. ;-) ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:09:30 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19338195A2E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n4JJ-0003ls-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:09:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5946AE.6010306@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:09:50 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/50 X-Sequence-Number: 1113 Rich Kulawiec wrote: >I am, however, very disappointed in their weak anti-spam position. >They do not seem to have grasped yet that the largest threat to online >free speech is spam and that therefore spammers and their supporters are >the mortal enemy of everyone who values online free speech. They have >not yet -- as far as I can tell -- focused on the core of the problem: >spammers/spam-supporters, and have instead focused on the secondary >after-effects, such as erroneous blocking/filtering. IMNSHO, this is >nibbling around the edges of the problem rather than attacking it at >the center. > > I'm sorry, but I can't disagree more. I, and every other publisher around, has a *right* to act like a citizen and not an activist, no matter how much this burns your ass. It takes too much of my time to allow people to publish information for me to allot any of it to preventing bad-guys from doing so, especially since most of my clients will be perceived as spammers by their enemies, even though they never send a single piece of mail that is not to a confirmed subscriber. Our issue is that governments and corporations may choose to find mail from our clients unacceptable even when the subscriber himself requests it. We have to work in the here-and-now. For me, it is a foregone conclusion that we will never be able to do anything to eliminate spam completely, because it will always be possible for entities -- service providers, publishers, whatever -- to connect to the net in a new identity, and nothing will ever auto-detect the first piece of spam sent and pull the plug. Right now, >90% of the mail I receive at my personal account is spam. I use no filtering, and it takes me about 2 minutes a day to find the messages I care about. What *does* interfere with my ability, and my users' ability, to get the job done is even a single false positive -- even if it is only tagged or refiled, not blocked or deleted, that action creates the preconception that the filtering is accurate, which intrinsically makes it useless. And that's why OPG does not offer its users any sort of spam blocking. If you want to devote time to putting pressure on ISPs, fine. I'll write a check. I'll sign a petition. I have too much useful work to do in my corner of the net to devote any energy to the whole net. By the way, EFF's interest in the blocking/filtering area has nothing at all to do with spam. It has to do with content that might be found objectionable, and with filters that might falsely mark content as objectionable. Even if the net never carried another piece of unsolicited commercial email, this vital issue would be there. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:12:10 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F90F195B1A for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NMHd3w014756; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:17:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:11:55 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/51 X-Sequence-Number: 1114 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 01:43 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > 2. I agree with the rest of your comment: (to borrow a bit from what > you went on to say) I too have great sympathy for the people trying > to stop the spam -- UNLESS they're also the people responsible for the > spam. > For instance, I have no sympathy at all for Yahoo, since Yahoo Stores > allows spammers to operate with impunity from its space: doesn't matter > who reports them, how many times, how clear/murky the evidence is, > etc.: > they do *nothing*. You'll want to read this then: http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000525.html > And then they turn around and tout their anti-spam > measures to their subscribers. They really seem to have been working at closing holes in yahoogroups. for a while, that was a real pesthole, adn the spam being sent to yahoo lists seems to be getting under control. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing this ALSO... > Part of this may be due to economic conditions: turning off a paying > customer, even a spammer, doesn't go over well when co-lo centers sit > mostly empty. Of course, that's the same reason supermarkets don't enforce 10 items or less. they only see the customer they don't want to piss off. They don't see the customers that get pissed and never come back without complaining... > others hew with a broadsword. NONE of them would exist if ISPs would > just Do The Right Thing, because we all have better things to do with > our time than spend it tweaking the anti-spam stuff. > I'm not really sure that's true. First, define "right thing" reality: spam isn't illegal. Until THAT changes, "right thing" is up for interpretation on very many levels. if it's not illegal, it's hard to take the moral high ground against it. Second, at a high level, we ALL hate spam, at a more detailed level, we basically can't agree on what it is, and that seriously splits our attempts to get anything done, because nobody in the anti-spam world seems to have figured out it's better to get the easy stuff first and then make another run at the next set, so nobody really seems to be trying to get together and solve that first set of spam everyone can agree on. Third, thanks to the high preponderance of open relays overseas, it's not always easy for ISPs to do the right thing, since the place where the spam comes from isn't within control of the ISP, even if the bastard controlling those open relays is. but the big issue is we all may hate spam, but it's not illegal. Until it is, ISPs will continue to make the argument that it's business. And frankly, they're right. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:16:39 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AED5195A64 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18n4QA-0002Xm-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:16:30 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:51:23 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> References: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:16:29 -0800 Message-ID: <9781.1046038589@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/52 X-Sequence-Number: 1115 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:51:23 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > "Free speech" must be applied to all, whether you agree with them or > not. You may speak freely, you may not force me to listen. You may produce packets freely, but you may not force your packets on me or my networks. You may spam freely, but you may not force your spam on me or my networks. You may spam freely, but you may not lie and misrepresent your spam to me or my networks. You may swing your arms freely, but you my not punch me in the nose. The point where the confusion seems to enter is that email is not a subscriber business. To send email to a node doesn't require a prior relationship asides from simple IP routability. As such the sender of an email _is_ trespassing, knowingly, and with conscious intent. However, the critical difference between spam and other email is that one has the reasonable if generic expectation of being welcomed by the recipient. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:19:20 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAC7195FD3 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:19:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n4St-0001U2-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:19:19 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223151819.00b88008@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:19:18 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <9781.1046038589@kanga.nu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/53 X-Sequence-Number: 1116 At 03:16 PM 2/23/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: >The point where the confusion seems to enter is that email is not a >subscriber business. To send email to a node doesn't require a prior >relationship asides from simple IP routability. As such the sender of >an email _is_ trespassing, knowingly, and with conscious intent. >However, the critical difference between spam and other email is that >one has the reasonable if generic expectation of being welcomed by the >recipient. Then you'd better start fighting junk mail and telephone solicitors as well. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:20:51 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DAF19603F for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n4UJ-0003PO-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:20:47 -0800 Message-ID: <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:21:12 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/54 X-Sequence-Number: 1117 Rich Kulawiec wrote: >They are. The best way to eliminate them, however, is to not run operating >systems and applications which are readily susceptible to being infected by >them and/or propagating them, and many (MANY) users are unwilling to do this. > I am willing to bet that, if Linux actually ever does increase its desktop market share, the number of viruses/worms for it will go up tremendously as well, for two reasons: 1) Only critical mass will make anyone care to write them. 2) As a more naive user community comes on-board, they will update their systems to reflect security advisories much less frequently than the geekerie do. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:28:33 2003 Received: from penguin.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [216.240.39.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5430195B4E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from postmodern.com (gatwick.postmodern.com [216.240.39.14]) by penguin.postmodern.com (8.12.5/mcb-20021115-1) with ESMTP id h1NMT6fn020037 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:29:06 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:28:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: "Michael C. Berch" To: List Managers List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <267663125.1046001125@[192.168.254.79]> Message-Id: <2A092A80-477E-11D7-AC89-003065F94B0A@postmodern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/55 X-Sequence-Number: 1118 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 08:52 AM, Tom Neff wrote: > Any list that does get spam-blocked is not being "properly run" by > definition, since preventing such an eventuality is one of the > listowner's responsibilities. I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me it's the user's responsibility to make sure that they're able to receive the content they want, whether it's a filtered mailing list, a blocked web site, interference with P2P or chat/gamer services, etc. If the list owner is running the list using any reasonably standard mailing list software, I'd say his/her responsibility ends there, and it's up to the user (in the case of a mailing list) to make sure that either it's removed from their personal filter, whitelisted by the site admin or ISP, or else finding another service provider or method of reading the list (web mail, web archive, etc.). -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:46:56 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B623195A00 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:44:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NMiCal019964 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NMg4x11090 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NMiFHx000654 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:44:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NMiE2v000651 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:44:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:44:14 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223224414.GA28569@gsp.org> References: <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/56 X-Sequence-Number: 1119 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:11:55PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > You'll want to read this then: Oh, great. *More* stuff to read. ;-) > They really seem to have been working at closing holes in yahoogroups. > for a while, that was a real pesthole, adn the spam being sent to yahoo > lists seems to be getting under control. Somewhat. On the other hand, I was forcibly subscribed to the "Nextel-1" mailing list at Yahoo a couple of months ago and multiple complaints via various channels into Yahoo got no response whatsoever. I've since received mail from a couple of other people who saw my report of that incident and say that the same thing has happened to them. This spammer's list is still operating at Yahoo as of the last time I checked. But yes, in general, the lists *are* better. What is still a complete cesspool is Yahoo Stores, where all sorts of spammers operate with impunity. > First, define "right thing" Okay, fair enough: upon receipt of and confirmation of convincing evidence indicating spamming, immediately and permanently terminate the customer without prior notice. (This applies to all resources engaged by the customer, not just the one implicated in spamming.) All funds, data and equipment (if any) are forfeit. Various responsible ISPs (e.g. JustTheNet) have variations on this theme in their AUP, some written with considerably more elegance ;-), but the basic idea is that *nobody* gets nuked on suspicion of spam -- because joe-jobs are common and because due diligence demands that ISPs/hosting providers/etc. take proper care to ensure that they've carefully weighed the evidence before taking such a drastic step. But once it's clear, termination is swift and final. Unsurprisingly, ISPs which have this policy don't have much of a spam problem: spammers talk to each other, and word gets around. The converse made be said of spam-friendly ISPs. I find myself idly wondering how many list-owners here are having their mail blocked not because of errant content-filtering but because their own ISP has failed to remove its spammers, and is thus listed in various DNSBLs. You can check this by dropping the IP address of your outbound mail server(s) into any/all of: http://relays.osirusoft.com/cgi-bin/rbcheck.cgi http://combat.uxn.com http://www.OpenRBL.org http://www.spews.org [ I moved my stuff out of Verio ~1 year ago for precisely this reason: increasing chunks of Verio IP space were being listed by more and more DNSBLs because Verio refused to remove its spammers. ] > reality: spam isn't illegal. It *is* illegal in 27 states and a number of countries, so far. Granted, some of those statutes have an odd idea of what spam is/isn't, and some of them have no teeth, and some of them will be revised or supplanted by additional statutes (maybe), but -- to pick one -- spam is presently illegal in Washington state. > Second, at a high level, we ALL hate spam, at a more detailed level, we > basically can't agree on what it is,[...] Yes. It's surprising and disappointing to me that many people confuse spam with "any mail that I don't want". Attempts at education continue. ;-) > Third, thanks to the high preponderance of open relays overseas, it's > not always easy for ISPs to do the right thing [...] Absolutely correct. But ISPs which host the spamvertised web site, or host the spammer's DNS, or host the spammer's mailboxes, can take action -- and by doing so, do rather a lot to disrupt the spammer's operations. BTW, [some] spammers are shifting tactics away from open SMTP relays and onto open HTTP (and other) proxies. But the days when only the spammer's mail account(s) were removed are over. The days when any network resource attached to a spammer gets removed are here. ---Rsk [Please *do not* CC me on replies to messages on this mailing list. Thanks.] From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:48:28 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29F219646E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NMrr3w015166; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:53:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:48:07 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <9781.1046038589@kanga.nu> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/57 X-Sequence-Number: 1120 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:16 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > As such the sender of > an email _is_ trespassing, knowingly, and with conscious intent. > However, the critical difference between spam and other email is that > one has the reasonable if generic expectation of being welcomed by the > recipient. > sorry, that's one point of view. the other one is that if I stand on a street corner and you're within hearing, I don't have to shut up. if you want quiet, you can put earplugs in your ear. The online equivalent ot this is the argument that until you stop delivery of a piece of e-mail, the sender doesn't know you don't want it. If your system is open to accepting mail, I have no reason to not send it, do I? email is still at the equivalent of sites that used to not put passwords on accounts but told people not to misbehave once they logged in. we see how well that went over once enough people got on the net. e-mail has to figure out how to protect port 25 reliably but without locking out legitimate users. spamblocks and etc aren't the answer. (they're part of the answer, but not the answer). -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 14:54:23 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887871961D5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:54:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NMsAal014441 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NMq3x11123 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NMsDHx000945 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:54:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NMsD0L000944 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:54:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:54:13 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223225413.GA765@gsp.org> References: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/58 X-Sequence-Number: 1121 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:51:23PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > I'm sorry, but I see this as contradictory. Some might argue that spam > is "free speech". And if it *were* free speech, I would defend it, as I have defended other free speech causes on the 'net for over twenty years. But it's not. It's not speech at all. It's conduct. (Just as you, Bob, standing on the soapbox and telling everyone to Support The Purple Cows is free speech -- but dropping 100,000 copies of the STPC brochure on my front lawn is conduct.) Below is something that I wrote a while back which makes that argument. It was written in response to someone who raised the question of what kind of speech spam was and thus what [US] constitutional ramifications there might be for legislation pertaining to it. I especially recommend that you read Barry Shein's remarks from several years ago (URL included). ----Rsk Posit: No such analysis is necessary: spam is NOT speech and therefore all of the debate we could have over what kind of speech it is, what protections it might or might not enjoy, etc. is irrelevant. Spam is conduct: specifically, spam is conduct consisting of a denial-of-service attack which may or may not be targeted at users, systems, networks, mailing lists, or some combination of these, sometimes in small but often in very large quantities. One of the first people to clearly articulate this was Barry Shein (who I've CC'd on this so that he might correct me if he feels I'm taking his comments out-of-context or otherwise mis-reading their intent): Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9801/msg00014.html What he said several years ago is even more true today, as examples show up on a daily basis. "Vanilla" spam (i.e. spam which does not have forged headers, does not hijack open relay or proxies, etc.) is similar to other forms of abuse which take resources that are made available for use in moderation and abuses them by excessive use. In that sense, it's closely related to abuses such as ping flood attacks, article "floods" posted to Usenet; exhaustive downloads of large FTP archives; and other activities. It doesn't make illegitimate use of resources: it makes excessive use of resources -- which it is a denial-of-service attack and should be treated as such. "Sophisticated" spam (i.e. spam which uses forged headers, asymmetric routing, hijacked relays, hijacked proxies, and so on) compounds this by making illegitimate/unauthorized use of resources that belong neither to the sender nor the putative recipients. The legitimate owners and users of those intermediate systems are secondary victims of this attack, as they are also deprived of service, often to a large degree. Three examples: 1. One of my mail servers endured a sustained attack from a spammer's system last week. That remote box, which I traced back to an IP address in Japan, made more than 11,000 unsuccessful attempts to stuff unwanted traffic into mine. (It did this overnight; when I woke up in the morning, I firewalled off the originating address.) But I still have to pay for the bandwidth that was used: that system is on a burstable circuit whose pricing structure is a flat fee plus a surcharge for additional traffic. And -- in case you're wondering -- there's not the slightest question that it was spam: the only user account on that machine is mine, and it has never emitted a single mail message, so it couldn't possibly have signed up for anything. (The server exclusively handles mailing list traffic for a number of volunteer/non-profit organizations.) 2. I blocked all traffic from the well-known spammers at azoogle.com nearly a year ago. My mail servers return the correct response codes to every SMTP connection from them, indicating that access has been permanently denied; the text message which accompanies it indicates why. However, they're still pounding away multiple times per day, every day, on every mail server I have. A small sample of abridged log entries from the last 24 hours: Jan 19 16:49:03 sendmail: arg1=transport23b.azoogle.com, arg2=66.197.140.226, reject=550 5.0.0 Jan 19 17:23:41 sendmail: arg1=transport23e.azoogle.com, arg2=66.197.140.229, reject=550 5.0.0 Jan 20 09:06:19 sendmail: arg1=transport12c.azoogle.com, arg2=66.197.140.72, reject=550 5.0.0 I have 12,814 more log entries just like that in my archives. 3. A few months ago, a spammer conducted a "dictionary" attack against a domain that I host. This means that they attempted delivery of their messages to: abc@example.com abcd@example.com abcde@example.com [...] a.smith@example.com b.smith@example.com c.smith@example.com [...] asmith@example.com bsmith@example.com csmith@example.com [...] joe@example.com mary@example.com jim@example.com for a very large number of probable usernames. I let this one go -- because it was on a circuit with extra bandwidth and was directed against a mail server that was otherwise idle, and because I was curious to see how long it would go on. When it was done, several million individual delivery attempts had been made -- from a couple thousand different IP addresses, meaning that the spammer(s) had also abused thousands of other systems while abusing mine -- and probably others: I doubt my system was the sole target. [ end examples ] This happens every day, all day. Spam-monitoring/tracking forums like the spam-l mailing list and Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email have a constant stream of reports like this. (And would have more if (a) more admins were aware of them (b) more admins were aware of what's being done to their systems/networks and (c) more admins could spare the time.) My mail servers now reject more spam than they deliver mail. This, sadly, appears to be the trend. I am compelled to spend my time and my money attempting to stave off the abuse: I will probably need to pay additional charges for more rack space in the next 1-3 months in order to install a proxy SMTP host/firewall and, of course, I have to purchase the machine, configure it, pay for the bandwidth it uses, etc. And this is because -- unfortunately -- spam is NOT correctly treated as a denial-of-service attack, with all the ramifications that this implies, but is instead confused with the normal use of email for personal correspondence, ordinary mailing list traffic, order confirmations, and the thousand other legitimate uses of the SMTP protocol. So while I find free speech debates interesting (a) because I took a couple of Constitutional law courses and now occasionally make the mistake of thinking I understand something and (b) because I value free speech highly and once put my job on the line to defend it, I don't think they're in the least bit relevant here: to go back to my opening statement, spam is conduct, not speech. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:11:05 2003 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF0C19618E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1NNB2A01980 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:11:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:11:02 -0500 From: David Shaw To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223231102.GX9256@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223151819.00b88008@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223151819.00b88008@pop.earthlink.net> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (67% of Full) X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-Archive-Number: 200302/59 X-Sequence-Number: 1122 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 03:19:18PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > At 03:16 PM 2/23/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: > >The point where the confusion seems to enter is that email is not a > >subscriber business. To send email to a node doesn't require a prior > >relationship asides from simple IP routability. As such the sender of > >an email _is_ trespassing, knowingly, and with conscious intent. > >However, the critical difference between spam and other email is that > >one has the reasonable if generic expectation of being welcomed by the > >recipient. > > Then you'd better start fighting junk mail and telephone solicitors as > well. That analogy doesn't hold. A more proper analogy would be fighting postage-due junk mail, and telephone solicitors calling collect. With spam, the recipient pays (or recipient network pays, and passes the cost along). It's like getting telemarketing calls on your cell phone. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:11:11 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF481963E8 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18n5Gy-0000Sz-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:11:04 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:19:18 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030223151819.00b88008@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223151819.00b88008@pop.earthlink.net> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:11:04 -0800 Message-ID: <1796.1046041864@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/60 X-Sequence-Number: 1123 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:19:18 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > Then you'd better start fighting junk mail and telephone solicitors as > well. Ahh, I bulmarsh phone solicitors. Very effective. Its been at least 3 months since I last received a call from a phone solicitor, and that last was a market survey call -- at one point I made just over $1K a year in small claims courts actions against them. They're neither a problem or a worry (tho I wouldn't mind the cash in the current market (job hunting again)). Physical junk mail I don't worry much about. The quantity is fairly low (I don't give out my address -- leaving only "Resident" junk mail) and now that I've a bin under my mailbox the overhead is seconds per month (its easier when you only empty the mailbox once every week or so). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:16:39 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BC3196251 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18n5MH-0000Wq-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:16:33 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:48:07 PST." References: X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:16:33 -0800 Message-ID: <2035.1046042193@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/61 X-Sequence-Number: 1124 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:48:07 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > sorry, that's one point of view. the other one is that if I stand on a > street corner and you're within hearing, I don't have to shut up. if > you want quiet, you can put earplugs in your ear. Yup, and variations on that theme and others. I know, its a mess, and the definitions of "rights" are vague, various, and not much in agreement -- especially once international borders come into play. I tend to drop little missives like that in hope of Johhny Appleseeding my views... > spamblocks and etc aren't the answer. (they're part of the answer, but > not the answer). I suspect there is no actual answer, just an increasing set of partials which all have variously painful false positive rates which various ameliorate and worsen the problem. Much as I like my current approach of rblcheck + spamassassin + razor + TMDA, its no perfect, and ne'er will be. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:16:45 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08D2196262 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NNMG3w015465; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:22:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:16:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030223224414.GA28569@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/62 X-Sequence-Number: 1125 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:44 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >> reality: spam isn't illegal. > > It *is* illegal in 27 states and a number of countries, so far. arguable, unless both sides involved live in that jurisdiction. State-based spam legislation hurts the cause, it doesn't help it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:23:33 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31D7195FD3 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NNNSal009606 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1NNLKx11200 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:21:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1NNNVHx001843 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1NNNVBn001840 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:23:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:23:31 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030223232331.GA1563@gsp.org> References: <20030223224414.GA28569@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/63 X-Sequence-Number: 1126 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 03:16:30PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:44 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > >It *is* illegal in 27 states and a number of countries, so far. > > arguable, unless both sides involved live in that jurisdiction. > State-based spam legislation hurts the cause, it doesn't help it. Hey, I didn't say I was in *favor* of this: I'm on the record, thus far, as being opposed to anti-spam legislation. (Why? Because (a) I think the Internet community can deal/is dealing with this problem and (b) any such legislation will be poisoned by pro-spam lobbyists like the DMA.) I'm just pointing out that the statutes are on the books. --- Rsk [Please *do not* CC me on replies to messages on this mailing list. Thanks.] From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 15:30:26 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F9F1963ED for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1NNa53w015654; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:36:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:30:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030223225413.GA765@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/64 X-Sequence-Number: 1127 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > And if it *were* free speech, I would defend it, as I have defended > other > free speech causes on the 'net for over twenty years. > > But it's not. It's not speech at all. It's conduct. that's your interpretation, and it's one the court pretty strongly disagrees with. So you're supporting YOUR IDEA of free speech, now how it is being interpreted by the court of law. ery different beasts. But at the core of the spam argument, too, since so many define free speech that way. it's easy to support free speech for stuff you want to hear. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 16:11:02 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCC4196176 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:11:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from FANTASY-BERNIE (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1O0AwY05556 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:10:59 -0500 Message-Id: <200302240010.h1O0AwY05556@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:10:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-reply-to: <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> References: <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1046045458.t6runr@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200302/65 X-Sequence-Number: 1128 On 23 Feb 2003 at 13:51, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I am, however, very disappointed in their weak anti-spam position. > They do not seem to have grasped yet that the largest threat to online > free speech is spam and that therefore spammers and their supporters are > the mortal enemy of everyone who values online free speech. Does this qualify as a "Death of Internet predicted, film at 11"? /Bernie\ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 16:40:21 2003 Received: from host3.ctc.net (host3.mail.vnet.net [166.82.1.68]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA6C195A64 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:40:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from katie.vnet.net ([166.82.1.7]) by host3.ctc.net (InterMail vK.4.03.05.03 201-232-132-103 license 2d687b22c655f23831a2faa19b737467) with ESMTP id <20030224004106.EIDW29922.host3@katie.vnet.net>; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:41:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1O0e9400207; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:40:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: katie.vnet.net: murr owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:40:09 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Rich Kulawiec , Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/66 X-Sequence-Number: 1129 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > And if it *were* free speech, I would defend it, as I have defended > > other > > free speech causes on the 'net for over twenty years. > > > > But it's not. It's not speech at all. It's conduct. > > that's your interpretation, and it's one the court pretty strongly > disagrees with... Actually, making a distinction between speech and conduct is a concept the courts strongly embrace. To cite an extreme example, you can't burn down someone's house as an act of free expression. The courts have not addressed the issue of unsolicited email so that specific issue is still in question. The idea that you can do anything you wish in the name of free speech is definitely not in question. - murr - From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 16:45:14 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516C2195B62 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n6k4-0002nl-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:45:12 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:45:08 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses In-Reply-To: <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> References: <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/67 X-Sequence-Number: 1130 All I'm saying is that viruses are worse than spam. Spam is just advertising. It's inconvenient and invasive, but it's pretty harmless (possible exception: very graphic, very explicit porn spam like I sometimes get). It is not going to go away. Fighting spam is futile. Viruses are nasty and malicious and have no other reason to exist. Those who create and circulate them should be shot. Fighting viruses would work if people were as concerned about them as they are about spam. They should be. That's just my opinion. ...Bob PS - Just received my 10th copy of the Klez virus today! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:11:28 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA131959FF for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1O2BEal000604 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1O28tx11496 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:09:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1O2B6Hx004088 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1O2B6rF004087 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:05 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses Message-ID: <20030224021105.GA4073@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/68 X-Sequence-Number: 1131 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:21:12PM -0800, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > I am willing to bet that, if Linux actually ever does increase its > desktop market share, the number of viruses/worms for it will go up > tremendously as well, for two reasons: > > 1) Only critical mass will make anyone care to write them. > 2) As a more naive user community comes on-board, they will update their > systems to reflect security advisories much less frequently than the > geekerie do. You're probably right. I look forward to sufficient desktop market share for Linux and the like to enable this prediction to be tested. However, I didn't specifically mention Linux (preferring OpenBSD myself). I do note, however, that (a) the last time a Unix/Linux-based virus/worm had significant operational impact on the Internet was November 3, 1988, and (b) a key component in its propagation (sendmail) still enjoys quite a large market share to this day, even though postfix, exim, etc. have eroded it somewhat. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:15:35 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7C3195A2E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1O2DFi47747 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:13:15 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:15:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <3E590FC0.6214.15F3CF3A@localhost> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> In-reply-to: <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/69 X-Sequence-Number: 1132 > > Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in > > mailing lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. > > FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have > been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". Many many of our licensees have (had!) exactly that problem. False positives are one of the fastest growing problem right now - it's one of the predicted "killers" of "killing the killer app". Like it or not (and I know that there are at least a few on this list who don't), the reason Habeas has been so successful and experienced such wide-spread adoption and traction is because this is, in fact, a *large*, widespread problem, with which Habeas helps. And as content and rate filtering proliferate, it's only going to get worse. Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:33:03 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB75195A23 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18n8QL-0001ts-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:32:57 -0800 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses In-Reply-To: Message from Rich Kulawiec of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:05 EST." <20030224021105.GA4073@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> <20030224021105.GA4073@gsp.org> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:32:57 -0800 Message-ID: <7307.1046053977@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/70 X-Sequence-Number: 1133 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:11:05 -0500 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > However, I didn't specifically mention Linux (preferring OpenBSD > myself). I do note, however, that (a) the last time a > Unix/Linux-based virus/worm had significant operational impact on the > Internet was November 3, 1988, and (b) a key component in its > propagation (sendmail) still enjoys quite a large market share to this > day, even though postfix, exim, etc. have eroded it somewhat. Which ignores the point. Such viral operations require large monoculture populations to be created, and to survive, and further, no matter what happens with OS popularity the power curve laws define that one will be overwhelmingly popular and thus a ready host and market for such attacks and exploits. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:36:03 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160F119634B for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18n8TJ-0001vF-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:36:01 -0800 To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:15:28 PST." <3E590FC0.6214.15F3CF3A@localhost> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <3E590FC0.6214.15F3CF3A@localhost> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:36:01 -0800 Message-ID: <7392.1046054161@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/71 X-Sequence-Number: 1134 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:15:28 -0800 Anne P Mitchell wrote: > And as content and rate filtering proliferate, it's only going to get > worse. I've begun to wonder if that single point will either dictate the re-emergence of pseudo-Usenet (via moderated non-big 5 groups and server-side SPAM controls), or the RSS/RDF/XML-RPC world will win out. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:36:56 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E73B19645C for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:36:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-21.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.21]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1O2aeal000198 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1O2YNx11524 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1O2aZHx004180 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1O2aY4l004179 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:36:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:36:34 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses Message-ID: <20030224023634.GB4073@gsp.org> References: <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/72 X-Sequence-Number: 1135 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 05:45:08PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > All I'm saying is that viruses are worse than spam. Spam is just > advertising. It's inconvenient and invasive, but it's pretty harmless > (possible exception: very graphic, very explicit porn spam like I > sometimes get). Interesting. I don't mind viruses at all: in part, that's because there are no Windows systems here, not even any Intel processors, so that insulates us from the impact of nearly all of them. (Nope, no Macs either.) So from my personal perspective, they're just an annoyance. But I recognize that for other folks, that's not the case: we all have different sets of security concerns. However, spam is another matter -- did you read my article ealier in which I enumerated three incidents (out of a much large incident set I'm aware of) in which spam attacks cost me real money and time? Are you aware of the numerous instances in which folks have had their address/domain forged into spam headers and have thus been subject to indirect denial-of-service attacks (e.g. millions of bounces) Are you aware that AOL tacks $3/user/month onto the bill just to cover the cover of their anti-spam defenses? Have you seen what happens to even a well-designed, well-provisioned mail server network when it's hit with a spam attack from thousands of hijacked relay/proxies simultaneously? [1] It's not "harmless"; it's anything but. If you doubt that for an instant, I invite you to try out that argument in Spam-L -- where you will get some very interesting responses from people running ISPs, corporate mail networks, and so on. These aren't newbies -- these are people with a lot of years of experience and a lot of clue. And even they are often pushed to the limit. None of them *want* this: they'd be perfectly happy if the problem would go away so they could do something productive rather than spending time defending their networks. But there's not much choice, any more, unfortunately. [ BTW: since you mentioned porn spam: there has been a recent instance where receipt of porn spam resulted in someone getting fired. (person got the message, opened it, it opened windows onto a web site, wrong person walked by at the right time, etc.) I believe it's been straightened out and I think it's an isolated case, but it won't be for long. This opens another legal can of worms: suppose you're an ISP and you happen to know that Worldreach sends not just spam, not just porn spam, but porn spam with content that's illegal in your jurisdiction? What do you do? What don't you do? And will you be clobbered in either case? ] And no, it's not "just advertising": spam is unsolicited bulk email: whether it's advertising or a virus or porn or a charity pitch or political canvassing or stock pump-n-dump or get-rich-quick or buy-my-widget or anything else is irrelevant: as is so often said, it's not about content, it's about consent. ---Rsk [1] Spammers *seem* to have learned not to do this any more because it defeats their own purpose. However, there are a few out there who are either using old spamware or who have misconfigured their copies and still try this occasionally. The only viable defense -- since there's no way a priori to know where the attack will come from -- is to monitor the attempted connection rate to port 25 and stop accepting connections if it exceeds a given threshold. That's of course got an entire set of drawbacks of its own. There's also been some recent discussion about the propensity of some spammers to hit backup MX's, an observation that I can confirm from analysis of my own mail logs. It's unclear what the purpose of this, unless it's based on the supposition that backups will not be as protected as primaries -- or that perhaps hitting all the backups instead of the primary will allow a larger number of connections in less time. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:44:42 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07D0195A5C for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:44:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O2oP3w018137; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:50:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:44:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030223232331.GA1563@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/73 X-Sequence-Number: 1136 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 03:23 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > (Why? Because (a) I think > the Internet community can deal/is dealing with this problem and (b) > any > such legislation will be poisoned by pro-spam lobbyists like the DMA.) It's failing miserably at dealing with it, actually. And legislation will come. What you call poisoning, people in the real world call compromise, adn it's that unwillingness to compromise that causes geeks to get marginalized out of these discussions in the first place, which means they don't get ANY significant input into these situations. the geek community demands all or nothing, then complains when they get one of their choices... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:45:28 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECFB196260 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:45:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O2p33w018142; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:51:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:45:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Bernie Cosell" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <200302240010.h1O0AwY05556@mail.rev.net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/74 X-Sequence-Number: 1137 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 04:10 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > > Does this qualify as a "Death of Internet predicted, film at 11"? > not yet. Not even a hint of a mention of facism or hitler. oops. Now there is. I guess you're right. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 18:47:56 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8637196318 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O2rg3w018191; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:53:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:47:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E590FC0.6214.15F3CF3A@localhost> Message-Id: <5D889754-47A2-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/75 X-Sequence-Number: 1138 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: >>> Unfortunately, we've lately learned that more and more opt-in >>> mailing lists are being mislabeled as spam and wrongly blocked. >> >> FUD. I'm unaware of any properly-run opt-in mailing lists that have >> been mislabeled as spam and "wrongly blocked". > > Many many of our licensees have (had!) exactly that problem. what's really funny, in a sick and sad way, is that I've been having a, well, I can't call it a discussion, with AOL on a TOS violation report they sent me today, which was from a double-opt-in mailing list. I'm going to blog pieces of it later, but suffice it to say, it was not AOL's best day, or the user involved, and if that's how they're handling spam blocking and reporting, then god help ALL aol users. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 19:00:43 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5BE19633D for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1O2wMi48165 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:58:22 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:00:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <3E591A3C.32704.161C5662@localhost> References: <3E590FC0.6214.15F3CF3A@localhost> In-reply-to: <5D889754-47A2-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/76 X-Sequence-Number: 1139 >> Many many of our licensees have (had!) exactly that problem. > > what's really funny, in a sick and sad way, is that I've been having > a, well, I can't call it a discussion, with AOL on a TOS violation > report they sent me today, which was from a double-opt-in mailing > list. I'm going to blog pieces of it later, but suffice it to say, it > was not AOL's best day, or the user involved, and if that's how > they're handling spam blocking and reporting, then god help ALL aol > users. AOL has many things going on right now..their new software allows a user to report something as spam by simply clicking on a button, which is, as I understand it, right next to other buttons on which the user would otherwise click. As a result, AOL users are suddenly generating large numbers of spam reports, sometimes unintentionally, often without something being spam. And, obviously, their inbound spam control is sub-optimal too (that said, getting it just right is something which no large U.S. ISP of which I'm aware has yet done). In fact, our having our licensees whitelisted at AOL is one of the most oft-cited "the thing which convinced me"s for list owners signing up with us - not having to try to deal with trying to get one's confirmed opt-in through to AOL users (hoops through which you *shouldn't* have to jump when running a confirmed opt-in list!) seems to be a big deal. :-( Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 19:25:43 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8D4195F39 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:25:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O3VU3w018661; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:31:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:25:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <7392.1046054161@kanga.nu> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/77 X-Sequence-Number: 1140 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:36 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > I've begun to wonder if that single point will either dictate the > re-emergence of pseudo-Usenet (via moderated non-big 5 groups and > server-side SPAM controls), or the RSS/RDF/XML-RPC world will win out. > blogs, RSS and aggregators are already showing us the way towards the next phase in all of this, understanding the difference between push and pull information. I'm starting to work towards RSS feeds of my mail lists, and then I need to find some way to allow RSS-subscribed people to post to a list easily (probably through some of the stuff we've talked about with TDMA and mailman). mailing lists won't go away, but we're getting some technologies in place that'll allow users alternatives to that information that isn't generating interrupts unless the users feel it's worth the interruptions. having the same information available via push (e-mail) and pull (RSS) solves that problem, and allows users access to the info without handing over their mailboxes to the message volume of lists they aren't as interested in. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 19:39:59 2003 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.46]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7961961A4 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:39:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18n9T7-0003jg-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:39:54 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:39:53 -0700 To: Rich Kulawiec , list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses In-Reply-To: <20030224023634.GB4073@gsp.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/78 X-Sequence-Number: 1141 At 07:36 PM 2/23/2003, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >Are you aware of the numerous instances in which folks have had their >address/domain forged into spam headers and have thus been subject >to indirect denial-of-service attacks (e.g. millions of bounces) What you are talking about here goes way beyond ordinary spam. I'm sure you've seen things on the news about massive virus attacks crippling computers worldwide on occasion, but that goes way beyond something like the Klez and other ordinary email-bourne viruses I'm discussing. > Are >you aware that AOL tacks $3/user/month onto the bill just to cover the >cover of their anti-spam defenses? Gee, just think what they could do if the spent one cent per user to fight viruses! ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 19:52:42 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A88195B1D for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O3wT3w019023; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:58:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:52:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E591A3C.32704.161C5662@localhost> Message-Id: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/79 X-Sequence-Number: 1142 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 07:00 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > AOL has many things going on right now..their new software allows > a user to report something as spam by simply clicking on a button, > which is, as I understand it, right next to other buttons on which the > user would otherwise click. yes, sometimes upwards of 50 times in a row. > As a result, AOL users are suddenly > generating large numbers of spam reports, sometimes > unintentionally, often without something being spam. Yes, and it seems AOL believes them, too. at least based on my email with them today. > > And, obviously, their inbound spam control is sub-optimal too which is why that user just gave up and started pushing the "spam" button without looking at the e-mail, in fact, because her in-box is so overful with the stuff it's driving her crazy. > (that > said, getting it just right is something which no large U.S. ISP of > which I'm aware has yet done). so why is it that I get almost no spam to my earthlink account and I don't see continuing, loud, unhappy noises like this from earthlink users? They're not AS big as AOL, but they're big enough that the scaling issues simply aren't that important. > In fact, our having our licensees > whitelisted at AOL is one of the most oft-cited "the thing which > convinced me"s for list owners signing up with us - not having to try > to deal with trying to get one's confirmed opt-in through to AOL > users unless, of course, your e-mail is part of the ~20% that seems to disappear in their SMTP systems without any trace, whether it's list mail, personal mail, or whatever. > (hoops through which you *shouldn't* have to jump when > running a confirmed opt-in list!) seems to be a big deal. :-( > Or trying to send confirmations for an opt-in list, which I've seen disappeared by AOL. Or sending first class (i.e. me to you) e-mail, which also disappears in a documentedly depressing volume. AOL's new "report spam" stuff is an utter disaster. Whoever thought it up ought to be shot. That they're actually paying attention to it is silly, given the high volume of mistakes they get with it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 20:30:00 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B926C1963B9 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O4ZZ3w019411; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:35:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:29:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Rich Kulawiec , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Bob Bish From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <9679CCE4-47B0-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/80 X-Sequence-Number: 1143 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Bob Bish wrote: >> Are >> you aware that AOL tacks $3/user/month onto the bill just to cover the >> cover of their anti-spam defenses? > > Gee, just think what they could do if the spent one cent per user > to fight viruses! > just think what they could do if they used that money intelligently, instead of the way they ARE using it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 20:53:38 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712EE195F77 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nAcR-0002VM-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:53:35 -0800 Message-ID: <3E59A568.10908@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:54:00 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> In-Reply-To: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/81 X-Sequence-Number: 1144 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > so why is it that I get almost no spam to my earthlink account and I > don't see continuing, loud, unhappy noises like this from earthlink > users? They're not AS big as AOL, but they're big enough that the > scaling issues simply aren't that important. Two reasons. 1) Luck coupled with scale. I *do* get spam at my Earthlink account, but not nearly as much... 2) AOL has a concept of being visible online in the service. Much AOL harvesting is done by collecting screenames from chat rooms. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 21:28:03 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731B1195A2E for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nB9j-00030p-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:28:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:59 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <3E59A568.10908@queernet.org> References: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/82 X-Sequence-Number: 1145 >>so why is it that I get almost no spam to my earthlink account > >1) Luck coupled with scale. I *do* get spam at my Earthlink account, but >not nearly as much... Earthlink has the "Spaminator" which does a very good job of blocking spam (and not mailing lists). Email-bourne viruses would be very easy to block too, but they don't do that. Go to: https://spaminator.earthlink.net/ sign in with your e-mail address and password to see what spam has been caught. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 21:33:33 2003 Received: from folkserv.net (64.90.176.26.nyinternet.net [64.90.176.26]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3B3195A40 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h1O5XVbx004537 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1O5XVYW004498 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:33:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tneff@grassyhill.net) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:33:30 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <313347828.1046046810@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> References: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) X-Archive-Number: 200302/83 X-Sequence-Number: 1146 --On Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:27 PM -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > Earthlink has the "Spaminator" which does a very good job of blocking > spam (and not mailing lists). Email-bourne viruses would be very easy to > block too, but they don't do that. Go to: But do they have Trogdor the Burninator?! http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 21:35:50 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D42419621A for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nBHC-0002mo-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:35:42 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:25:36 PST." 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:35:42 -0800 Message-ID: <10713.1046064942@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/84 X-Sequence-Number: 1147 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:25:36 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 06:36 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> I've begun to wonder if that single point will either dictate the >> re-emergence of pseudo-Usenet (via moderated non-big 5 groups and >> server-side SPAM controls), or the RSS/RDF/XML-RPC world will win >> out. > blogs, RSS and aggregators are already showing us the way towards the > next phase in all of this, understanding the difference between push > and pull information. I'm starting to work towards RSS feeds of my > mail lists, and then I need to find some way to allow RSS-subscribed > people to post to a list easily (probably through some of the stuff > we've talked about with TDMA and mailman). Yup, I've been following a somewhat similar path ala: +------------------+ | | V | Mailman<=>NetNews-->Zope-->RSS-->Users ^| ^ | |V | | Users<...............+-----------+ Mailman, bidirectionally gated to inn2, Zope with a netnews interface akin to GMane on the one face and Slashdot on the other, exporting an RSS feed which points back to Zope which writes entries as messages back to Mailman. > mailing lists won't go away, but we're getting some technologies in > place that'll allow users alternatives to that information that isn't > generating interrupts unless the users feel it's worth the > interruptions. having the same information available via push (e-mail) > and pull (RSS) solves that problem, and allows users access to the > info without handing over their mailboxes to the message volume of > lists they aren't as interested in. Yup. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 21:59:19 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA891961F5 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nBdx-0002uR-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:59:13 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:59 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> References: <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:59:13 -0800 Message-ID: <11186.1046066353@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/85 X-Sequence-Number: 1148 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:59 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > Earthlink has the "Spaminator" which does a very good job of > > blocking spam (and not mailing lists). Email-bourne viruses would be > very easy to block too, but they don't do that. Go I front all my lists with TMDA, a MIME stripper, and then a quick check for message size before dropping into the moderation queue (my lists are moderated for other reasons). Mail from non-subscribers gets held by TMDA until they confirm their address onto the whitelist. Mail from subscribers or those on the whitelist goes straight thru to the MIME stripper. Messages which are too short after MIME stripping are discarded, the rest are handed onto the list server (for moderation). Each of the lists gets somewhere between 50 and 80 spam or virus emails per day. In the last year: -- __NO__ spam, not one, has gotten thru to the list moderation interface (the lists are hand moderated) -- Precisely 4 virus messages (castrated by the MIME stripper) have made it thru to the moderation interface. None had an active payload remaining. The TMDA spool for the last few hours of today looks like: [ ] 1045801519.16295.msg Christine re: cable? [ ] 1045803443.20390.msg Dr. Alberts News Update - New Anti Aging fo [ ] 1045804499.21410.msg arsenal3fdee@earthlink.com RMortgage Rates [ ] 1045804502.21426.msg arsenal3fdee@earthlink.com RMortgage Rates [ ] 1045819387.1249.msg Monroe Lose we1ght, feel better, and reduce signs of a [ ] 1045822457.2814.msg ckdhgraciela Fw: 2003 has started - help eliminate s [ ] 1045822939.3116.msg PITBOSS $200 FREE CASH AT SAVOIA INN CASINO ! [ ] 1045822940.3123.msg PITBOSS $200 FREE CASH AT SAVOIA INN CASINO ! [ ] 1045822942.3131.msg PITBOSS $200 FREE CASH AT SAVOIA INN CASINO ! [ ] 1045831249.7654.msg malloryswcq@samaco.co.uk Actually reverse a g i [ ] 1045831251.7667.msg malloryswcq@samaco.co.uk Actually reverse a g i [ ] 1045841388.13615.msg arronjhlb@agrana.ro D e p r e s s e d? [ ] 1045841390.13628.msg arronjhlb@agrana.ro D e p r e s s e d? [ ] 1045844030.15183.msg adena@luso.pt Husband's away...Lonely housewi [ ] 1045844032.15197.msg adena@luso.pt Husband's away...Lonely housewi [ ] 1045856537.23312.msg Brooke Briggs Need A Hot, Discrete, Single Fr [ ] 1045861394.9085.msg VICTOR IKE BUSINESS PROPOSAL. [ ] 1045865658.13137.msg robbie302324@excite.com Internet job! [ ] 1045888569.14315.msg Jules Norton wapt rolicy [ ] 1045888571.14328.msg Jules Norton wapt rolicy [ ] 1045892721.17421.msg postmaster Returned mail--"look,my beautif [ ] 1045904815.1758.msg Mavis Holt Credit problems? [ ] 1045904817.1771.msg Mavis Holt Credit problems? [ ] 1045915063.10184.msg Anna Koornikova Teen beauty queens with no mora [ ] 1045916363.11412.msg Britney Speares Teen beauty queens with no mora [ ] 1045917829.12723.msg Letitia !#! COPY ANY DVD TO CD !#! [ ] 1045923594.17319.msg sagevmte@familie-fritzsche.de Safely F e e l [ ] 1045923596.17332.msg sagevmte@familie-fritzsche.de Safely F e e l [ ] 1045924480.18127.msg Alyce Haglund This site lets you order foreig [ ] 1045940126.2893.msg christoper402510@mailcity.com Great oportunites! [ ] 1045944479.15321.msg GE RE: [MUD-Dev] Protecting the Player's S [ ] 1045956857.9071.msg Adam Re: workload simulation (was: Re: [MUD-Dev] MMO [ ] 1045958631.11220.msg Ghost GhostMessage....the newest technology i [ ] 1045958661.11247.msg Ghost GhostMessage....the newest technology i [ ] 1045969592.21905.msg Rebekah Caudill injectifn procurement [ ] 1045969594.21919.msg Rebekah Caudill injectifn procurement [ ] 1045972584.24863.msg Evgenia -Looking for a good man [ ] 1045988009.14655.msg crazybroeolb@bboy.com This is what you have b [ ] 1045988049.14734.msg andrea_schwartzyuqe@baxter.com I've been waiti [ ] 1045988939.22947.msg Postmaster@deerfield.baxter.com DELIVERY FAILUR listed in public Name & Address Book [ ] 1045995652.28746.msg abdullahcygb@addiscolearning.no Are You O v e [ ] 1045995654.28759.msg abdullahcygb@addiscolearning.no Are You O v e [ ] 1045995689.28790.msg AddiscoLearning Mailer AddiscoLearning Error! [ ] 1045995690.28797.msg AddiscoLearning Mailer AddiscoLearning Error! [ ] 1045996329.29679.msg megAisha Check me out, I saw you today. [ ] 1045996330.29687.msg megAisha Check me out, I saw you today. [ ] 1045997854.31125.msg incomingforward@cs.com iread, LIVE FROM WALL S [ ] 1046001857.2259.msg linknow_hn3@yahoo.com Financial Freedom For NOW - Wor [ ] 1046003380.3553.msg linknow_hn3@yahoo.com Financial Freedom For NOW - Wor [ ] 1046012413.11160.msg big@boss.com Re: Sample [ ] 1046012426.11202.msg big@boss.com Re: Here is that sample [ ] 1046022111.20134.msg Jenna Softly A refreshing facial makes me wi [ ] 1046029458.26857.msg Dr. Perry News Update - New Anti Aging fo [ ] 1046034875.32447.msg habitationcejq@cox.net look great [ ] 1046034876.32470.msg juicelessgahb@lycos.co.uk feel great [ ] 1046034876.32471.msg cablegramsdetu@aol.com feel better [ ] 1046034876.32472.msg macaroonkiew@aol.com look great So far, in the last year, only four on-topic messages have been held by TMDA that haven't been confirmed by their authors (and in one of those cases he resent from a subscribed address without any action on my part). Not a bad record for no attention required from me. FWLIW 1045956857.9071.msg above was confirmed thru by the author. Not bad at all. You can find my scripts and recipes in the Mailman user FAQ. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:13:45 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BEC195B07 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nBs0-0006UN-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:13:44 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223230929.00baee40@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:13:40 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <11186.1046066353@kanga.nu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/86 X-Sequence-Number: 1149 > -- __NO__ spam, not one, has gotten thru to the list moderation > interface (the lists are hand moderated) > > -- Precisely 4 virus messages (castrated by the MIME stripper) have > made it thru to the moderation interface. None had an active payload > remaining. Several layers of protection are available to keep spam and viruses from being distributed directly over majordomo mailing lists. That is not the problem. The problem is list members spreading viruses to other list members indirectly. Posts to my lists are informative and many members save messages which are important to them. If a member gets infected with a virus, that virus sends copies of itself to all addresses found on the infected computer, including the senders of those list messages which are saved. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:14:15 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697891963D8 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O6K53w020867; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:20:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:14:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <11186.1046066353@kanga.nu> Message-Id: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/87 X-Sequence-Number: 1150 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 09:59 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > I front all my lists with TMDA, a MIME stripper, and then a quick check > for message size before dropping into the moderation queue I really like how this stuff all ties together, adn to be honest, as someone who's been pretty grumpy about whitelisting in the past, I've more or less decided it's a cure now less painful than the disease, and I'm likely to implement some kind of whitelist down the road, and I think it's absolutely necessary as a way to protecting role accounts that are either well known or have to be public. a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software will go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. What I'd like to see is a good GUI mail client that implements a whitelist the way OS x's mail.app implements spam filtering. It'd give that capability to users who aren't technically capable of implementing TDMA, or on a system where the admins can't or won't. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:27:12 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAF4195A89 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nC4z-00035V-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:09 -0800 To: Bob Bish Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bish of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:13:40 MST." <5.2.0.9.2.20030223230929.00baee40@pop.earthlink.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223230929.00baee40@pop.earthlink.net> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`u>MB(-4$f\a6Eu8.e=Pf\ X-image-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/kanga.face.tiff X-url: http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:27:09 -0800 Message-ID: <11872.1046068029@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/88 X-Sequence-Number: 1151 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:13:40 -0700 Bob Bish wrote: > The problem is list members spreading viruses to other list members > indirectly. There are problems I can handle or alleviate, and there are problems I have no real way of touching. The above is a case of the latter. loosely: What list members do with their mail systems on their own time is up to them, not me. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:28:45 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2806E195B17 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nC6T-000362-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:28:41 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:14:05 PST." <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:28:41 -0800 Message-ID: <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/89 X-Sequence-Number: 1152 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:14:05 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 09:59 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> I front all my lists with TMDA, a MIME stripper, and then a quick >> check for message size before dropping into the moderation queue > a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software will > go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. Its great stuff -- far better than I'd ever expected. > What I'd like to see is a good GUI mail client that implements a > whitelist the way OS x's mail.app implements spam filtering. It'd give > that capability to users who aren't technically capable of > implementing TDMA, or on a system where the admins can't or won't. I presume you've mentioned this internally to your employers? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:42:39 2003 Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A11195A70 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nCJx-0006QD-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:42:37 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223233807.00bb2ec0@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:42:23 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <11872.1046068029@kanga.nu> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223230929.00baee40@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <68FC9616-47AB-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223222501.00ba4d48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223230929.00baee40@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/90 X-Sequence-Number: 1153 At 11:27 PM 2/23/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: >There are problems I can handle or alleviate, and there are problems I >have no real way of touching. The above is a case of the latter. >loosely: What list members do with their mail systems on their own time >is up to them, not me. This is where I differ from most list managers. I strive to provide the very best service I possibly can. I go to great lengths to accomplish this and do things no other list manager would even consider. This includes attempts to keep viruses from spreading among list members indirectly if at all possible. I've been playing detective lately, trying to narrow down the "suspects" from any clues I can find. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 22:50:09 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB1E195B6A for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nCRA-0002oL-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:04 -0800 Message-ID: <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:30 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: J C Lawrence Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/91 X-Sequence-Number: 1154 J C Lawrence wrote: >>a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software will >>go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. >> >> > >Its great stuff -- far better than I'd ever expected. > > I can't imagine almost anyone I know and correspond with being able to figure out a TMDA exchange, or for that matter, not being offended at having to ask permission to email me. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:22:00 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C987E195A0D for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O7Ro3w021605; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:27:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:21:48 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/92 X-Sequence-Number: 1155 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 10:50 PM, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > J C Lawrence wrote: > > I can't imagine almost anyone I know and correspond with being able to > figure out a TMDA exchange, or for that matter, not being offended at > having to ask permission to email me. > I used to feel that way, too. TDMA has gotten better, and spam has gotten worse. And if you put a little effort in on your side to pre-whitelist folks, they'll never even see TDMA. But you have to make that effort. not everyone does. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:22:45 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEA6195A58 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O7SY3w021616; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:28:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:22:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/93 X-Sequence-Number: 1156 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 10:28 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > I presume you've mentioned this internally to your employers? > if I did, I couldn't admit it... > -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:24:15 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822BA196432 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:24:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O7U23w021629; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:30:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:23:59 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Bob Bish From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223233807.00bb2ec0@pop.earthlink.net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/94 X-Sequence-Number: 1157 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 10:42 PM, Bob Bish wrote: > list manager would even consider. This includes attempts to keep > viruses from spreading among list members indirectly if at all > possible. I've been playing detective lately, trying to narrow down > the "suspects" from any clues I can find. > me, too. Especially since the infected sites tend to attack the list addresses with the virus as well, and while I can't get nailed by them, I am annoyed. And in a couple of occasions, I've ended up IP blocking addresses that won't fix themselves. In most cases, I can figure out where tehy're coming from and pass the word, and except for the rare person, they appreciate being told. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:28:20 2003 Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884CE1960BF for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-173.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.173] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nD2A-000071-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:28:19 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224002652.00bb2070@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:28:18 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223233807.00bb2ec0@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/95 X-Sequence-Number: 1158 >> I've been playing detective lately, trying to narrow down the >> "suspects" from any clues I can find. > >me, too. Especially since the infected sites tend to attack the list >addresses with the virus as well, and while I can't get nailed by them, I >am annoyed. And in a couple of occasions, I've ended up IP blocking >addresses that won't fix themselves. In most cases, I can figure out where >tehy're coming from and pass the word, and except for the rare person, >they appreciate being told. Good for you! I meant to add that I just hate viruses (as I'm sure you can tell). If I can do a little to clean up my tiny corner of the 'net, then I've done some good. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:40:10 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8C619624C for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nDDX-0003SH-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:40:03 -0800 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from "Roger B.A. Klorese" of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:30 PST." <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:40:03 -0800 Message-ID: <13284.1046072403@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/96 X-Sequence-Number: 1159 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:30 -0800 Roger B A Klorese wrote: > J C Lawrence wrote: >>> a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software >>> will go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. >> Its great stuff -- far better than I'd ever expected. > I can't imagine almost anyone I know and correspond with being able to > figure out a TMDA exchange, or for that matter, not being offended at > having to ask permission to email me. A few points: -- I don't use TMDA on my personal, just on my lists and role addresses (-owner, -admin, postmaster, webmaster, etc). FWLIW this is not due to any concern over offense, but rather more simply because my SPAM/virus filters are already effective enough to keep my junk rate in my personal mailboxes to single digit message counts per day -- not enough problem to warrant messing with. -- At this point 112 different addresses have been confirmed thru my list TMDA setup in the last year (determined by counting the size of the whitelist), representing a total posting population on the lists handled by that server of approximately 470 (depending on how you count it, time periods and the like). -- Quick survey of the confirmed address suggests that 3% of them are variant addresses for the same human -- The total volume of mail that has successfully passed thru my TMDA list setup in the last year is ~40,000 messages. -- Of those 40,000, 4 messages were trapped by TMDA and not confirmed thru by their authors. In one of those cases the author merely reposted from a subscribed address, thus bypassing the TMDA hold. -- During that same year I've received a little under a dozen messages from posters to the effect of, "I was worried about this, but it turned out to be so simple!" To quote one poster, am economist by trade, "If this is all that's involved, then you have nothing to be worried about. It was too easy to even notice." That's pretty close to 10% of the confirming audience. -- None have complained about either the confirmation process, or the fact that they had to confirm. -- I use a modified version of the default TMDA confirmation request: From: "%(FULLNAME)s" <%(recipient_address)s> Subject: Please confirm your message for final delivery THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE FROM A MACHINE. Your e-mail message with the subject of "%(subject)s" is being held because your address was not recognized by the mail filtering system at %(recipient_domain)s. To release your message for delivery, please send a message to the following address, or use your mailer's "Reply" feature. %(confirm_accept_address)s You don't need to to anything other than reply to this message to have your original message delivered. This confirmation process verifies that your message is legitimate and not junk-mail. Thank you for your patience and assistance in helping keep the mailing list systems at Kanga.Nu SPAM free. --- Following is a copy of your message. %(original_message)s -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:51:58 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAE4196176 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nDOz-0004cZ-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:51:53 -0800 Message-ID: <3E59CF33.90701@queernet.org> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:52:19 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: J C Lawrence Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> <13284.1046072403@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: <13284.1046072403@kanga.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/97 X-Sequence-Number: 1160 J C Lawrence wrote: > -- I don't use TMDA on my personal, just on my lists and role > addresses (-owner, -admin, postmaster, webmaster, etc). FWLIW this is > not due to any concern over offense, but rather more simply because my > SPAM/virus filters are already effective enough to keep my junk rate > in my personal mailboxes to single digit message counts per day -- not > enough problem to warrant messing with. > But my role addresses are the ones most likely to be written to by naive users. And since many lists I get have the reply-to-sender deal where people end up replying to all, they would get confirmation requests that would just be a hassle. > -- None have complained about either the confirmation process, or the > fact that they had to confirm. > We get people complaining about having to confirm subscribes and unsubscribes, let alone posts -- not just that it's too obscure, but that it's a hassle and they don't really care what effect it has on our spam. > -- I use a modified version of the default TMDA confirmation request: > > Frankly, when I've gotten a TMDA confirmation request, I've more often gone to the telephone than bothered. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Sun Feb 23 23:52:08 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924E3196482 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nDP5-0003Xu-00 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:51:59 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from "Roger B.A. Klorese" of "Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:30 PST." <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <11905.1046068121@kanga.nu> <3E59C0B6.7090804@queernet.org> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:51:59 -0800 Message-ID: <13633.1046073119@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/98 X-Sequence-Number: 1161 On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:50:30 -0800 Roger B A Klorese wrote: > J C Lawrence wrote: > I can't imagine almost anyone I know and correspond with being able to > figure out a TMDA exchange, or for that matter, not being offended at > having to ask permission to email me. BTW To see for yourself how it works, just email test@kanga.nu. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 00:06:16 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEC3195FFD for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:06:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1O8C83w022148; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:12:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:06:04 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E59CF33.90701@queernet.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/99 X-Sequence-Number: 1162 On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 11:52 PM, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > But my role addresses are the ones most likely to be written to by > naive users. > > And since many lists I get have the reply-to-sender deal where people > end up replying to all, they would get confirmation requests that > would just be a hassle. > Frankly, Roger, I think you'll find the spam situation has gotten so bad that if you do implement whitelisting on your role accounts, most users will nod their head in sympathy and wish they could too, especially if your return message says something like "I'm sorry to put you through the hassle, but we get so much spam now to this address, it's the only way we can make sure we find your message in all of the spam". -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 00:08:53 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF16195AA4 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:08:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CDB25B182 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 03:08:46 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030224012417.296f1258@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:45:14 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: TLS handshake error In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216142431.00b6d948@pop.earthlink.net> References: <28690.1045428106@kanga.nu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6C174D61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/100 X-Sequence-Number: 1163 At 02:26 PM 2003-02-16 -0700, Bob Bish wrote: >At 01:41 PM 2/16/2003, J C Lawrence wrote: >> > (reason: 403 4.7.0 TLS handshake failed.) >> > Would anyone know how to fix this? >> >>Sure, just disable TLS support -- fairly easy, but I also suspect >>unlikely to happen. > > Any clues as to how to do so? TLS. Generally it is offered as part of a ehlo handshake: [root@parrot root]# telnet localhost 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1). Escape character is '^]'. 220 parrot.squawk.com ESMTP Postfix ehlo parrot.squawk.com 250-parrot.squawk.com 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 10240000 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<> He's doing the Right Thing. Its the remote end >>which is being silly. It may be that both ends are being silly. > This is one reason this problem has remained unresolved for so long: > conflicting opinions on this. We've heard it's on our end, no, it's on > their end, no, it's on our end, etc., etc. Exactly which host is this? What name and IP address? If you post that, it is possible that someone could take a look at the certificate that is being offered and offer a guess. It could be an issue with the cert, or it could be just self signed. But I have not seen anything that would allow me to investigate further. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 00:23:40 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34138195AA4 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:23:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nDta-00034A-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:23:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:23:55 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/101 X-Sequence-Number: 1164 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > Frankly, Roger, I think you'll find the spam situation has gotten so > bad that if you do implement whitelisting on your role accounts, most > users will nod their head in sympathy and wish they could too, > especially if your return message says something like "I'm sorry to > put you through the hassle, but we get so much spam now to this > address, it's the only way we can make sure we find your message in > all of the spam". As I wrote to Chuq privately... Well over 90% of the mail I get at my personal addresses is spam, but so far, I haven't seen a solution -- TMDA, Brightmail, SpamAssassin, whatever -- that seemed like any less a hassle than just deleting it. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 01:57:38 2003 Received: from folkserv.net (64.90.176.26.nyinternet.net [64.90.176.26]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA367195A11 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:57:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) id h1O9vagZ011951 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by folkserv.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1O9vZYW011912 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tneff@grassyhill.net) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:35 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.3 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) X-Archive-Number: 200302/102 X-Sequence-Number: 1165 --On Monday, February 24, 2003 12:23 AM -0800 "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > Well over 90% of the mail I get at my personal addresses is spam, but so > far, I haven't seen a solution -- TMDA, Brightmail, SpamAssassin, whatever > -- that seemed like any less a hassle than just deleting it. Spamprobe (Brian Burton) is worth it. http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamprobe/ Since installing it I have to delete one or two spams per day - that's it. Meanwhile the spamprobe folder collects hundreds of spams per day. I spam protect my lists by making them members only. Simplest most effective technique I've found. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 02:14:40 2003 Received: from nina.cs.keele.ac.uk (nina-2.cs.keele.ac.uk [160.5.89.35]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B3D195A11 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathan by nina.cs.keele.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 18nFd1-0000gn-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:14:31 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223144457.00b7e008@pop.earthlink.net> from "Bob Bish" at Feb 23, 2003 02:51:23 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Jonathan Knight X-Archive-Number: 200302/103 X-Sequence-Number: 1166 > At 11:51 AM 2/23/2003, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I'm sorry, but I see this as contradictory. Some might argue that spam > is "free speech". You want "free speech" on the Internet EXCEPT for those > whose messages you don't want to see??? I think I should point out here that "free speech" is a concept that isn't universal and so applying ideology of one culture on a global network probably isn't valid. I want to start a movement for "free listening" where I as an individual get to choose not to hear things from people claiming to have "free speech" because there seems to be a direct relationship between those people claiming to have it and my not wanting to hear it. -- ______ jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk Jonathan Knight, / Department of Computer Science / _ __ Telephone: +44 1782 583437 University of Keele, Keele, (_/ (_) / / Fax : +44 1782 713082 Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 02:28:29 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F2F196127 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:28:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nFqT-0004x6-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:28:25 -0800 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Neff of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:35 EST." <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> 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, 24 Feb 2003 02:28:25 -0800 Message-ID: <19038.1046082505@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/104 X-Sequence-Number: 1167 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:35 -0500 Tom Neff wrote: > I spam protect my lists by making them members only. Simplest most > effective technique I've found. I found that header forging virus, and the newer trend toward header forging spam were getting mail onto my member-sonly lists. Not often to be sure -- no more than a few per month -- but that was more than enough for me (and this was a year ago; I suspect the situation is worse now). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 02:47:59 2003 Received: from nina.cs.keele.ac.uk (nina-2.cs.keele.ac.uk [160.5.89.35]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA4B195AE9 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 02:47:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathan by nina.cs.keele.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.12 #1) id 18nG9M-00010V-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:47:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:47:56 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Feb 23, 2003 02:11:55 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Jonathan Knight X-Archive-Number: 200302/105 X-Sequence-Number: 1168 > reality: spam isn't illegal. The JANET acceptable use policy which covers the .ac.uk domains has an acceptable use policy which specifically denies use of the network for spam. See: http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html Any spammer who has .ac.uk domains on the list is making unauthorised use of the JANET network which is illegal in the UK as I think the computer misuse act applies (but I'm no legal expert so you'll need to ask a solicitor if you really want to be certain). Of course making something illegal and actually enforcing it are two very different things. -- ______ jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk Jonathan Knight, / Department of Computer Science / _ __ Telephone: +44 1782 583437 University of Keele, Keele, (_/ (_) / / Fax : +44 1782 713082 Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 03:39:23 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B4A195A0E for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 03:39:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OBdCal005027 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OBaqx12355 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:36:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OBd5Hx004717 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OBd4QX004716 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:04 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST Message-ID: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> <9679CCE4-47B0-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9679CCE4-47B0-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/106 X-Sequence-Number: 1169 Excuse the shouting, but I have made this request repeatedly, first in message footers, then at the beginning, and yet it seems to be roundly ignored. I do not need to get two copies of every message sent to this list in response to mine: the one delivered to the list will suffice. ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 03:52:41 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4386195A0E for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 03:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OBqYal001316 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OBoKx12365 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OBqXHx004747 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OBqXrs004746 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:52:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:52:32 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses Message-ID: <20030224115232.GB4646@gsp.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223173626.00b6b9d0@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/107 X-Sequence-Number: 1170 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 08:39:53PM -0700, Bob Bish wrote: > At 07:36 PM 2/23/2003, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >Are you aware of the numerous instances in which folks have had their > >address/domain forged into spam headers and have thus been subject > >to indirect denial-of-service attacks (e.g. millions of bounces) > > What you are talking about here goes way beyond ordinary spam. That depends on what you consider "ordinary". If it happens often, is it "ordinary"? (It does happen often, BTW. There are a few spam operations which do it as a matter of course. Others do it as a form of revenge.) Not to mention the impact on people who have their relays/proxies hijacked and are thus denied service while millions of spams are shoved through them, and then -- for good measure -- receive the resulting complaints. Sure, they shouldn't have set their systems up in this fashion to begin with, and it was a mistake for them to do so: but the consequences they bear far outweigh the size of their mistake. "Ordinary" spam is only seen these days from new spammers. The sophisticated ones are organized, global, have multiple network connections, and some surprisingly sophisticated software to maximize their ability to hijack other systems to send their spam. They're using all sorts of clever tricks -- from asymmetric routing to frustrate people looking for them, to lots of Javascript to obfuscate URLs in their messages. This stuff is WAY beyond what career spammers like Wallace and Rines were doing just a few years ago. > I'm sure you've seen things on the news about massive virus attacks crippling > computers worldwide on occasion, but that goes way beyond something like > the Klez and other ordinary email-bourne viruses I'm discussing. It doesn't cripple computers which aren't susceptible to those particular viruses. Let's be clear: for the most part, these aren't computer virus problems: they're Microsoft Windows problems. Yes, the side-effects can impact other people (e.g. one of my network connections has rendered useless by the recent MS SQL problem because it's shared with a company whose systems became infected) but the computers themselves are unaffected. > Gee, just think what they [AOL] could do if the spent one cent per user to > fight viruses! I can't believe I'm going to take AOL's side in this, but... Why should AOL -- an Internet service provider -- compensate for the poor choices of computing platforms by its users, or the failure of its users to properly secure their own systems? Where's the responsibility of those users who willingly connect their systems to the Internet? Why aren't *they* held personally accountable for the impact/damage that their systems do? ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 04:17:28 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822131960BF for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OCHIal031576 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OCF9x12401 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OCHMHx004959 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OCHMtL004958 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:17:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:17:22 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030224121722.GC4646@gsp.org> References: <20030223232331.GA1563@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/108 X-Sequence-Number: 1171 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:44:32PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > It's failing miserably at dealing with it, actually. Then we have a difference of opinion: I think it's doing quite well. It's now been made clear to ISPs that providing spam-support services will not be tolerated by the Internet community, and that those ISPs which do -- and thus refuse to behave as responsible members of the Internet community -- will be boycotted. This has already brought some of them to heel and caused them to remove their spamming parasites; others still continue to host them, but no boycott works immediately, and it remains to be seen what the eventual outcome will be. > And legislation will come. And will be watered-down and ineffective and inapplicable on a global basis. Spammers who are relaying through the thousands of open relays in the Korean school system's network to spamvertise a site hosted in China and who have maildrops on Yahoo UK aren't going to care about a US law. Heck, they don't care *now*: there are spammers in WA state sending to WA state residents (thus clearly falling under the WA state law). Either they don't know, don't care, or will make enough money from the exercise that any penalties/fines they may incur (should someone actually be willing and able to pursue the matter) will be covered. > What you call poisoning, people in the real world call > compromise, adn it's that unwillingness to compromise that causes geeks > to get marginalized out of these discussions in the first place, There is no compromise as to the use of MY systems. They are private property, not a public forum. (You may stand on the streetcorner and make your speech: you may not stand in my yard and make your speech without my permission.) The DMA's position thus far is that spammers have a "right" to force their effluent into my (and your) systems/networks: this is an evil perversion of the right to free speech -- one that is clearly motivated only by raw greed and has nothing to do with the lofty principles of free speech that are actually worth defending. Thankfully, court decisions thus far have recognized that no such right exists, and that an essential part of the right to free speech is the right not to listen. Remember, these are the same people who have fought every attempt to stop them from constantly invading private homes via telemarketing -- no matter how reasonable, no matter how much of a "compromise" it's been. Aside: I'm really quite surprised that so many list-managers here seem unaware of just how ugly the spam wars have gotten. You *really* need to tune into Spam-L and news.admin.net-abuse.email for a while just to get some sense of how huge the spam runs are, how many different systems and networks get abused by them, and what some of the non-obvious consequences are. (Example: people with free/low-cost mailboxes often find that they receive so many spams that their mailboxes reach their quota and they can't receive legitimate mail. Thus, the combined volume of spam reaching them effectively performs a denial-of-service on their mail.) ---Rsk From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 05:56:09 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FEB1959FD for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 05:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 796E31BF57B; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:56:08 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15962.9336.375072.231508@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:56:08 -0500 To: J C Lawrence Cc: "Roger B.A. Klorese" , Chuq Von Rospach , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <13284.1046072403@kanga.nu> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Cut a vital connection X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/109 X-Sequence-Number: 1172 >>>>> "JCL" == J C Lawrence writes: JCL> -- I don't use TMDA on my personal, just on my lists and JCL> role addresses (-owner, -admin, postmaster, webmaster, etc). Although I don't want to clog list-managers with Mailman-specific content (we can take it to mailman-developers), I have been thinking about how to make it easier -- and optional -- for list owners to add such functionality. FWIW, I already have some experimental hooks to spambayes working and I think these kinds of additional tools should be bundled with Mailman to provide an integrated pallet of tools that sites and lists can choose from. I'm also very interested in Chuq's work to integrate Mailman with blogging and RSS. I think such hooks from Mailman wouldn't be too difficult, and getting mail back into Mailman should already be easy to do (MM2.1's bin/inject). While my own personal audiences (python.org) have been highly resistant to tmda-style confirmations, I am more inclined to admit that it makes a lot of sense for mailing lists. I'd like to start by giving list owners the opportunity to use such technology if they want. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 05:59:03 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3737B1959FD for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 05:59:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E50401BF57B; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:59:02 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15962.9510.474262.308710@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:59:02 -0500 To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: I am as tight as a weasel (given by Max Warsaw's brain) X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/110 X-Sequence-Number: 1173 >>>>> "RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: RBAK> Well over 90% of the mail I get at my personal addresses is RBAK> spam, but so far, I haven't seen a solution -- TMDA, RBAK> Brightmail, SpamAssassin, whatever -- that seemed like any RBAK> less a hassle than just deleting it. spambayes.sf.net is another option that has had a lot of success for personal inboxes. It's got a pop3 proxy (WIBNI someone wrote an imap proxy? :) that is pretty decent. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 06:05:32 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F39C1959FD for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nJES-0005Po-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:05:24 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A26BF.9090102@queernet.org> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:05:51 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barry A. Warsaw" Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> <15962.9510.474262.308710@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <15962.9510.474262.308710@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/111 X-Sequence-Number: 1174 Barry A. Warsaw wrote: >>>>>>"RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > RBAK> Well over 90% of the mail I get at my personal addresses is > RBAK> spam, but so far, I haven't seen a solution -- TMDA, > RBAK> Brightmail, SpamAssassin, whatever -- that seemed like any > RBAK> less a hassle than just deleting it. > >spambayes.sf.net is another option that has had a lot of success for >personal inboxes. It's got a pop3 proxy (WIBNI someone wrote an imap >proxy? :) that is pretty decent. > > I still need to check it. So since I am biased to believe it is right and therefore might be misled to miss a false positive, it's a bad idea. Anything less than 100% accurate on the positive side is less than worthless to me -- it's destructive. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 06:16:56 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011931961FF for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nJPZ-0002zY-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:16:53 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A2970.4060703@queernet.org> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:17:20 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/112 X-Sequence-Number: 1175 Tom Neff wrote: >Spamprobe (Brian Burton) is worth it. > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/spamprobe/ > >Since installing it I have to delete one or two spams per day - that's it. >Meanwhile the spamprobe folder collects hundreds of spams per day. > Again: one false positive makes ANY technique not worth it -- because it prejudices me to believe the message is spam, making me even more likely to skip it. >I spam protect my lists by making them members only. Simplest most effective >technique I've found. > > Doesn't work very well when a spammer subscribes, which happens often on our adult-content lists. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 06:35:47 2003 Received: from celery.tssi.com (celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 318D11959FA for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29533 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Feb 2003 14:34:49 -0000 Message-ID: <20030224143449.29532.qmail@celery.tssi.com> From: nolan@celery.tssi.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:34:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/113 X-Sequence-Number: 1176 > That analogy doesn't hold. A more proper analogy would be fighting > postage-due junk mail, and telephone solicitors calling collect. With > spam, the recipient pays (or recipient network pays, and passes the > cost along). I guess that bill I get from the local phone company every month doesn't count? If I rent a post office box, it gets bulk mail. Heck, the postal service will even sell bulk mailers my box number just like the phone company sells them my phone number. The issue isn't really whether or not the receiver has to pay for the undesired use of that facility, it is that there is virtuallly no cost to the sender of bulk e-mail. Trust me, bulk snail mail is NOT cheap, nor it is it cheap to maintain phone banks. But what's the cost to send out a million e-mails? > It's like getting telemarketing calls on your cell phone. As more and more people opt out of land lines completely, telemarketers are starting to get less concerned about calling cell phones. (BTW, is there any law against it? I've heard/read conflicting statements on that.) -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 07:38:21 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CD01959FA for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1OFiY3w026836; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:44:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:38:15 -0800 Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/114 X-Sequence-Number: 1177 If you want your email set up in a specific way, set up your client to show it that way. I want people to send me a copy of message sent to the list, by the way please DO CC me. And since I don't assume everyone out there can remember how each individual wants it, I don't get mad when you get it wrong, either. (oh, Rich, FWIW, if you look at the headers -- you are in the To: line, list-managers is being CCed) It's stupid and somewhat arrogant to tell everyone to do it your way. Nobody can remember the individual quirks of every user they deal with. Set up your own system to take care of your email, don't force the entire universe to bend to your preferences, and then get upset when they don't. That went out with the early days of usenet, when we proved it never would work... On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Excuse the shouting, but I have made this request repeatedly, first > in message footers, then at the beginning, and yet it seems to be > roundly > ignored. I do not need to get two copies of every message sent to this > list in response to mine: the one delivered to the list will suffice. > > ---Rsk > -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 07:41:06 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36041195A41 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1OFlI3w026908; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:47:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:41:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Tom Neff From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> Message-Id: <601E7011-480E-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/115 X-Sequence-Number: 1178 On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 01:57 AM, Tom Neff wrote: > Since installing it I have to delete one or two spams per day - that's > it. > Meanwhile the spamprobe folder collects hundreds of spams per day. > For what it's worth -- 42% of my incoming email to plaidworks is now spam. mail.app on jaguar catches over 99% of that, and I've had maybe 3 false positives this month, all e-newsletters from vendors I want sent to me. That's easily fixed by adding their addresses to my address book. The downside of a client solution is I have to download it to process it. the upside is I have final say, so I don't lose those three messages to some service without knowing it... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 07:45:50 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21D1195F37 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:45:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1OFq23w026979; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:52:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:45:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030224121722.GC4646@gsp.org> Message-Id: <090F2AC8-480F-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/116 X-Sequence-Number: 1179 On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 04:17 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:44:32PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> It's failing miserably at dealing with it, actually. > > Then we have a difference of opinion: I think it's doing quite well. That's a first (snork). > It's now been made clear to ISPs that providing spam-support services > will > not be tolerated by the Internet community, and that those ISPs which > do and just look at how quickly the spam volume is dropping, too! wow! It's almost solved! Those attempts at intervention and isolation have basically been an absolute failure. sorry. > >> And legislation will come. > > And will be watered-down and ineffective and inapplicable on a global > basis. I'm going to write on this in my blog. Stay tuned. But this is the typical geek attitude I see: we can't solve it 100%, so don't try. Wrong answer. Let's go get the first hunk, and it'll improve things and make the next hunk easier. more when I have time. >> What you call poisoning, people in the real world call >> compromise, adn it's that unwillingness to compromise that causes >> geeks >> to get marginalized out of these discussions in the first place, > > There is no compromise as to the use of MY systems. And the end result of that attitude is that when these laws ARE passed, you may find them passed in ways you find intolerable, but since you have no compromise in your attitude, you get left out of the discussion. So if the laws ban RBLs? you may not have a choice any more. But since you won't take a compromise answer as an answer, you risk losing things you consider untouchable. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 07:53:07 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1634E1963A6 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OFr0al022950; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OFohx13237; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OFqvHx009994; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OFqvhT009991; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:52:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:52:56 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST Message-ID: <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/117 X-Sequence-Number: 1180 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:38:15AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > And since I don't assume everyone out there can remember how each > individual wants it, I don't get mad when you get it wrong, either. I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then once at the top. That did not appear to be working, hence an explicit request. (Which will now be repeated at the bottom of every message so that nobody has to remember.) But I would think that list-managers, of all people, would know that anyone wanting to participate in a list is perfectly capable of reading messages sent to the list and hardly needs a redundant copy directed to their personal mailbox. To me, that's part of netiquette 101: list replies go the list, private replies go to the person, and unless there's some outside issue (e.g. reason to believe that one is working and the other isn't) there's no reason to do otherwise. > It's stupid and somewhat arrogant to tell everyone to do it your way. It's stupid and somewhat arrogant of you to deliberately ignore my request. However, I have honored yours. ---Rsk Please do not CC me on copies of messages sent to this list. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:01:41 2003 Received: from osm.michaelines.net (osm.michaelines.net [66.238.77.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F921959FA for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by osm.michaelines.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 61ED920D16; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:02:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:02:22 -0500 From: Blaise de Cormeilles To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030224160222.GA40910@scadian.net> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com References: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> <55A37F9C-4768-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/118 X-Sequence-Number: 1181 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 04:43:32PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > 2. I agree with the rest of your comment: (to borrow a bit from what > you went on to say) I too have great sympathy for the people trying > to stop the spam -- UNLESS they're also the people responsible for the spam. > For instance, I have no sympathy at all for Yahoo, since Yahoo Stores > allows spammers to operate with impunity from its space: doesn't matter > who reports them, how many times, how clear/murky the evidence is, etc.: > they do *nothing*. And then they turn around and tout their anti-spam > measures to their subscribers. It would solve not only some/much of their > problem to take the time/effort/money put into the latter and instead put > it into clobbering their own pet spammers. > > s/Yahoo/XO/ > s/Yahoo/Rackspace/ > s/Yahoo/Verio/ > s/Yahoo/Level 3/ > s/Yahoo/C & W/ > s/Yahoo/ATT/ > > and so on, with different variations on the theme, but the same song. > Part of this may be due to economic conditions: turning off a paying > customer, even a spammer, doesn't go over well when co-lo centers sit > mostly empty. Question: how does someone looking for hosting figure out a) which Tier 1 providers are reputable (obviously, XO, Verio, Level 3, and C&W are right out), and protect against their Tier 2 provider switching to one of them? (And changing your host provider is not a simple procedure...) Jim Trigg -- Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN Hostmaster, Huie Kin family website X HELP CURE HTML MAIL Verger, All Saints Church - Sharon Chapel / \ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:03:52 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F52196476 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OG3kal027871; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:03:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OG1Vx13272; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OG3iHx011002; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OG3i58011001; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:03:44 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> References: <20030224121722.GC4646@gsp.org> <090F2AC8-480F-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <090F2AC8-480F-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/119 X-Sequence-Number: 1182 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:45:44AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > That's a first (snork). Aw, c'mon. We always see eye to eye on everything. Just look at the swinging watch...relax...breathe deeply...relax...now say this: "Rich is always right and I am always wrong" "Rich is always right and I am always wrong" "Rich is always right and I am always wrong" :-) > and just look at how quickly the spam volume is dropping, too! wow! > It's almost solved! It's dropping for those people who are using various anti-spam measures, yes. How much depends on too many factors to generalize, but first-hand reports from people using various combinations of DNSBLs plus filters like SpamAssassin report quite a bit of success: the problem is trying to fine-tune the combinations for the specific mix of incoming spam that hits each site, or even each mailbox. That's why per-user settings are starting to be more widely used: those users who don't care, don't use 'em. Those users who want every possible filter, use 'em. Works for both groups [1]. We didn't get to this situation overnight: we won't get out of it overnight. But having seen some formerly black-hat ISPs change their ways and clean out their spammers, I have hopes that gradually those which refuse to do so will be isolated and lose their customer base. But it's like any boycott: it takes time. And IMNSHO it's only been in the last 12-18 months that the pressure has really been turned up. So I'm willing to wait roughly about that same length of time before evaluating the process and deciding if it's working or not. > So if the laws ban RBLs? you may not have a choice any more. 1. Won't happen -- or if it does, will crumble at the first court challenge. 2. Not everyone blocks with RBLs. Bayesian classifiers and similar bits of code are in widespread use. (They have their drawbacks, too, just a different set of them.) 3. As has been occasionally discussed -- will lead to Pandora finally being let loose, at which point things will get much worse. ---Rsk Please do not CC me on copies of messages sent to this list. [1] Module the ability of the mail server(s) to handle the traffic inbound to those users with no filtering at all. I get the sense that large ISPs who are doing this split the users to mitigate this problem. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:12:02 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94FA19626B for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:12:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1OGBqLW025414 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:11:52 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1OGBq4q025413 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:11:52 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302241611.h1OGBq4q025413@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST - clients To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:11:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Feb 24, 2003 10:52:56 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/120 X-Sequence-Number: 1183 hi ya rich its all up to the way the email clients are setup and also the mailing list itself.. -- client's can modify where replies go to.. i use elm and pine ... - hitting r goes to the poster in here - i went thru the extra trouble to remove "cc" to the list and if i removed "you" from the "to" and if i moved "list" back up to "To:" than you wont see a cc to yourself... dont think everybody will be doing that for you... ( but for this example, i did remove you and move things around ( for this one time - you can also add a spam filter, to drop duplicate incoming emails 9 dont know how - when you reply to my mails, i dont care if i get a cc or not... - i use the defaults as configured by the email gods of elm, pine, mutt, ... even netscape/mozilla/... ( i dont modify the header options -- too many mailing lists ( that behaves differently c ya alvin > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:38:15AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > And since I don't assume everyone out there can remember how each > > individual wants it, I don't get mad when you get it wrong, either. > > I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then > once at the top. That did not appear to be working, hence an explicit > request. (Which will now be repeated at the bottom of every message > so that nobody has to remember.) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:13:57 2003 Received: from minneapolis.mnjazz.com (circles.radparker.com [209.98.250.78]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBDB1964A1 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mnjazz.com (unknown [63.78.137.249]) by minneapolis.mnjazz.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A6410350 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:16:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E5A44BD.68B4AD02@mnjazz.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:13:49 -0600 From: Al Iverson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/121 X-Sequence-Number: 1184 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:38:15AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > And since I don't assume everyone out there can remember how each > > individual wants it, I don't get mad when you get it wrong, either. > > I asked nicely three times Hi Rich, I'm asking nicely now too. Could you please take it to email? It's not really very valuable to the other list memebers. I also do not like being CC'd on list posts, but I generally let the sender know directly instead of polluting the list with stuff like this. My mailing list filters also usually catch those CC's and move them to the same folder as the list posts, so I sometimes don't even notice that somebody CC'd me. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- iverson@mnjazz.com -- Minneapolis, Minnesota My pockets hurt. http://www.spamresource.com/ Support Jazz in Minnesota! -- http://www.mnjazz.com/ All opinions are mine alone unless I state otherwise. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:15:11 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDEF196B02 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:15:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1OGF6O38946 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:15:06 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:15:09 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <1960984.1046085309@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <20030224160222.GA40910@scadian.net> References: <3E59208B.9080408@queernet.org> <55A37F9C-4768-11D7-8BFC-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <20030223214332.GB26559@gsp.org> <20030224160222.GA40910@scadian.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/122 X-Sequence-Number: 1185 --On Monday, February 24, 2003 11:02 AM -0500 Blaise de Cormeilles wrote: > Question: how does someone looking for hosting figure out a) which Tier > 1 providers are reputable (obviously, XO, Verio, Level 3, and C&W are > right out), and protect against their Tier 2 provider switching to one > of them? (And changing your host provider is not a simple procedure...) Actually, the trick is to pick a hoster who has *more than one* Tier 1 provider, with load balancing/failover among them. If you can't do that, you may need to build a couple of redundant sites at T2's using different T1's, and do your own load balancing/failover. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:18:50 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E17196B65 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1OGP03w027405; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:18:41 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Rich Kulawiec From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/123 X-Sequence-Number: 1186 > Aw, c'mon. We always see eye to eye on everything. Just look > at the swinging watch...relax...breathe deeply...relax...now say this: > I'm just happy we do it with humor and respect. most of the time... (grin) > It's dropping for those people who are using various anti-spam > measures, > yes. But it's ignoring the false positive issue of those services, which is getting out of hand. And, funny, isn't that where this dance started? > We didn't get to this situation overnight: we won't get out of it > overnight. that's what we said about USENET, too. >> So if the laws ban RBLs? you may not have a choice any more. > > 1. Won't happen -- or if it does, will crumble at the first court > challenge. don't bet on it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But when that last guitar's been packed away You know that I still want to play So just make sure you got it all set to go Before you come for my piano From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:26:20 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E60D1962E5 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:26:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1OGQDO39738 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:26:13 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:26:16 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <2628265.1046085976@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <19038.1046082505@kanga.nu> References: <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> <19038.1046082505@kanga.nu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/124 X-Sequence-Number: 1187 --On Monday, February 24, 2003 2:28 AM -0800 J C Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:57:35 -0500 > Tom Neff wrote: > >> I spam protect my lists by making them members only. Simplest most >> effective technique I've found. > > I found that header forging virus, and the newer trend toward header > forging spam were getting mail onto my member-sonly lists. Not often to > be sure -- no more than a few per month -- but that was more than enough > for me (and this was a year ago; I suspect the situation is worse now). I guess I should add that I also either strip attachments or block on them, depending on the list, so there's never an actual infection. Like JC, I never actually saw more than a couple of successful (tho harmless) forged postings from infected members. I think this is because of the way the "reinfector" works: on most of these worms, it pulls someone else's From: address at random, AND a To: address at random, from the address book or message spool. Except perhaps with really clubby cliquey exclusive listnerds :) it would seem that the likelihood of a successful "matchup" this way - i.e., the randomly chosen To: address is that of a listserv, and the randomly chosen From: address happens to be in that listserv's roster - is fairly low. Most of the time, if the listserv address is picked for To:, the From: will be garbage or some other random friend who's not a member, so the members-only criterion stops the posting. The biggest problem with members-only lists is that people keep changing their friggin' addresses, or having Systems Support change them for them unbeknownst! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:31:51 2003 Received: from quimbies.gnus.org (quimbies.gnus.org [80.91.231.2]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F09E196813 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:31:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from larsi by quimbies.gnus.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nLW9-0007U9-00 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:31:49 +0100 X-Now-Playing: The Soft Pink Truth's _Do You Party?_: "Satie (Grey Corduroy Suit)" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:31:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> (Rich Kulawiec's message of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:52:56 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.3.50 References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Archive-Number: 200302/125 X-Sequence-Number: 1188 Rich Kulawiec writes: > I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then > once at the top. Why don't you do it where it counts instead -- in the headers. Many modern mail readers understand the Mail-Followup-To and/or Mail-Copies-To headers. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:35:25 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1BA195A27 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:35:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1OGZKO40495 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:35:20 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:35:23 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <3174890.1046086523@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <601E7011-480E-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <601E7011-480E-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/126 X-Sequence-Number: 1189 --On Monday, February 24, 2003 7:41 AM -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > For what it's worth -- 42% of my incoming email to plaidworks is now spam. > mail.app on jaguar catches over 99% of that, and I've had maybe 3 false > positives this month, all e-newsletters from vendors I want sent to me. > That's easily fixed by adding their addresses to my address book. > > The downside of a client solution is I have to download it to process it. > the upside is I have final say, so I don't lose those three messages to > some service without knowing it... I use an IMAP server on my dedicated host, so I kind of get the best of both worlds on that score - server-side filtering (much more comforting on the antivirus side) with complete personal control over the config. The downside is that if structures fill up etc, I have to page myself at 4am :) but that's rare. I never send anything to /dev/null, just to junk folders that I periodically clean out. I prefer that because if someone says "I emailed that doc to you last Monday" and I didn't see it, I always have a dumpster I can dive for it as a last resort. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:45:27 2003 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DA3195A41 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:45:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1OGjKq10981 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:45:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:45:20 -0500 From: David Shaw To: List Managers Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030224164520.GB2224@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: List Managers References: <20030224143449.29532.qmail@celery.tssi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030224143449.29532.qmail@celery.tssi.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Crescent (47% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-Archive-Number: 200302/127 X-Sequence-Number: 1190 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:34:49AM -0600, nolan@celery.tssi.com wrote: > > It's like getting telemarketing calls on your cell phone. > > As more and more people opt out of land lines completely, telemarketers > are starting to get less concerned about calling cell phones. (BTW, > is there any law against it? I've heard/read conflicting statements > on that.) The TCPA prohibits (in the US) calling a cell phone if the telemarketer is using a prerecorded message and/or an "automatic dialer". Many states are getting into the game now as well, which makes me suspect that the TCPA is being fairly widely ignored. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 08:53:47 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9B01968D2 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OGrcal006883; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OGpRx13391; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:51:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OGrhHx014399; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OGrgsY014398; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:53:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:53:42 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <20030224165342.GA13943@gsp.org> References: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/128 X-Sequence-Number: 1191 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:18:41AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > But it's ignoring the false positive issue of those services, which is > getting out of hand. And, funny, isn't that where this dance started? But I'm not ignoring it: I'm well aware that there are false positives. The thing is that there's a cost associated with false positive and false negatives: the former represents a message that should have gotten through and didn't; the latter represents a message that should have been blocked and wasn't. The whole spam-blocking/filtering thing thus becomes a balancing act: and it's complicated by the fact that the costs associated with each are NOT the same for everyone. For example: I have a certain mail address that is used only for serious system alerts -- dead web servers, stuff like that. For this to work properly, it's really important that any message sent there be confined only to those generated by the various systems that are expected to communicate with it. So I've not just spam-protected it, I've made the decision that the cost of false negatives is so high that it was worth the time to set it up to ONLY accept mail from a handful of other addresses. Extrapolate this to a bazillion users on a bazillion mail systems and I think it's clear that the decisions people need to make (w.r.t. costs of false +/-) are going to vary a lot. So, yeah, there are false positives, and that's bad. But it is -- AFAIK -- impossible to design an anti-spam system which is otherwise, except for the null system, and well, that isn't much use. Well, okay, it's not much use *to me*. Others may find that it meets their needs, and they're welcome to use it if it does. Some folks have addressed this tradeoff by just tagging messages instead of blocking them. Others have come up with adaptive filters. Others have used distributed spamtraps (after all, if 100 utterly unrelated addresses get the same message within an hour, that's a pretty good indicator that a spammer is carpet-bombing a chunk of the Internet). Others have tried DNSBLs that (variously) list open relays, open proxies, abusable formail.pl scripts. known spammer mail systems, and a hundred other things. There are now something around 500 different DNSBLs, each with different criteria, a number of open-source filters, some number of closed-source filters, and various proprietary services in place at some ISPs. Some of them are pretty good; some of them are awful. NONE of them would have ever been developed if the need hadn't arisen. Which is why I keep pointing to spammers/spam-friendly ISPs as the underlying source of the problem. If that issue gets fixed (YMMV as to what "fixed" means) then the need for all of these other measures will largely go away. But until that happens, not only will more people use blocking methods, they'll use more badly-designed/badly-implemented ones with more negative consequences for everyone trying to make legitimate use of email. That doesn't make me happy: but it's what I think will happen. ---Rsk Please do not CC me on copies of messages sent to this list. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 09:13:33 2003 Received: from www.lofcom.com (oldradio.net [216.105.35.108]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF138195A54 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.123.10] (lof@washdc3-ar1-4-46-251-038.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net [4.46.251.38]) by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02059; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:12:53 -0500 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030224155256.GA9404@gsp.org> References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:09:51 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST X-Archive-Number: 200302/129 X-Sequence-Number: 1192 At 10:52 AM -0500 2/24/03, Rich Kulawiec wasted our time with: > I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then > once at the top. That did not appear to be working, hence an explicit > request. (Which will now be repeated at the bottom of every message > so that nobody has to remember.) Here's a better idea; since you have determined that everyone has to do things your way, why don't we all simply dump your listmail to /dev/null, to avoid making the terrible mistake of responding to you. (Private email can be rejected more easily through the access database.) Perhaps you might also consider starting your own list, where you may encorporate your demands directly into the list charter. (Aside to _others_ on the list: Are lists formally chartered anymore? I'm not talking about list guidelines, I mean the formal USENET-like charter we crafted years and years ago.) Forgive me, but I tend to get a little annoyed when someone tells me how I MUST do something simply because they aren't smart enough to write a procmail filter to eliminate duplicate copies. I (like Mr. Von Rospach) prefer to be copied directly on list posts to me, but I hardly DEMAND everyone on this or the other lists to which I subscribe slavishly follow my request. The sender of the email determines how he sends the mail, not the recipient, and any other attitude is just plain pompous. Charlie Summers From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 09:35:13 2003 Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9111962C1 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from gsp.org (balt-7-87.dynamic-dialup.coretel.net [162.33.95.87]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OHZ9al029093 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (vorlon [192.168.0.15]) by gsp.org (8.11.5/8.11.5) with ESMTP id h1OHWvx13511 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from vorlon.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1OHZDHx016982 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by vorlon.gsp.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h1OHZCCH016981 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:12 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses Message-ID: <20030224173512.GA16546@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> <20030224021105.GA4073@gsp.org> <7307.1046053977@kanga.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7307.1046053977@kanga.nu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Archive-Number: 200302/130 X-Sequence-Number: 1193 On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 06:32:57PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote: > Which ignores the point. Such viral operations require large > monoculture populations to be created, and to survive, and further, no > matter what happens with OS popularity the power curve laws define that > one will be overwhelmingly popular and thus a ready host and market for > such attacks and exploits. Granted. But if that's the case, why haven't we seen another sendmail-transmitted virus/worm in the ensuing 15 years? From roughly 1988 to roughly 1998, it approached a monoculture -- and although postfix/exim/et.al. have changed that since, it still moves a big chunk of the 'net's mail. Similar comments could be about, oh, BIND and Apache, which occupy big chunks of their software space. And yeah, we see attacks against all of them, and occasionally exploits, but none of them have been anything like the Morris worm or the much more recent MS SQL worm. (Could that change tomorrow? Sure.) (Interesting question: are there more instances of sendmail or MS SQL reachable from the Internet? I have no idea what the answer to this is.) I'm not disagreeing about monocultures: I've read enough S.J. Gould to get the point. ;-) But I'm not convinced that all monocultures are equally susceptible. I suppose that's hard to quantify, though, even after-the-fact. ---Rsk Please do not CC me on copies of messages sent to this list. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 10:56:28 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E75B1963B5 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1OIuOTb007096 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:22 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1OIuMQ24793; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:21 -0800 Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Charlie Summers From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/131 X-Sequence-Number: 1194 On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 09:09 AM, Charlie Summers wrote: > At 10:52 AM -0500 2/24/03, Rich Kulawiec wasted our time with: > >> I asked nicely three times -- twice at the bottom of messages, then >> once at the top. That did not appear to be working, hence an explicit >> request. You know, I was going to let this drop, since I didn't want to turn it into an argument, but since it is anyway, I'll chime in. Rich can ask. he can't demand. Since philosophically I'm strongly against the request he made, I ignore it. Just because he asks for it doesn't mean he gets it, and since I'm in control of my email client (not him), all he can do is ask. And asking in ever louder and more frustrated voices doesn't help him get what he wants, something he should realize by now (at least with me... grin) That is why I suggested the PROPER way to do this is to fix it on his own local system, since he does have control of it. If you want your email some specific way, set up your system to present it that way. Don't whine at everyone else to change their lives to your convenience -- fix your computer. Not only is that more effective, because your computer HAS to listen to you and I don't, it's a lot lower on the frustration level, because as rich has to remember from the early days of USENET, educating users DOESN'T FRICKING WORK because every time you educate one, two more pop up who are new and even less capable of understanding why they need to be educated, much less care about what you think. So this "do it my way" strategy is guaranteed to fail anyway, and by trying, you're wasting your own time and energy, and raising your blood pressure at the same time. That's a stupid way to handle something. Find a way to solve it, not complain about it. And that means doing it using things you CAN control, and that doesn't include the users around you. > directly into the list charter. (Aside to _others_ on the list: Are > lists > formally chartered anymore? I'm not talking about list guidelines, I > mean the > formal USENET-like charter we crafted years and years ago.) mine are. although some days I wonder why, or if it matters... > Forgive me, but I tend to get a little annoyed when someone tells > me how I > MUST do something simply because they aren't smart enough to write a > procmail > filter to eliminate duplicate copies. I (like Mr. Von Rospach) prefer > to be > copied directly on list posts to me, here's why, by the way. I filter all of my list mail to folders, which I can read in my free time, so it doesn't get in the way of my "real" e-mail. If I'm in a conversation (like this one), I WANT a private copy, because it flags to me that a conversation I'm in needs to be looked at. That keeps the threads I'm involved in directly moving forward on a timely basis, without requiring me to plow through all of my list mail wondering if a discussion I'm involved in needs my attention. That's good for the list (IMHO) because it keeps discussions from going stale for six hours and then picking up again. But if someone doesn't send me a private copy, I don't yell at them. Things might slow down a bit, but the world won't end, either. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 11:38:03 2003 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1237C1969AB for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-134-91.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.134.91] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nOQM-0003Wx-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:38:02 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224121826.00b33b08@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:18:53 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: TLS handshake error In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030224012417.296f1258@199.74.151.1> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030216142431.00b6d948@pop.earthlink.net> <28690.1045428106@kanga.nu> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030216123926.00b85f48@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/132 X-Sequence-Number: 1195 Thanks, but the problem has been found and fixed. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:07:05 2003 Received: from mail2.xpedite.com (mail2.xpedite.com [137.236.4.16]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B60195A85 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from antivirus1 (antivirus1.xpedite.com [137.236.4.32]) by mail2.xpedite.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h1OK70Fu027317 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM mailserver2.xpedite.com BY antivirus1 ; Mon Feb 24 15:15:37 2003 -0500 Received: from pcsnizamoff (dhcp77-119.xpedite.com [137.236.77.119]) by mailserver2.xpedite.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id h1OK6xm01724 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen Nizamoff" To: Subject: restrict posts to internal mailing lists Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:11:38 -0500 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Archive-Number: 200302/133 X-Sequence-Number: 1196 Is it possible to restrict the use of my mailing lists to only users in my domain? For example I have a list called cs@xpedite.com and would like to only allow users with xpedite.com addressses to use send e-mail to this list. Thanks. Stephen Nizamoff Systems Administrator Xpedite 100 Tormee Dr. Tinton Falls, NJ 07712 732-389-3900 ext. 7752 From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:07:17 2003 Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D5C1967A2 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-134-91.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.134.91] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nOsd-0001sE-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:07:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030224130318.00b99880@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:07:12 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: <19038.1046082505@kanga.nu> References: <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> <3E59D69B.9030708@queernet.org> <329192406.1046062655@[192.168.254.79]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/134 X-Sequence-Number: 1197 > > I spam protect my lists by making them members only. Simplest most > > effective technique I've found. > >I found that header forging virus, and the newer trend toward header >forging spam were getting mail onto my member-sonly lists. That's just the first level of protection. It IS possible, however, that a virus might randomly select another list member's address when it forges the "From" field and get past the restricted posting (although I have yet to see this happen). If this does happen, be sure to have the maximum message size set as low as you feel comfortable with, lower than the size of any virus. If someone invents a virus in the future which is very small in size and can also get past that, install DeMime. DeMime will strip any virus that gets that far. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:36:20 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4022B195A7A for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nPKk-0004Hy-00 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:36:18 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST In-Reply-To: Message from Rich Kulawiec of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:04 EST." <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030223203708.00b8d890@pop.earthlink.net> <9679CCE4-47B0-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> 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, 24 Feb 2003 12:36:18 -0800 Message-ID: <16489.1046118978@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/135 X-Sequence-Number: 1198 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:39:04 -0500 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Excuse the shouting, but I have made this request repeatedly, first in > message footers, then at the beginning, and yet it seems to be roundly > ignored. I do not need to get two copies of every message sent to > this list in response to mine: the one delivered to the list will > suffice. Then set reply-to on your own posts, or use the non-standard mail-followup-to header. Really, this is your problem, not ours. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:50:33 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CE5195A7A for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:50:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 08C7E1BF57B; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:50:35 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15962.34202.921741.821226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:50:34 -0500 To: Alvin Oga Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST - clients References: <200302241611.h1OGBq4q025413@planet.fef.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Subvert your original idea X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/136 X-Sequence-Number: 1199 >>>>> "AO" == Alvin Oga writes: AO> its all up to the way the email clients are setup and also AO> the mailing list itself.. There are mailing list managers which suppress the list copy if a member is explicitly mentioned in the recipients list. You can't block the direct copy at any place other than the end points, but you can inhibit the list copy (at the member's discretion of course), although there are some minor downsides to that. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:51:30 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0BC195B07 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11471; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:56:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A8611.5000201@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:52:33 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223142626.GA20724@gsp.org> <3E590776.7050601@vo.cnchost.com> <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20030223185147.GA25969@gsp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/137 X-Sequence-Number: 1200 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > But it is worth remembering that ...this is the list-managers list, not spam-l. Please keep the discussion on this list pertinant to the list topic (managing mailing lists) and take the spam discussion to an appropriate spam forum, OK? I posted here so that *list managers* who have been adversely affected by poorly implemented anti-spam policies could contact the EFF with their stories, not to start an off-topic anti-spam flamewar on this list. This is normally a quiet list, and there were over 90 new posts in the past day, and I bet that very few of them have anything to do with managing mailing lists. jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 12:55:19 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4B1195F25 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A177F1BF57B; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:55:21 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15962.34488.663475.501662@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Emphasize repetitions X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/138 X-Sequence-Number: 1201 >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: >> We didn't get to this situation overnight: we won't get out of >> it overnight. CVR> that's what we said about USENET, too. Actually, NNTP and news are wonderful systems. Usenet may be a failed application built on top of them, but Gmane is a nice success. :) -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 16:30:47 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4FA195A29 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nSzX-0008JS-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:30:39 -0800 To: Rich Kulawiec Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Spam vs. viruses In-Reply-To: Message from Rich Kulawiec of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:12 EST." <20030224173512.GA16546@gsp.org> References: <3E583DD9.8030705@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030223134226.00b6c668@pop.earthlink.net> <20030223215658.GA26615@gsp.org> <3E594958.9050807@queernet.org> <20030224021105.GA4073@gsp.org> <7307.1046053977@kanga.nu> <20030224173512.GA16546@gsp.org> 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, 24 Feb 2003 16:30:39 -0800 Message-ID: <31957.1046133039@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/139 X-Sequence-Number: 1202 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:35:12 -0500 Rich Kulawiec wrote: > But if that's the case, why haven't we seen another > sendmail-transmitted virus/worm in the ensuing 15 years? We have, for other services such as Lion. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 17:11:10 2003 Received: from [10.0.1.16] (mann.mbs.unimelb.edu.au [128.250.180.81]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC80F195A22; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:11:06 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: brent@mycroft.greatcircle.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:04 +1100 To: Chuq Von Rospach , J C Lawrence From: Brent Chapman Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Cc: Bob Bish , list-managers@greatcircle.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Archive-Number: 200302/140 X-Sequence-Number: 1203 At 10:14 PM -0800 2/23/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software >will go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. Perhaps from a list-manager's or an end-user's point of view, but not from a network-provider's point of view. If you make the list-based or user-based filtering systems more effective (i.e., they drop more spam, and allow less through), how are the spammers going to respond? They're simply going to throw more spam at the filtering systems, to increase the amount that gets through. The list or the end user might not see it, but the load on the network provider (bandwidth, spool space, processing horsepower, etc.) goes up considerably. If you really want to address spam, you've got to address it at all levels, including the network level, not just the list or end-user level. Otherwise you're just pushing the problem off onto somebody else, and the whole email ecosystem is still going to collapse. -Brent -- Brent Chapman From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 18:05:12 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CC2195AF7 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1P251O73169 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:05:02 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:05:06 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <37358140.1046120706@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/141 X-Sequence-Number: 1204 Man, I'm beginning to see Chuq's viewpoint - what a forest of Cc's to whack away for one list reply! --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:11 PM +1100 Brent Chapman wrote: > At 10:14 PM -0800 2/23/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> a combination of good whitelists and good spam analysis software >> will go a long way towards getting the spam problem under control. > > Perhaps from a list-manager's or an end-user's point of view, but not from > a network-provider's point of view. If you make the list-based or > user-based filtering systems more effective (i.e., they drop more spam, and > allow less through), how are the spammers going to respond? They're simply > going to throw more spam at the filtering systems, to increase the amount > that gets through. The list or the end user might not see it, but the load > on the network provider (bandwidth, spool space, processing horsepower, > etc.) goes up considerably. > > If you really want to address spam, you've got to address it at all levels, > including the network level, not just the list or end-user level. > Otherwise you're just pushing the problem off onto somebody else, and the > whole email ecosystem is still going to collapse. First, I suspect spammers will attempt to increase their volume no matter what list administrators do. Second, the real "wall" spammers are pushing against is not the independent list admin represented here, but large ISP spamfighters like Earthlink, AOL etc. Third, if we filter better for our users and spammers respond by upping their wattage, it makes it EASIER, not harder, for the political and economic clout to be marshaled that will allow the all-levels attack being called for. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 18:16:29 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E456195AD1; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:16:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1P2Mu3w009237; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:22:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:16:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: J C Lawrence , Bob Bish , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: Brent Chapman From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <208A9AB8-4867-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/142 X-Sequence-Number: 1205 On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:11 PM, Brent Chapman wrote: > If you really want to address spam, you've got to address it at all > levels, including the network level, not just the list or end-user > level. Otherwise you're just pushing the problem off onto somebody > else, and the whole email ecosystem is still going to collapse. > agree completely, which is why I think to start solving this we need to define some aspects that we agree on need to be shot, and set up laws to allow us to start shooting. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Mon Feb 24 18:31:17 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B4C1959D7 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nUsE-0000aw-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:31:14 -0800 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Neff of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:05:06 EST." <37358140.1046120706@[192.168.254.79]> References: <2D1F1F8F-47BF-11D7-AE70-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <37358140.1046120706@[192.168.254.79]> 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, 24 Feb 2003 18:31:14 -0800 Message-ID: <2288.1046140274@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/143 X-Sequence-Number: 1206 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:05:06 -0500 Tom Neff wrote: > Third, if we filter better for our users and spammers respond by > upping their wattage, it makes it EASIER, not harder, for the > political and economic clout to be marshaled that will allow the > all-levels attack being called for. Actually, if spammers up their wattage it makes it easier to detect and destroy spam. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 02:59:08 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99855195A17 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA7325B184 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:59:01 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:37:50 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6C174D61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/144 X-Sequence-Number: 1207 At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >If you want your email set up in a specific way, set up your client to >show it that way. > >I want people to send me a copy of message sent to the list, by the way >please DO CC me. How many times are we going to have this conversation? As I recally, you also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point. Eventually you cried uncle when I delivered. The other point is that the real problem is that the people (misguided individual?) who originally put forth the concept that lists should not mung Reply-To is responsible for the reply-to-all header expansion --- and that instead of doing that, they should have written an alteration to RFC822, back long enough ago to where mailing list managers would have done the right thing. Instead they wrote unmitigated drivel like "reply to munging considered harmful" and we have what we have what we have today. (Please do not bother do tell me about how hard it is for you to reply-to individuals when lists implement reply-to-munging. I do not care about the shortcomings of your MUA - and mine is among the worse.) 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra copy, they want the list copy. You are part of the 5%. What Rich, and I, and 19 out of 20 want is the norm. Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private copies. Fix your header (after you do reply-to-all because that is the only way to reply-to-list because of the ill-advised, faddish "reply to munging considered harmful" and delete *ALL* individual recipients. And thanks from 19 out of 20 of us. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 02:59:10 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7D6195A17 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 02:59:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E3725B20A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:59:01 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225054230.255e0208@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:58:42 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: References: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6C174D61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/145 X-Sequence-Number: 1208 At 08:18 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >>It's dropping for those people who are using various anti-spam measures, >>yes. > >But it's ignoring the false positive issue of those services, which is >getting out of hand. And, funny, isn't that where this dance started? One thing about Bayesian spam filters (I use and contribute to bogofilter, which has performance as a goal, see http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net) is that they are typically tunable. I am getting little if any false positives from bogofilter, like one misclassified spam in the last month. I have a fairly large personal database and I reclassify all spam that is misclassified. But that is based on how I have my parameters specified. I agree, though, it takes a second or two to handle each mail. But, probably 80% of my spam comes from a couple of places where I am forced to allow offsite relaying of mail to my site. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 05:35:07 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C157196354 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:35:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1C1BA1BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:35:13 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:35:12 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Ask people to work against their better judgement X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/146 X-Sequence-Number: 1209 >>>>> "NS" == Nick Simicich writes: NS> 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra NS> copy, they want the list copy. You are part of the 5%. What NS> Rich, and I, and 19 out of 20 want is the norm. Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can suppress the list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in a recipient header. It can also collapse CC headers for subsequent postings. I'd suspect that of those 19, that behavior would be just fine for 18 of them. For the others, something like actual MUA support for Mail-Copies-To would be sufficient. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 06:45:17 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BABF1959EA for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1PEj0O06980 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:45:04 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:45:01 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Message-ID: <82952656.1046166301@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/147 X-Sequence-Number: 1210 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:35 AM -0500 "Barry A. Warsaw" wrote: >>>>>> "NS" == Nick Simicich writes: > NS> 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra > NS> copy, they want the list copy. You are part of the 5%. What > NS> Rich, and I, and 19 out of 20 want is the norm. > > Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can suppress the > list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in a recipient header. > It can also collapse CC headers for subsequent postings. I'd suspect > that of those 19, that behavior would be just fine for 18 of them. > For the others, something like actual MUA support for Mail-Copies-To > would be sufficient. This is kind of a band-aid, though, and a risky one. For one thing, just because a list server THINKS it sees a member address mentioned in a recipient header, doesn't actually mean that the message got there. The address in question might be set up to only allow mail from the list server, in fact that's a common spam protection technique. In that case the Cc'd member would get no copy at all. Also, it doesn't take Digests into consideration. Unless the list software is custom building digests for each digest-mode member, you pretty much have to send them everything, whether they were Cc'd in the original or not. And in fact it can be quite useful for people who do receive the Digest but are having an intra-day exchange of postings on some topic to Cc each other as they go, rather than wait a day for the answer. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:03:11 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C0A195AF2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ngbo-00073G-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:03:04 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5B85AA.4090705@queernet.org> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:03:06 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/148 X-Sequence-Number: 1211 Nick Simicich wrote: > Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private > copies. Bullshit. He means it, and I do too. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:04:21 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7669C195F46 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ngd2-00015v-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:04:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5B85F6.4040509@queernet.org> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:04:22 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030225054230.255e0208@199.74.151.1> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225054230.255e0208@199.74.151.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/149 X-Sequence-Number: 1212 Nick Simicich wrote: > One thing about Bayesian spam filters (I use and contribute to > bogofilter, which has performance as a goal, see > http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net) is that they are typically tunable. So what? a) That takes work. I don't want to work at it. b) That occurs aftyer false positives have happened. It's unacceptable to me that they *ever* happen. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:05:47 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFFD195F38 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:05:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum1j.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.88.51] helo=queernet.org) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ngeM-00034U-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:05:42 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5B8648.3050206@queernet.org> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:05:44 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barry A. Warsaw" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/150 X-Sequence-Number: 1213 Barry A. Warsaw wrote: >Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can suppress the >list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in a recipient header. >It can also collapse CC headers for subsequent postings. > And that's up to each subscriber to choose for him/herself on this MLM software, by setting their own flags instead of getting whatever behavior the list-owner orders for them. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:36:09 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01631959EA for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1PFfS3w019275; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:34:24 -0800 Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Nick Simicich From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> Message-Id: <9E63ECAE-48D6-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/151 X-Sequence-Number: 1214 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:37 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > How many times are we going to have this conversation? As I recally, > you also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point. Eventually > you cried uncle when I delivered. 18, and no, I didn't. I simply read it when you sent it until you stopped. > Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private > copies. Please ignore Nick. he's lying. again. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:36:35 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A5D1969EC for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1PFhO3w019294; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:43:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:36:21 -0800 Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Nick Simicich , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E5B85AA.4090705@queernet.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/152 X-Sequence-Number: 1215 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:03 AM, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Nick Simicich wrote: > >> Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants >> private copies. > > Bullshit. He means it, and I do too. > It's okay, roger. I'm used to the idea that Nick is so sure his view of the world is the only possible one that the rest of us must be lying when we disagree. This isn't the first time he's shown this attitude. I generally try to avoid wasting oxygen on it. Not worth it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:38:45 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B4B196365 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0F5491BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:52 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.36363.842629.817718@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:51 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <3E5B8648.3050206@queernet.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Nobility of Intentions X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/153 X-Sequence-Number: 1216 >>>>> "RBAK" == Roger B A Klorese writes: >> Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can >> suppress the list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in >> a recipient header. It can also collapse CC headers for >> subsequent postings. RBAK> And that's up to each subscriber to choose for him/herself RBAK> on this MLM software, by setting their own flags instead of RBAK> getting whatever behavior the list-owner orders for them. But of course! -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 07:43:37 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31681962C6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:43:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 782A11BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:43:43 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.36655.361016.969770@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:43:43 -0500 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <82952656.1046166301@[192.168.254.79]> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Work out every detail X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/154 X-Sequence-Number: 1217 >>>>> "TN" == Tom Neff writes: TN> This is kind of a band-aid, though, and a risky one. For one TN> thing, just because a list server THINKS it sees a member TN> address mentioned in a recipient header, doesn't actually mean TN> that the message got there. The address in question might be TN> set up to only allow mail from the list server, in fact that's TN> a common spam protection technique. In that case the Cc'd TN> member would get no copy at all. But if the member has this arrangement, they'd just not choose copy-suppression. TN> Also, it doesn't take Digests into consideration. True. In Mailman's case we don't build unique digests for each recipient (this is why you can't personalize digest deliveries). TN> Unless the list software is custom building digests for each TN> digest-mode member, you pretty much have to send them TN> everything, whether they were Cc'd in the original or not. TN> And in fact it can be quite useful for people who do receive TN> the Digest but are having an intra-day exchange of postings on TN> some topic to Cc each other as they go, rather than wait a day TN> for the answer. Yep, and in fact that's how I read list-managers, so I appreciate the extra CC. guess-i'm-in-that-5%-ly y'rs, -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 08:26:01 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D6D1967B1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ord351473 (localhost.panix.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CBF488B3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:25:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <016501c2dcea$852a6000$21985742@ord351473> From: "David W. Tamkin" To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <82952656.1046166301@[192.168.254.79]> Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS LIST Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:25:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Archive-Number: 200302/155 X-Sequence-Number: 1218 Tom Neff wrote, | This is kind of a band-aid, though, and a risky one. For one thing, just | because a list server THINKS it sees a member address mentioned in a | recipient header, doesn't actually mean that the message got there. The | address in question might be set up to only allow mail from the list server, | in fact that's a common spam protection technique. In that case the Cc'd | member would get no copy at all. Not only might the delivery of the direct copy fail, but it might not even be attempted. In a previous incarnation of this discussion, someone pointed out that a list member's address could be put onto a cosmetic Cc: line without actually appearing on the outgoing envelope, and thus that member would never receive a copy at all. And I'd like to point out that Rich has never asked us not to CC the list on messages to him. Really, the simple answer for the handful of people who hit the ceiling when they get a message twice is to point Reply-To: to the list on their own posts. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 08:29:04 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F0E195B12 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from onceler.int.kciLink.com (onceler.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.2]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB96217B8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by onceler.int.kciLink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id DC64A3D17; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:29:01 -0500 (EST) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.39373.711990.761760@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:29:01 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200302/156 X-Sequence-Number: 1219 >>>>> "BAW" == Barry A Warsaw writes: BAW> Reply-To munging isn't necessary here. The list s/w can suppress the BAW> list copy if the member is explicitly mentioned in a recipient header. BAW> It can also collapse CC headers for subsequent postings. I'd suspect BAW> that of those 19, that behavior would be just fine for 18 of them. BAW> For the others, something like actual MUA support for Mail-Copies-To BAW> would be sufficient. I just set up my mail program (VM under XEmacs) to auto-delete messages with identical Message-ID headers. It solves this problem quite nicely, and at much less cost than the bandwidth wasted on this whole discussion ;-) No need to rely on MLMs to do it, or on other people's mail programs doing the right thing... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc. Internet: khera@kciLink.com Rockville, MD +1-240-453-8497 AIM: vivekkhera Y!: vivek_khera http://www.khera.org/~vivek/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 11:35:47 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78666196268 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:35:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 488E91BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:35:54 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.50586.161972.150537@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:35:54 -0500 To: Vivek Khera Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <15963.39373.711990.761760@onceler.int.kciLink.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Use an unacceptable color X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/157 X-Sequence-Number: 1220 >>>>> "VK" == Vivek Khera writes: VK> I just set up my mail program (VM under XEmacs) to auto-delete VK> messages with identical Message-ID headers. It solves this VK> problem quite nicely, and at much less cost than the bandwidth VK> wasted on this whole discussion ;-) Please post the code! :) -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 11:44:17 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4F5196354 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:44:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from onceler.int.kciLink.com (onceler.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.2]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE3B2178C for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by onceler.int.kciLink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8BC9A3D17; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:44:13 -0500 (EST) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.51085.393017.929242@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:44:13 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: <15963.50586.161972.150537@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <15963.39373.711990.761760@onceler.int.kciLink.com> <15963.50586.161972.150537@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200302/158 X-Sequence-Number: 1221 >>>>> "BAW" == Barry A Warsaw writes: >>>>> "VK" == Vivek Khera writes: VK> I just set up my mail program (VM under XEmacs) to auto-delete VK> messages with identical Message-ID headers. It solves this VK> problem quite nicely, and at much less cost than the bandwidth VK> wasted on this whole discussion ;-) BAW> Please post the code! :) ;;; purge duplicated messages (From Noah Friedman off Usenet) (add-hook 'vm-arrived-messages-hook 'vma-kill-duplicate-messages-by-message-id) (defun vma-kill-duplicate-messages-by-message-id (&optional mp) "Mark as deleted any message with a duplicate message ID. Any undeleted message which has a Message ID indentical to that of another undeleted message in the same folder, is marked for deletion." (interactive) (vm-select-folder-buffer) (vm-check-for-killed-summary) (vm-error-if-folder-read-only) (vm-error-if-folder-empty) (let ((htbl (make-vector 103 0)) (n 0) (case-fold-search t) mid) (unless mp (setq mp vm-message-list)) (while mp (cond ((vm-deleted-flag (car mp))) (t (setq mid (vm-su-message-id (car mp))) (or mid (debug (car mp))) (when (intern-soft mid htbl) (vm-set-deleted-flag (car mp) t) (setq n (1+ n))) (intern mid htbl))) (setq mp (cdr mp))) (and (interactive-p) (message "%d duplicate%s marked deleted" n (if (= n 1) "" "s"))) (vm-update-summary-and-mode-line) (when vm-move-after-killing (let ((vm-circular-folders (and vm-circular-folders (eq vm-move-after-killing t)))) (vm-next-message 1 t executing-kbd-macro))) n)) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 11:55:36 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004471963E7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:55:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nl6s-0002r5-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:51:26 -0800 To: Nick Simicich Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Nick Simicich of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:37:50 EST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> References: <20030224113904.GA4646@gsp.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> 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, 25 Feb 2003 11:51:26 -0800 Message-ID: <10976.1046202686@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/159 X-Sequence-Number: 1222 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 05:37:50 -0500 Nick Simicich wrote: > At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > How many times are we going to have this conversation? As I recally, > you also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point. Eventually > you cried uncle when I delivered. The other point is that the real > problem is that the people (misguided individual?) who originally put > forth the concept that lists should not mung Reply-To is responsible > for the reply-to-all header expansion --- and that instead of doing > that, they should have written an alteration to RFC822, back long > enough ago to where mailing list managers would have done the right > thing. Sure, its called the List-Post header from RFC 2369. Its even been around for a while. > Instead they wrote unmitigated drivel like "reply to munging > considered harmful" and we have what we have what we have today. Having run multiple lists of the both forms for almost 10 years for each I'll merely observe that non-reply-to munging lists *tend* to work better. > 95% plus of the people who get this mail do not want the extra copy, > they want the list copy. You are part of the 5%. What Rich, and I, > and 19 out of 20 want is the norm. There are two audiences of interest in that decision: The entire population of the list, and the much much smaller population who actively forward or contribute toward the purposes of the list. I largely ignore the first audience -- they're nice to have around, but they do nothing for me. The second audience conversely I can and do bend over backwards for, and the second audience is also the one (for me) that most tends to use mail filtering and structured patterns and methods of handling mail traffic (much as Chuq described and I use myself), and, again, for those reasons, tend to request or want duplicate mail copies. I'm not about to dumb down my mail systems to serve those who don't add value. > Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private > copies. Codswhallop. He's also not nearly alone. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 11:56:23 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCF5196C97 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nlAz-00066B-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:55:41 -0800 To: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) Cc: Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:43:43 EST." <15963.36655.361016.969770@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <82952656.1046166301@[192.168.254.79]> <15963.36655.361016.969770@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 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, 25 Feb 2003 11:55:41 -0800 Message-ID: <23445.1046202941@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/160 X-Sequence-Number: 1223 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:43:43 -0500 Barry A Warsaw wrote: > Yep, and in fact that's how I read list-managers, so I appreciate the > extra CC. I observe a growing divide between the contributing audience and the leeching audience... -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 12:21:04 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C83A195F31 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:21:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1PKKsO27188 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:20:55 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:20:58 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <103109437.1046186458@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <3E5B85F6.4040509@queernet.org> References: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030225054230.255e0208@199.74.151.1> <3E5B85F6.4040509@queernet.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/161 X-Sequence-Number: 1224 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:04 AM -0800 "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > Nick Simicich wrote: >> One thing about Bayesian spam filters (I use and contribute to >> bogofilter, which has performance as a goal, see >> http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net) is that they are typically tunable. > > So what? > > a) That takes work. I don't want to work at it. > b) That occurs aftyer false positives have happened. It's unacceptable to > me that they *ever* happen. Well, then Roger is in a real bind, because there is absolutely no spam prevention measure that has been, is being, or could be implemented on any level whatsoever - from draconian intergalactic legislation to hiring the neighbor's kid to check your Inbox - that is incapable of generating a false positive. So reality is unacceptable. Fortunately, fantasy is always waiting. :) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 12:34:11 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25C1196409 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1PKY4O28267 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:34:04 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:34:08 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Message-ID: <103899671.1046187248@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <15963.39373.711990.761760@onceler.int.kciLink.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> <15963.28944.963000.741431@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <15963.39373.711990.761760@onceler.int.kciLink.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/162 X-Sequence-Number: 1225 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:29 AM -0500 Vivek Khera wrote: > I just set up my mail program (VM under XEmacs) to auto-delete > messages with identical Message-ID headers. That is also a standard feature of the 'reformail' utility that's distributed with 'courier' and some other mail software. http://www.courier-mta.org/reformail.html > ... It solves this problem > quite nicely, and at much less cost than the bandwidth wasted on this > whole discussion ;-) People learn a lot from reading these threads when we take the trouble to be reasoned and informative; one should not assume that it's "bandwidth wasted." From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 12:52:43 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62863196197 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nm48-0006Pz-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:40 -0800 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Neff of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:20:58 EST." <103109437.1046186458@[192.168.254.79]> References: <20030224160344.GB9404@gsp.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030225054230.255e0208@199.74.151.1> <3E5B85F6.4040509@queernet.org> <103109437.1046186458@[192.168.254.79]> 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, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: <24673.1046206360@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/163 X-Sequence-Number: 1226 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:20:58 -0500 Tom Neff wrote: > --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:04 AM -0800 "Roger B.A. Klorese" > wrote: >> a) That takes work. I don't want to work at it. > So reality is unacceptable. Fortunately, fantasy is always > waiting. :) More simply it breaks the law of returns: you get out what you put in. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 12:55:48 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E28E195A34 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PKtkTb023774 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:44 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1PKtjs08148; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:45 -0800 Subject: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <23445.1046202941@kanga.nu> Message-Id: <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/164 X-Sequence-Number: 1227 >> Yep, and in fact that's how I read list-managers, so I appreciate the >> extra CC. > > I observe a growing divide between the contributing audience and the > leeching audience... > and RSS and other technologies will only increase the size of the passive audience. I've gone back and forth over whether this is good or bad, and finally decided to not worry about it. As long as you have a viable user population, does it matter that some folks choose to not contribute? I've actually spent time tracking down and interviewing lurkers, to see why they lurk. It pretty much boils down to: 1) by the time I'd get around to saying something, someone else already has. 2) I don't feel qualified to comment on it. (which I can say is definitely not true for many of the lurkers I've talked to, but in many cases, it's a polite way of saying:) 3) I don't feel like fighting for face time on the list. and the reality is, not everyone feels the need to fight to be heard, and on many lists there's enough volume and, well, outgoing personalities, that getting a word in edgewise is simply seen as more hassle than it's worth. We've been experimenting with "lurker days" with some success. They're periods of time where the regular posters shut up and listen, and allow some breathing room for the rest of the list without the lurkers having to fear having to crawl into the mosh pit. The lurkers like it, for the most part the NON-lurkers like it and it gets more people involved in contributing. it allows lurkers to comment on ongoing threads without the pushback of those with forceful personalities (i.e.: me and people like me) and to say things that those of us who enjoy flapping our gums hadn't thought to talk about. it's caused a couple of lurkers to come out and graduate, too, once they saw they weren't going to get pulped, too. And it's funny what you can learn when you shut up and listen, if you actually shut up and listen, not just shut up... I don't think it's right for all lists, but I do think it's a way to better tie into more of the user base in a low-key, low-stress way. Some folks simply enjoy listening to what others have to say, and some folks don't mind contributing, but aren't into the most pit aspect lists can have. And lurker days are a way to give them some way to contribute on THEIR terms, not ours. And I like that. even if I have to sit on my hands for 24 hours... -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:01:15 2003 Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4CC195BA5 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PL19Tb025028 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:07 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1PL19f04121; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Tom Neff From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <103109437.1046186458@[192.168.254.79]> Message-Id: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/165 X-Sequence-Number: 1228 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 12:20 PM, Tom Neff wrote: > Well, then Roger is in a real bind, because there is absolutely no spam > prevention measure that has been, is being, or could be implemented on > any > level whatsoever actually, there is. It's the one Roger's chosen -- to handle spam processing manually, himself. And it seems to work fine for him, so more power to him. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:03:45 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09A4195BA5 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1PL3cO30098 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:03:38 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:03:42 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Message-ID: <105673328.1046189022@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/166 X-Sequence-Number: 1229 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:01 PM -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 12:20 PM, Tom Neff wrote: >> Well, then Roger is in a real bind, because there is absolutely no spam >> prevention measure that has been, is being, or could be implemented on >> any level whatsoever > > actually, there is. It's the one Roger's chosen -- to handle spam > processing manually, himself. And it seems to work fine for him, so more > power to him. And can we actually be sure that in all that time, Roger has never accidentally skipped over a legitimate email because he either guessed it was spam or missed it in the onslaught? That would be a false positive. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:22:35 2003 Received: from firehouse.net (machine-254.firehouse.net [192.160.237.254]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D7F719606A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 92241 invoked by uid 85); 25 Feb 2003 21:22:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO machine-254.firehouse.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.ncren.net with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 21:22:27 -0000 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:22:26 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: EFF Mailing List Query Message-ID: <20030225212226.GA90655@shazam.wetworks.org> Reply-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: "Alan B. Clegg" X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.69 (Count Fleet) X-TMDA-Fingerprint: 3AbJ7bwcPRI/ItFhOuMVFQBjAas X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 X-Archive-Number: 200302/167 X-Sequence-Number: 1230 --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unless the network is lying to me again, JC Dill said:=20 > -------------------- snip snip -------------------- > * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. So, has anyone actually heard back (even an e-mail) from the EFF on this? Has anyone other than me actually sent a query? AlanC --=20 I must study politics and war that my sons |=20=20 may have liberty to study mathematics and | alan@clegg.com philosophy. -- John Adams | --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+W96SyJP8xSfQVdsRAmg6AJsFV6jCdvkUvUtiorQOGNMwblv+zgCdGu/5 u0GZ9fzh5Puqe1JkHXtz63A= =rQf3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:26:30 2003 Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66BD195B3F for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 216-240-38-250.ip.idiom.com ([216.240.38.250] helo=APTITUDE) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nmap-0000X7-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:26:28 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Tom Neff'" , Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:24:27 -0800 Message-ID: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B940E@sfdc.us.sychron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <103109437.1046186458@[192.168.254.79]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 95a5daa1092a4a38d780f4a490ca69564776905774d2ac4bc39c5cfbc0d15d5bc8af886690241bd9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Archive-Number: 200302/168 X-Sequence-Number: 1231 > From: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > [mailto:list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com] On Behalf Of Tom Neff > > --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:04 AM -0800 "Roger B.A. > Klorese" wrote: > > Nick Simicich wrote: > >> One thing about Bayesian spam filters (I use and contribute to > >> bogofilter, which has performance as a goal, see > >> http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net) is that they are > typically tunable. > > > > So what? > > > > a) That takes work. I don't want to work at it. > > b) That occurs after false positives have happened. It's > > unacceptable to me that they *ever* happen. > > Well, then Roger is in a real bind, because there is > absolutely no spam prevention measure that has been, is > being, or could be implemented on any level whatsoever - from > draconian intergalactic legislation to hiring the neighbor's > kid to check your Inbox - that is incapable of generating a > false positive. Exactly. And we've been told by major users of ours that one false positive is worse to them than 100,000 pieces of spam in their mailboxes. So we go on as before. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:30:16 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E515719670E for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3B7201BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:30:23 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15963.57454.999473.128664@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:30:22 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: J C Lawrence , Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <23445.1046202941@kanga.nu> <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Allow an easement (an easement is the abandonment of a stricture) X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/169 X-Sequence-Number: 1232 >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> I've actually spent time tracking down and interviewing CVR> lurkers, to see why they lurk. It pretty much boils down to: CVR> 1) by the time I'd get around to saying something, someone CVR> else already has. CVR> 2) I don't feel qualified to comment on it. (which I can say CVR> is definitely not true for many of the lurkers I've talked CVR> to, but in many cases, it's a polite way of saying:) CVR> 3) I don't feel like fighting for face time on the list. Two other observations from my lurkers: 4) Some folks are just not very comfortable or proficient with the simple act of typing. It can take them a very long time or a lot of effort to compose messages so they don't do it very often. Maybe they're dyslexic, or maybe they aren't a native speaker, etc. 5) The more shy lurkers will often contact list members or list admins directly to ask questions, much like at a public lecture where some people are too shy to stand in front of the mic, but will come up after your presentation. I think it's fine if people want to lurk, but I'm also happy to see experiments like Chuq's which encourage folks to participate in low stress (and hopefully enjoyable) ways. Lurkers tend to think a lot instead of just (ahem, guilty as charged :) spewing the first thing that comes to mind, so when they /do/ contribute, it's often with valuable insights. I also like ideas that are morphing traditional discussion mailing lists into more diverse communication tools. I've had some ideas about autoblogging newsletters which I'd love to find time to play with . I'm a dinosaur so I'm comfortable with email, but there are lots of ways to participate. Email is almost just an implementation detail. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 13:58:38 2003 Received: from mscan2.ucar.edu (mscan2.ucar.edu [192.43.244.124]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6531959E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38C012400D for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:58:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from snowcrash.scd.ucar.edu (snowcrash.scd.ucar.edu [128.117.8.131]) by mscan2.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38C712400D for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:58:30 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] From: Greg Woods To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B940E@sfdc.us.sychron.com> References: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B940E@sfdc.us.sychron.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 25 Feb 2003 14:58:42 -0700 Message-Id: <1046210322.3940.8.camel@snowcrash> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FWD_MSG,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,SUBJECT_IS_LIST version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200302/170 X-Sequence-Number: 1233 On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 14:24, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > And we've been told by major users of ours that one false positive is > worse to them than 100,000 pieces of spam in their mailboxes. If you can actually get your major users to all agree on this point, then you are more fortunate than we are. I've got one group clamoring that we have to do something about all this spam, and another group saying they absolutely don't want any filtering of their mail in any form. We eventually had to spend several weeks developing a system where we could implement spam blocking on a per-recipient basis. --Greg From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 14:22:46 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F4F195A4B for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:22:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nnSg-0004zM-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:22:06 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:45 PST." <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:22:06 -0800 Message-ID: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/171 X-Sequence-Number: 1234 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:55:45 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >>> Yep, and in fact that's how I read list-managers, so I appreciate >>> the extra CC. >> I observe a growing divide between the contributing audience and the >> leeching audience... > and RSS and other technologies will only increase the size of the > passive audience. I've gone back and forth over whether this is good > or bad, and finally decided to not worry about it. Yeah, a point there that shouldn't ignored is that with rare exception a large "leeching" audience is required to derive and support a smaller contributing audience. You generally don't get one without the other -- possibly another application of Pareto's law and the power curve laws. > As long as you have a viable user population, does it matter that some > folks choose to not contribute? Not in the slightest, unless bandwidth costs are biting, or that larger audience beings with a distracting bas hum of noise vs signal. > I've actually spent time tracking down and interviewing lurkers, to > see why they lurk. It pretty much boils down to: > 1) by the time I'd get around to saying something, someone else > already has. > 2) I don't feel qualified to comment on it. (which I can say is > definitely not true for many of the lurkers I've talked to, but in > many cases, it's a polite way of saying:) > 3) I don't feel like fighting for face time on the list. As Barry later mentions, there's also the simple fact that many are atrociously uncomfortable doing anything which represents them, especially if it requires either typing or language skills. They loathe typing, feel themselves slow and clumsy with the activity (thus creating a large barrier to entry), and are worried that they'll pratfall with a typo, grammatical error, or similar. Not a question of reticence, but of almost wanting to hide combined with an active dislike of the physical activity required to participate. As a side issue, one of the reasons I'm looking to tie mail lists, RSS, and a Slashdot analogue together into one is to provide as close as I can get to a seamless on-ramp and training ground for new list posters. I've found that many are more comfortable with web forums, feel themselves less exposed, and less commited in whatever activity they take there -- so using that as something of a bridge into more formal higher signal venues seems to make some sense. cf control.com. > We've been experimenting with "lurker days" with some success. They're > periods of time where the regular posters shut up and listen, and > allow some breathing room for the rest of the list without the lurkers > having to fear having to crawl into the mosh pit. The lurkers like it, > for the most part the NON-lurkers like it and it gets more people > involved in contributing. it allows lurkers to comment on ongoing > threads without the pushback of those with forceful personalities > (i.e.: me and people like me) and to say things that those of us who > enjoy flapping our gums hadn't thought to talk about. it's caused a > couple of lurkers to come out and graduate, too, once they saw they > weren't going to get pulped, too. How do you structure and present this? Any enforcement other than willingness? > And it's funny what you can learn when you shut up and listen, if you > actually shut up and listen, not just shut up... Quite. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 14:58:54 2003 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.46]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296F21959E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:58:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-69-3-76-254.phndaz91.covad.net ([69.3.76.254] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18no2F-0006hE-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:58:52 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030225155736.00b9e488@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:58:50 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: EFF Mailing List Query In-Reply-To: <20030225212226.GA90655@shazam.wetworks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/172 X-Sequence-Number: 1235 At 02:22 PM 2/25/2003, Alan B. Clegg wrote: >Unless the network is lying to me again, JC Dill said: > > > -------------------- snip snip -------------------- > > * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us. > >So, has anyone actually heard back (even an e-mail) from the EFF on this? > >Has anyone other than me actually sent a query? I sent them copies of a couple of bounce messages where list mail was mistaken as spam. I haven't heard anything back yet, but it was only a couple of hours ago. ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 15:11:55 2003 Received: from MAIL03.toast.net (mail.toast.net [206.244.185.10]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899E61959E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from HOME (unverified [68.49.10.220]) by MAIL03.toast.net (Vircom SMTPRS 1.4.232) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:11:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3E5BF829.00000D.02396@HOME> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:11:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Content-Type: Multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_DF0W24L0000000000000" X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (1850924) From: "Jim" References: <20030225212226.GA90655@shazam.wetworks.org> X-FID: BA285063-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E11 X-FVER: X-FIT: X-FCOL: X-FCAT: X-FDIS: X-BG: <1108A640-5AC1-46EA-AB7C-AE42C5FBAB01> X-BGT: repeat X-BGC: #eff3f7 X-BGPX: left X-BGPY: 0px X-ASN: ANIM3D00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-ASNF: 0 X-ASH: ANIM3D00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-ASHF: 1 X-AN: 6486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-ANF: 0 X-AP: 6486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-APF: 1 X-AD: C3C52140-4147-11D4-BA3D-0050DAC68030 X-ADF: 0 X-AUTO: X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD X-CNT: ; X-Priority: 3 To: Subject: Re: EFF Mailing List Query X-Archive-Number: 200302/173 X-Sequence-Number: 1236 --------------Boundary-00=_DF0W24L0000000000000 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_DF0WXFP0000000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_DF0WXFP0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: list-managers@greatcircle.com=0D Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:34:24 PM=0D To: list-managers@greatcircle.com=0D Subject: Re: EFF Mailing List Query=0D =0D Unless the network is lying to me again, JC Dill said: =0D =0D > -------------------- snip snip --------------------=0D > * Mailing List Headaches? Contact us.=0D =0D So, has anyone actually heard back (even an e-mail) from the EFF on this?= =0D =0D Has anyone other than me actually sent a query?=0D =0D AlanC=0D -- =0D I must study politics and war that my sons | =0D may have liberty to study mathematics and | alan@clegg.com=0D philosophy. -- John Adams | --------------Boundary-00=_DF0WXFP0000000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: Tuesday, Febru= ary 25, 2003 4:34:24 PM
Subject: Re: EFF Mai= ling List Query
 
Unless the network is lying to me again, JC Dill said:
> -------------------- snip snip --------------------
> * Mai= ling List Headaches? Contact us.

So, has anyone actually heard back = (even an e-mail) from the EFF on this?

Has anyone other than me actu= ally sent a query?

AlanC
--
I must study politics and war tha= t my sons |
may have liberty to study mathematics and | alan@clegg.com
philosophy. -- John Adams |
____________________________= ________________________
=3D""  IncrediMail - Email has finally evo= lved - Click Here --------------Boundary-00=_DF0WXFP0000000000000-- --------------Boundary-00=_DF0W24L0000000000000 Content-Type: unknown/unknown; name="IMSTP.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <1FC05B1A-B9F5-4321-BE13-D376F510B4E1> R0lGODlhFAAPALMIAP9gAM9gAM8vAM9gL/+QL5AvAGAvAP9gL////wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh+QQJFAAIACwA AAAAFAAPAAAEVRDJSaudJuudrxlEKI6BURlCUYyjKpgYAKSgOBSCDEuGDKgr AtC3Q/R+hkPJEDgYCjpKr5A8WK9OaPFZwHoPqm3366VKyeRtE30tVVRscMHD qV/u+AgAIfkEBWQACAAsAAAAABQADwAABBIQyUmrvTjrzbv/YCiOZGmeaAQA IfkECRQACAAsAgABABAADQAABEoQIUOrpXIOwrsPxiQUheeRAgUA49YNhbCq K1kS9grQhXGAhsDBUJgZAL2Dcqkk7ogFpvRAokSn0p4PO6UIuUsQggSmFjKX dAgRAQAh+QQFCgAIACwAAAAAFAAPAAAEEhDJSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oBAAh +QQJFAAIACwCAAEAEAANAAAEShAhQ6ulcg7Cuw/GJBSF55ECBQDj1g2FsKor WRL2CtCFcYCGwMFQmBkAvYNyqSTuiAWm9ECiRKfSng87pQi5SxCCBKYWMpd0 CBEBACH5BAVkAAgALAAAAAAUAA8AAAQSEMlJq7046827/2AojmRpnmgEADs= --------------Boundary-00=_DF0W24L0000000000000 Content-Type: Image/unknown; name="BackGrnd.jpg" Content-ID: <1108A640-5AC1-46EA-AB7C-AE42C5FBAB01> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA/+4AIUFk b2JlAGTAAAAAAQMAEAMCAwYAAAHbAAAC1gAABZX/2wCEABALCwsMCxAMDBAX Dw0PFxsUEBAUGx8XFxcXFx8eFxoaGhoXHh4jJSclIx4vLzMzLy9AQEBAQEBA QEBAQEBAQEABEQ8PERMRFRISFRQRFBEUGhQWFhQaJhoaHBoaJjAjHh4eHiMw Ky4nJycuKzU1MDA1NUBAP0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQP/CABEIAGUAcwMBIgACEQED EQH/xACAAAEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIGAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ARABAAICAwEAAgMAAAAAAAAAAQARIQIxQRIiQDIQMFARAAICAgIBBAIDAQEA AAAAAAERACExQVFhcYGRobECEsHhMtHxEgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQ/9oA DAMBAAIRAxEAAADtRZYE1ASghQFgUZoCkKSwLmhcllAEqkSkqFAlhUomoAS3 IoJqFlDNpFEAQFE1AIVYAWIVKAJRNZpYCwVmmshKACA0CBAUCBYGwf/aAAgB AgABBQD8B/yP/9oACAEDAAEFAPz6/or8H//aAAgBAQABBQC2+ZeHjbD+saX6 hwXeDW1Rg4xLLTa+m7ZiIEsI1MTiHP1dYpvFADiFM1/X6nq9byuwdPPz5oFo fWlEMQ9ULKrWq2ppG9Y2J6INQma9lVTRdlUKgHzXXSEECw1SYu5WsGoJPkis ZYpx31GvXZQ/JM3VwShzVTsp1EZbBI8LcaUSih86+s2Zl4Wp6+lAZnVsDkjd ku5m+lJTdXDG2SHM9M2wKX1YxsaZTTwmoVrYnqsMrM652yjs01K0mtbGAz6Y 5dpfqNz06qpq5QNjiIjiZtbhtceNuf0jyeqGgu6rXMvI4omPWbPMYzEfMI+a xHnFvOP4/9oACAECAgY/AGP/2gAIAQMCBj8AY//aAAgBAQEGPwB72Yucb1Bf IhFEaeZ+xRXFQELN+HEUQdjU0Xn4g9gRCQcpw1yajGYsP/kFvUzvjUBWrIMF HI2OJQNEAjiEEFdTmfG/MTHq5RFOnpTV3kzCBx7x4YOD1AV5uYJvnqMA0hep jfwpYCwC4Bx3q55zeZRBCw9TkoIuHw78RdczSNH2mgqcLpRC+RASAkA3B13m cYd5mR84c/yOx4lWtRAZ6mGDhiP9WgXVyhWA+xDgMOWGMsTg/wBTz8SjjXrP 8hHIlX1MZ6mDzgc/cIV/iyN1GBR0MQMKjnEzvvMz8mUkErKlfqU63iV+IKNH 7mNZBLFQEpEDeDOV32IVn8WR4caoywqI2p695mbZzNUQIcKfk0bo+0NpCqn7 CiQiNGXkdQen1DpjGeZ7WNw3pK+I93maCPc16+Zkf6XxMCsFwAkaiIB57vc/ IAhZ/HqZBBbB0ZokAEOGxsYqBgPp8agQBu4VSMJdqx6SwDsGBrTmAR93uZGX 6KePowEADAIjoX8gw459CICaW/MLGvodQfkDW71zBxRHtB3j3jC4PMIYoAgK NfPMCQNN7jCzvlzXPopzhQvNZY3CRya9ZrEFfRE0iCB5mscZuVYfKmAi94uE 3Q8qfytQ7xD0svmFcmaxNPI8iMjh3pmF2HbzqeUi+YkiD/MrOl5LmbwPuWVf mXpv3hDH8qAjPpiZHXkRnSd6ZhB53mejzKV6US0K9TCCLyCeIhtETX5MsHBG JkD/ANiFkMCE2qGoCdZ8Q8AMGpYFqEhdhRIYH3CF3d1M/Mexma+4CwdQ2Ddc x0exAlmj04QUQd8QWLB/iB5GxmEg5TENVZqPYzFV8eHAy9T/AEc8a4n3Ov6g /VwvE6lpQ4VNysXzhS8esOO8w/rlF/rypjV3B5H1Knr8T//Z --------------Boundary-00=_DF0W24L0000000000000-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 15:22:03 2003 Received: from ntcorp.com (ntcorp.com [198.65.128.165]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F383195A34 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PNM1M17797 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:22:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:22:01 -0500 (EST) From: X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: EFF Mailing List Query In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030225155736.00b9e488@pop.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/174 X-Sequence-Number: 1237 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Bob Bish wrote: > >So, has anyone actually heard back (even an e-mail) from the EFF on this? > > > >Has anyone other than me actually sent a query? > > I sent them copies of a couple of bounce messages where list mail was > mistaken as spam. I haven't heard anything back yet, but it was only a > couple of hours ago. > I sent something a couple of days ago - no reply. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 15:29:34 2003 Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDAA195A34 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from 24-205-152-44.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([24.205.152.44] helo=lehel.goldmark.private) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18noVv-0002FS-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:31 -0800 Received: from betty.goldmark.private ([192.168.1.51]) by lehel.goldmark.private with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 18noVv-0003em-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:31 -0800 Received: from jeffrey (helo=localhost) by betty.goldmark.private with local-esmtp (Exim 4.10) id HAW197-0001DU-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:31 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:31 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-X-Sender: jeffrey@jeffrey-goldbergs-computer.local Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: List Managers Mailing list Subject: In defense of lurkers [Re: not about ...] In-Reply-To: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> Message-ID: References: <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/175 X-Sequence-Number: 1238 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, J C Lawrence wrote: > > and RSS and other technologies will only increase the size of the > > passive audience. I've gone back and forth over whether this is good > > or bad, and finally decided to not worry about it. > > Yeah, a point there that shouldn't ignored is that with rare exception a > large "leeching" audience is required to derive and support a smaller > contributing audience. I'm not sure whether that follows, but I certainly think that in some contexts contributors are playing for the audience. Contributors -- instead of trying to persuade each other -- they are genuinely discussing thing in hope of persuading the audience. This can help sustain discussion, and and keep it more civil. Now I've had a couple lists discussion lists die due to lack of contribution (one survives only for announcements). But I don't blame the lurkers for that. It didn't matter that there were 500 lurkers instead of just 50. The problem was a lack of people willing to discuss things. A fifth reason for lurkers (which I believe affected one of my lists) is that people don't want to go on record for an informal discussion. In an academic community a lot of the people who will see your posting may later be evaluating you as a job candidate. If you unless you are confident that you shine in discussions, you may wish to stay out of them. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 15:52:03 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF8F1959E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17218 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:57:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5C01F1.30709@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:21 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/176 X-Sequence-Number: 1239 J C Lawrence wrote: > As a side issue, one of the reasons I'm looking to tie mail lists, RSS, > and a Slashdot analogue together into one is to provide as close as I > can get to a seamless on-ramp and training ground for new list posters. > I've found that many are more comfortable with web forums, feel > themselves less exposed, and less commited in whatever activity they > take there -- so using that as something of a bridge into more formal > higher signal venues seems to make some sense. From a list *user's* perspective, this makes a list very unattractive to me. I've dropped most of my Yahoo Groups lists (all on topics that are of great interest to me, and these lists are the ONLY lists on these topics) mainly because the ability to post via the web interface has led to a lot of newbies who refer to the list as "this site", who fail to quote any of the previous post so we can't tell what they are referring to when they talk about what someone else said, and who are frustrated that instructions on how to attach a photo to their post don't work for them (you can't add an attachment to a post when you post thru the Yahoo Groups website interface), etc. So the lists end up with tons of content-empty posts to these inept newbies (no one understands the concept of "private email"), and it becomes unbearable to try to find the content among all the noise. I have seen many people with clue (both technical clue and topic clue) join the list, post a few times, then dissappear. It's just not worth it to try to participate on a list like that - even when you know your participation is of great value to the list, the personal cost is too high to make it a satisfying venture. So, I highly suggest you carefully consider these drawbacks as you proceed in your project. If my experiences are anything to go by, most people will end up being the clueless newbies using the web interface, and the other interfaces will be mostly unused as the people with the technical clue on how to use them become tired of the list personality and leave the list. jc (eeek! I've deleted 4 cc's on this post. Those of you who want cc's, tough, I feel that it's just plain bad form to reply to a list post and cc 4 other addresses.) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 16:01:14 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646D71959E2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18np0T-0005vy-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:05 -0800 To: JC Dill Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from JC Dill of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:21 PST." <3E5C01F1.30709@vo.cnchost.com> References: <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> <3E5C01F1.30709@vo.cnchost.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, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:05 -0800 Message-ID: <22812.1046217665@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/177 X-Sequence-Number: 1240 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:21 -0800 JC Dill wrote: > J C Lawrence wrote: >> As a side issue, one of the reasons I'm looking to tie mail lists, >> RSS, and a Slashdot analogue together into one is to provide as close >> as I can get to a seamless on-ramp and training ground for new list >> posters. I've found that many are more comfortable with web forums, >> feel themselves less exposed, and less commited in whatever activity >> they take there -- so using that as something of a bridge into more >> formal higher signal venues seems to make some sense. > From a list *user's* perspective, this makes a list very unattractive > to me. I should note that my lists will remain moderated, and that I rigidly enforce quoting, attribution and post formatting rules. What will be expanding is the number of ways to read content from the list, and the number of ways to post content to the list. > I've dropped most of my Yahoo Groups lists (all on topics that are of > great interest to me... As have I. > (eeek! I've deleted 4 cc's on this post. Those of you who want cc's, > tough, I feel that it's just plain bad form to reply to a list post > and cc 4 other addresses.) -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 16:21:17 2003 Received: from lists.apple.com (lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF2D195B9F for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:21:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (A17-216-21-175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by lists.apple.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1Q0KCJ21812; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:20:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:20:29 -0800 Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> Message-Id: <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/178 X-Sequence-Number: 1241 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:22 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > Yeah, a point there that shouldn't ignored is that with rare exception > a > large "leeching" audience is required to derive and support a smaller > contributing audience. I've long felt that every interesting list has a hierarchy of users. You have to identify and groom your "wizards", those couple of people who take the main responsibility to generate discussion, answer questions, whatever. Below that are a group of frequent users, and it quickly fades to black after that. very much a power curve. and yes, that means "everyone is equal" is not part of the equation. If a wizard and a lurker fight, I'll usually choose the side of the wizard. wizards get cut slack for stuff, too. don't like it? tough: they're in the trenches making the list useful most of the time, they get special privileges, because they've earned it...(on the other hand, their power is far from absolute. just not the same as someoen who doesn't contribute) > How do you structure and present this? Any enforcement other than > willingness? Lurker days have very loose rules: between this start time and this end time, the list belongs to a lurker. a lurker is arbitrarily defined as "about two posts a month or less", but there's no policeman. We generally tell people "if you aren't sure you're a lurker, you probably aren't", but it's really self-policed. and it works. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But when that last guitar's been packed away You know that I still want to play So just make sure you got it all set to go Before you come for my piano From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 16:35:35 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EBD196363 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18npXA-0005vB-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:34:52 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:20:29 PST." <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:34:52 -0800 Message-ID: <22763.1046219692@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/179 X-Sequence-Number: 1242 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:20:29 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:22 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> Yeah, a point there that shouldn't ignored is that with rare >> exception a large "leeching" audience is required to derive and >> support a smaller contributing audience. > I've long felt that every interesting list has a hierarchy of > users. You have to identify and groom your "wizards", those couple of > people who take the main responsibility to generate discussion, answer > questions, whatever. Below that are a group of frequent users, and it > quickly fades to black after that. very much a power curve. Yup. > and yes, that means "everyone is equal" is not part of the > equation. If a wizard and a lurker fight, I'll usually choose the side > of the wizard. wizards get cut slack for stuff, too. don't like it? > tough: they're in the trenches making the list useful most of the > time, they get special privileges, because they've earned it...(on the > other hand, their power is far from absolute. just not the same as > someoen who doesn't contribute) I follow the basic mongol pattern of kha khan (loosely an award such that the recipient could commit several insta-death-sentence acts with impunity). Quality posters (I distinguish between volume and quality) who add the real meat to the list, who define topics, and vantages, and factually set the ground that the list walks on get enourmous slack from me, they know it, and they know that its a trust issue (which latter is probably the reason so few of them ever misbehave). As for the rest of the list I tend to moderate based on a sense of how the list is going as a whole at the current time. If things are falling off in various ways (posting rate down, signal down, chattiness high, or whatever) I get tighter, twitchier, and less tolerant of infractions (which mostly means I edit or reject much a higher percentage of submitted posts). If things are swimming marvelously, with real work being done I'll even let posts heavy on the "you" word go by. The kha khan rule gets interesting in a few cases. For instance I've one poster who is irascible, dogmatic, zealous and tireless on his crusades -- and frequently just wrong. BUT, he's a useful irritant. Good, quality conversation surrounds him all the way up until near the end of one of his runs... >> How do you structure and present this? Any enforcement other than >> willingness? > Lurker days have very loose rules: between this start time and this > end time, the list belongs to a lurker. a lurker is arbitrarily > defined as "about two posts a month or less", but there's no > policeman. We generally tell people "if you aren't sure you're a > lurker, you probably aren't", but it's really self-policed. and it > works. Gotcha. How do you organise/present lurker days? Just post an announcement that next Wednesday is "lurker day"? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 16:55:10 2003 Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9D6195AA6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1Q0t7g7017460 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:05 -0800 Received: from plaidworks.com (vg0602e-dhcp175.apple.com [17.216.21.175]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h1Q0t7f09777; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:07 -0800 Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <22763.1046219692@kanga.nu> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/180 X-Sequence-Number: 1243 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 04:34 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: > For instance I've > one poster who is irascible, dogmatic, zealous and tireless on his > crusades -- and frequently just wrong. BUT, he's a useful irritant. But what do you do when they stop being useful? I'm in a situation where on one of my lists a person who's generally been a useful devil's advocate (and a bit of a wry wit) has more or less turned into an eeyore troll who can't lose an argument, and is willing to redefine a fight or reslant data endlessly to avoid having to. sort of the shift from snide to bitter, from stubborn to, well, me before I figured out what an asshole I could be at times (and, in all honesty, that's pretty much exactly how I explained it to him). right now, he's quiet, because he started the "oh, you and that 'silent majority' of yours again", and people started popping up with 'me, too!' postings, which actually says lots about how annoying he'd gotten to people... I'm honestly not sure what to do here. He generates good content -- sometimes. it's almost a phase of the moon thing, we can more or less plot the cycle. I just can't figure out how to short-circuit the down phase and encourage the up phase, and it's really started wearing on folks. yet I really want to keep the person around, if I can. >>> How do you structure and present this? Any enforcement other than >>> willingness? > >> Lurker days have very loose rules: > Gotcha. How do you organise/present lurker days? Just post an > announcement that next Wednesday is "lurker day"? > Pretty much. when we came up with the idea, we threw it out to the list for feedback adn a sense of "worth a try?" -- since this list is used to being a guinea pig and sort of gets off on playing with this stuff, everyone hashed out the logistics, and now it pretty much runs itself. I've wanted to try it on some other lists, but I simply haven't had time. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ The Cliff's Notes Cliff's Notes on Hamlet: And they all died happily ever after From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 17:04:52 2003 Received: from bp.ucs.louisiana.edu (bp.ucs.louisiana.edu [130.70.132.231]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06939195A78 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:04:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from louisiana.edu (sur174.louisiana.edu [130.70.1.174]) by bp.ucs.louisiana.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3/ull-ucs-server_1.6) with ESMTP id h1Q14lw18892 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:04:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3E5C1331.5000206@louisiana.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:06:57 -0600 From: Istvan Berkeley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Lurkers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/181 X-Sequence-Number: 1244 Hi there, Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when they post. This happened to me recently. Sure, all the folks here knew what was going on. I thought I was being helpful. I was caught out by a majordomo default. I also know of several list owners (ranging from utter newbie to very experienced) and at least one experienced sysadmin who were caught out too. So, (with the exception of this post) it is back to lurking for me. All the best, Istvan (dedicated Lurker) -- Istvan S. N. Berkeley, Ph.D. istvan@louisiana.edu Philosophy and Cognitive Science The University of Louisiana at Lafayette Tel: (337) 482-6807 P. O. Box 43770, Lafayette Fax: (337) 482-5002 Louisiana, 70504, U.S.A. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~isb9112 From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 18:21:02 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641E6195A43 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nrBd-0007Bh-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:20:45 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:07 PST." 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:20:45 -0800 Message-ID: <27632.1046226045@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/182 X-Sequence-Number: 1245 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:55:07 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 04:34 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> For instance I've one poster who is irascible, dogmatic, zealous and >> tireless on his crusades -- and frequently just wrong. BUT, he's a >> useful irritant. > But what do you do when they stop being useful? That's why I don't publish their kha khan status. About 5 years ago I ran a system where posters had public flags indicating (more or less) the level of trust I'd given them. It worked great until a few started going off-beam. At the time I didn't have enough substantive activity to warrant a public dressing down or flag removal, but I did have enough to raise all my warning signals and tell me that I was facing a list fork and dissolution in 6 months if I let it continue. So I killed all the flags and made the list hand moderated, rather than having to publicly justify a set of actions which on the face of it had little justification (or could trivially be painted as having none and me as merely being my normal tyrannically despotic svengali self). > I'm in a situation where on one of my lists a person who's generally > been a useful devil's advocate (and a bit of a wry wit) has more or > less turned into an eeyore troll who can't lose an argument, and is > willing to redefine a fight or reslant data endlessly to avoid having > to. sort of the shift from snide to bitter, from stubborn to, well, me > before I figured out what an asshole I could be at times (and, in all > honesty, that's pretty much exactly how I explained it to him). What I do now is multi-stage, some in parallel: I start editing and rewriting bits of their posts (and noting in the post that I did). Some of their posts silently disappear in moderation (discarded). More of their posts/threads are redirected to a parallel Meta list (which has a much smaller audience) Posts are held until after their time of interest and general relevance (ie until the sting has gone out). Replies to him are sanitised (or softened) with an EdNote in the post. > I'm honestly not sure what to do here. He generates good content -- > sometimes. it's almost a phase of the moon thing, we can more or less > plot the cycle. I just can't figure out how to short-circuit the down > phase and encourage the up phase, and it's really started wearing on > folks. One of the chaps I have follows a clearly visible sawtooth wave with strident screeching at the high points. My current action has been to do all the above as he approaches the points each time. > yet I really want to keep the person around, if I can. Ditto. I also try and flatten his cycles so the period grows and the frequency of screeches falls. Don't know if its working (only been 1.5 cycles so far). >>>> How do you structure and present this? Any enforcement other than >>>> willingness? >>> Lurker days have very loose rules: >> Gotcha. How do you organise/present lurker days? Just post an >> announcement that next Wednesday is "lurker day"? > Pretty much. > when we came up with the idea, we threw it out to the list for > feedback adn a sense of "worth a try?" -- since this list is used to > being a guinea pig and sort of gets off on playing with this stuff, > everyone hashed out the logistics, and now it pretty much runs > itself. Cool. I think I'll try that with the next list evolution. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 18:25:28 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8130E196989 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q2WX3w029115; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:32:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Lurkers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Istvan Berkeley From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E5C1331.5000206@louisiana.edu> Message-Id: <86784519-4931-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/183 X-Sequence-Number: 1246 > Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when > they post. god, what a stupid comment!! (sorry, I had to...) > -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 18:47:26 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B399C195A43 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1Q2lJLW029156 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:19 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1Q2lJLI029155 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:19 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302260247.h1Q2lJLI029155@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: lurkers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/184 X-Sequence-Number: 1247 hi ya i deleted the email before i could stop.. Chuq said " what a stupid comment" about the lurkers not wanting to post -- i laughed and deleted..but i think the lurker "just got flamed" ?? -- still cracking up c ya alvin From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:06:13 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9239F195A2A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id DA1BD1BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Use filters X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/185 X-Sequence-Number: 1248 >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 12:20 PM, Tom Neff wrote: >> Well, then Roger is in a real bind, because there is absolutely >> no spam prevention measure that has been, is being, or could be >> implemented on any level whatsoever CVR> actually, there is. It's the one Roger's chosen -- to handle CVR> spam processing manually, himself. And it seems to work fine CVR> for him, so more power to him. Then he's a better man than me. Even I have false positives and negatives when I manually slog throw my raw inbox. :) -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:18:33 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DF61962CF for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ns5Q-0007aE-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:18:24 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Istvan Berkeley , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Lurkers In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:08 PST." <86784519-4931-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <86784519-4931-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:18:24 -0800 Message-ID: <29153.1046229504@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/186 X-Sequence-Number: 1249 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:08 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >> Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when >> they post. > god, what a stupid comment!! Yeesh, what sort of moronic drug baby would type such a stoopid message? Whodya think you are you elitist prig! -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:20:53 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96CD195BCD for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ns7l-0007b1-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:20:49 -0800 To: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: EFF Mailing List Query] In-Reply-To: Message from bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 EST." <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 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, 25 Feb 2003 19:20:49 -0800 Message-ID: <29202.1046229649@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/187 X-Sequence-Number: 1250 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 Barry A Warsaw wrote: > Even I have false positives and negatives when I manually slog throw > my raw inbox. :) The difference is that those are your fault, not your software's fault. Subjectively there's frequently a large difference between, "My damned computer told me the wrong thing," and "I screwed up." -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:31:00 2003 Received: from epimetheus.hosting4u.net (epimetheus.hosting4u.net [209.15.2.92]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DB551962F9 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6602 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 03:30:55 -0000 Received: from gemini.hosting4u.net (HELO macnauchtan.com) (209.15.2.47) by mail-gate.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 03:30:55 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([66.1.96.11]) by macnauchtan.com ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:30:54 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Password: undefined Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:30:39 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Doug McNutt Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Rcpt-To: X-Archive-Number: 200302/188 X-Sequence-Number: 1251 At 16:55 -0800 2/25/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > . . . I am a lurker. In fact I don't think I have ever posted to this list. I am here because I want, someday, to create a simple list or two for family and colleagues working a design problem. I have learned a lot. But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to just THIS list. Edited headers for the message to which I am replying are: >Return-Path: >Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS >Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), > Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com >To: J C Lawrence >From: Chuq Von Rospach >Sender: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Note that, even for a human reader, it's not so easy to find the list address for a reply. Eudora picks the Return Path header or, with the option key, every e-mail address anywhere even if it results in duplicate mailings. It doesn't know how to pick out just the list address. There is no Reply To: header which would be used if it were present. I do some programming and I haven't the foggiest idea how I would write code to pick out the list address by itself. Comparing the domain in the Sender: header with all possible addresses - maybe. Note the line end after the first address in the Cc: header. I use an AppleScript to select the reply address and it misses the second two Cc addresses because it stops on a line end. Actually I think the list software may have incorrectly word wrapped the original. The option specified by the writer is not honored and the text does not wrap to window size as I see it. Yes. I am familiar with all the verbiage about munging Reply To: headers by list software, but if there is no Reply To: in the submission does it not make sense for the list software to add one pointing to the list itself? That way contributors who add a Reply To: header would get direct copies and others would not. -- --> Life begins at ovulation. Ladies should endeavor to get every young life fertilized. <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:34:37 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C6E195A6D for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 612F01BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:47 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15964.13783.118367.303579@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:47 -0500 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: J C Lawrence , Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Infinitesimal gradations X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/189 X-Sequence-Number: 1252 >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> and yes, that means "everyone is equal" is not part of the CVR> equation. If a wizard and a lurker fight, I'll usually choose CVR> the side of the wizard. wizards get cut slack for stuff, CVR> too. don't like it? tough: they're in the trenches making the CVR> list useful most of the time, they get special privileges, CVR> because they've earned it...(on the other hand, their power CVR> is far from absolute. just not the same as someoen who CVR> doesn't contribute) Most of the lists I'm on are highly technical and there things definitely work on a meritocracy. That doesn't always mean that a wizard is the person who posts the most to the list, but for whatever reason, they are highly valued members of the community who have earned their wings. I'm curious if the same phenomenons hold true for non-geek laden lists. Even the music lists I'm on tend to be sopping with geekgoo. :) How do lists with Real People differ in culture and participation of members? -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:40:08 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4877C1962D1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id E6D581BF57B; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:40:17 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15964.14113.523887.943766@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:40:17 -0500 To: J C Lawrence Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <22763.1046219692@kanga.nu> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Credibility of Intentions X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/190 X-Sequence-Number: 1253 >>>>> "JCL" == J C Lawrence writes: JCL> The kha khan rule gets interesting in a few cases. For JCL> instance I've one poster who is irascible, dogmatic, zealous JCL> and tireless on his crusades -- and frequently just wrong. JCL> BUT, he's a useful irritant. Good, quality conversation JCL> surrounds him all the way up until near the end of one of his JCL> runs... The interesting thing is, the folks that I tend to like, encourage, and "hang out with" on lists are the same people who, when I meet them f2f, I tend to like to hang out with over a beer or a game of pool. I'm mean, for all the differences that list culture has, we're really talking about the rules of social engagement. It's just that this medium is so new in the scheme of things that we have to learn where to get our cues from. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:44:24 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B2E19629A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:44:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nsUU-0007ie-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:44:18 -0800 To: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) Cc: Chuq Von Rospach , Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:47 EST." <15964.13783.118367.303579@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <19175.1046211726@kanga.nu> <1C2148E4-4920-11D7-8F3D-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15964.13783.118367.303579@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 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, 25 Feb 2003 19:44:18 -0800 Message-ID: <29675.1046231058@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/191 X-Sequence-Number: 1254 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:47 -0500 Barry A Warsaw wrote: > Even the music lists I'm on tend to be sopping with geekgoo. :) Same here. > How do lists with Real People differ in culture and participation of > members? My observation for non-geek lists is that the definition of "wizard" tends to have more to do with social politiking and adherence to the social norms of the list (even in rebellion). Note that this is just a tendency, as I've also seen such lists dominated by one individual who simple stated opinions bluntly and repetitively, and remained outside of the social norms of that list (which made a curiously bifurcated list). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:56:14 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0551960DE for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nsfy-0007ny-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:56:10 -0800 To: Doug McNutt Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Doug McNutt of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:30:39 MST." 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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:56:10 -0800 Message-ID: <30005.1046231770@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/192 X-Sequence-Number: 1255 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:30:39 -0700 Doug McNutt wrote: > Note that, even for a human reader, it's not so easy to find the list > address for a reply. Eudora picks the Return Path header or, with the > option key, every e-mail address anywhere even if it results in > duplicate mailings. It doesn't know how to pick out just the list > address. There is no Reply To: header which would be used if it were > present. Aye, that's what the List-post: header from RFC 2369 is intended for. It could use wider support. > if there is no Reply To: in the submission does it not make sense for > the list software to add one pointing to the list itself? That's debatable as one of the uses of manually setting Reply-To is to move a thread from one list to another (I use this fairly often). -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:56:33 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C329C196D48 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q43d3w000339; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:03:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:56:12 -0800 Subject: Re: Lurkers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Istvan Berkeley , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <29153.1046229504@kanga.nu> Message-Id: <3F16B8FA-493E-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/193 X-Sequence-Number: 1256 >>> Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when >>> they post. > >> god, what a stupid comment!! > > Yeesh, what sort of moronic drug baby would type such a stoopid > message? > Whodya think you are you elitist prig! List Nazi! -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 19:58:46 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AEE196A6C for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q4663w000384; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:06:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:58:39 -0800 Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: J C Lawrence , Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <15964.14113.523887.943766@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-Id: <96678356-493E-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/194 X-Sequence-Number: 1257 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > The interesting thing is, the folks that I tend to like, encourage, > and "hang out with" on lists are the same people who, when I meet them > f2f, I tend to like to hang out with over a beer or a game of pool. my feeling exactly, and why my real-world analogy for how to run my lists is the sports bar, and I'm the bartender. and occasionally the bouncer. But it's that kind of "local watering hole" esthetic I'm looking for. Not quite Callahan's Bar, but not Cheers, either. and that's a big aspect of the community aspect of these things. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:01:44 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26059195F40 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q4953w000411; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:09:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:01:39 -0800 Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com To: J C Lawrence From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <29675.1046231058@kanga.nu> Message-Id: <01BCE77B-493F-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/195 X-Sequence-Number: 1258 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:44 PM, J C Lawrence wrote: >> How do lists with Real People differ in culture and participation of >> members? > > My observation for non-geek lists is that the definition of "wizard" > tends to have more to do with social politiking and adherence to the > social norms of the list (even in rebellion). I use the term wizard the way I use terms like troll or eeyore. it has no geek connotation here, so I'm sorry if I confused folks. But basically, in any social group, there are always natural leaders, the people others naturally tend to be attracted to and defer to. whether they're social directors or content experts or simply the fun guy you want to buy a round for, he's the one you want in your "bar", because he generates a crowd of fun people around him. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:02:30 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF3F1963B0 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:02:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1Q42KO55498 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:20 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives Message-ID: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <29202.1046229649@kanga.nu> References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <29202.1046229649@kanga.nu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/196 X-Sequence-Number: 1259 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:20 PM -0800 J C Lawrence wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 > Barry A Warsaw wrote: > >> Even I have false positives and negatives when I manually slog throw >> my raw inbox. :) > > > > The difference is that those are your fault, not your software's fault. That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. A missed legitimate email has no way of knowing whether it was missed as the result of software miscalibration or a tired eye on the 1AM Inbox. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:09:47 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09563196241 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from FANTASY-BERNIE (cosell.gva.net [65.164.103.253]) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1Q49hY21499 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:09:43 -0500 Message-Id: <200302260409.h1Q49hY21499@mail.rev.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:09:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Lurkers References: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:08 PST." <86784519-4931-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> In-reply-to: <29153.1046229504@kanga.nu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1046232583.PXQaOt@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200302/197 X-Sequence-Number: 1260 On 25 Feb 2003 at 19:18, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:25:08 -0800 > Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > >> Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when > >> they post. > > > god, what a stupid comment!! > > Yeesh, what sort of moronic drug baby would type such a stoopid message? > Whodya think you are you elitist prig! *PLONK* From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:10:47 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832E6196674 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:10:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nsu0-0007tJ-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:10:40 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw), Tom Neff , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:58:39 PST." <96678356-493E-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <96678356-493E-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@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: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:10:40 -0800 Message-ID: <30336.1046232640@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/198 X-Sequence-Number: 1261 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:58:39 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > my feeling exactly, and why my real-world analogy for how to run my > lists is the sports bar, and I'm the bartender. and occasionally the > bouncer. But it's that kind of "local watering hole" esthetic I'm > looking for. Not quite Callahan's Bar, but not Cheers, either. FWLIW I tend to head for something closer to a gentlemen's club (without the sexist tones) of the sort with leather wingback armchairs, cigar smoke, and the quiet rustle of newspapers. I like that added sense of propriety and formality as a way of building and reinforcing respect and as an encouragement toward posting higher signal/quality posts (there's a definite and frequently stated sense on many poster's part that they "have to live up to the list" and "write posts worthy of the list" etc). The main problems with this approach is that it automatically defines a peerage structure and thereby brings in the problems of elder games much much earlier than for other list formats, as well as making those who fall away from the list tend to directly target the list's structure and patterns. > and that's a big aspect of the community aspect of these things. Quite. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:11:04 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A555F196F26 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1Q4AsO56201 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:10:54 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:11:02 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: how to reply Message-ID: <131312812.1046214662@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/199 X-Sequence-Number: 1262 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:30 PM -0700 Doug McNutt wrote: > But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to just > THIS list. ... As list administrators we must, of course, be sensitive to the varying mail capabilities of our members. But as list members ourselves - and users of mail in general - we deserve a good client as much as anybody. This is a good moment to throw in a plug for the package I bought and use - Mulberry! Mulberry is an IMAP/POP3/Netnews client for MacOS, Win32 and Unix based computers. It comes from Cyrusoft, the people who made the "other good IMAP server" besides the University of Washington one. Mulberry gives you maximum flexibility and control over things like where replies go to. And it supports a lot of other stuff I find useful. You can learn more about it at http://www.cyrusoft.com/mulberry/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:14:25 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB62195F0E for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:14:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q47T3w000484; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:07:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:07:28 -0800 Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Doug McNutt From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/200 X-Sequence-Number: 1263 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: > But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to > just THIS list. this server, unfortunately, runs on software that doesn't support RFC2369. the list-post header is what you want, and part of that RFC. Mailman supports these headers, although we get occasional screams from folks who are more interested in their way than the right way. but the idea behind 2369 was to build in standardized headers for just what you want -- and to make it easier for the folks writing mail clients to build automated ways of accessing and using that information. Of course, the mail client writers have little incentive to support that if people don't build the headers into the lists... > Yes. I am familiar with all the verbiage about munging Reply To: > headers by list software, but if there is no Reply To: in the > submission does it not make sense for the list software to add one > pointing to the list itself? it depends. But that's the real reason why we need to get support for 2369 into servers and mail clients. Because reply-to doesn't solve the problem, even though people keep using it to try to: because the real solution isn't forcing replies, and because clients see reply as a binary operation (reply/reply-all). in reality, with lists it's a tri-state operation (reply/reply-list/reply-all), and that's what List-post is supposed to allow to happen. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems chuq@apple.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 20:54:52 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C981966B3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1Q4qRi79169 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:52:27 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:54:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Lurkers Message-ID: <3E5BD80E.18181.A307A77@localhost> References: <29153.1046229504@kanga.nu> In-reply-to: <3F16B8FA-493E-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/201 X-Sequence-Number: 1264 > List Nazi! Ooh! You pulled a Godwin's Law violation! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 22:05:04 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23BE19624B for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nugZ-00007t-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:04:55 -0800 To: Tom Neff Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Neff of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 EST." <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <29202.1046229649@kanga.nu> <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> 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, 25 Feb 2003 22:04:55 -0800 Message-ID: <488.1046239495@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/202 X-Sequence-Number: 1265 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 -0500 Tom Neff wrote: > --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:20 PM -0800 J C Lawrence > wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 Barry A Warsaw >> wrote: >> The difference is that those are your fault, not your software's >> fault. > That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. A missed > legitimate email has no way of knowing whether it was missed as the > result of software miscalibration or a tired eye on the 1AM Inbox. True, objectively, but there is a significant subjective difference. In one way I had the opportunity to see the mail, and didn't, and the other way something hid it from me without my explicit per-message consent. Think like a control freak... -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 22:41:28 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0BF195A4F for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1Q6d2i80223 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:39:02 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: false positives Message-ID: <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> References: Message from Tom Neff of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 EST." <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> In-reply-to: <488.1046239495@kanga.nu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/203 X-Sequence-Number: 1266 > True, objectively, but there is a significant subjective difference. > In one way I had the opportunity to see the mail, and didn't, and the > other way something hid it from me without my explicit per-message > consent. This is a huge issue with large scale systems like Brightmail, which provides filtering services for ISPs. We have a licensee who got caught this way - with no bounce or other rejection messages they had _no_ way of knowing that all of their mailing list subscribers at ($BIGISP) were simply not getting their mail, until suddenly they got a rash of complaints from said subscribers at $BIGISP saying "what has happened to our mailings??" Because, of course, as you point out, their mailing list mail was (worse than 'hidden') simply undelivered to them, not only without their consent, but in direct contravention of their stated desires (all of our licensee's mail is confirmed opt-in, so the $BIGISP was failing to deliver mail that their users had explicitly requested and confirmed). [Fortunately, a call to the $BIGISP pointing out exactly that had an effect, as it nearly always does, but that's hardly the point...the false positive problem is a huge one, especially for mailing list owners - and made larger because they often have *no* idea how much of their mail is *not* being delivered!] Another of our licensees, TidBits, experienced as much as a *10%* delivery failure rate when one issue contained the word "Viagra" once. [That was before they were a Habeas licensee. :-)] You can read about that here: http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06866 Macslash.com had to change over to Macslash.org when their registration for Macslash.com *expired*, and someone grabbed it, because their ISP, mac.com, bounced their registration renewal notice as "spam". For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a problem... Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 22:49:31 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3826196215 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:49:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nvNh-0000Ma-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:49:29 -0800 To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 PST." <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> References: Message from Tom Neff of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 EST." <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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, 25 Feb 2003 22:49:29 -0800 Message-ID: <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/204 X-Sequence-Number: 1267 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0800 Anne P Mitchell wrote: > For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a > problem... Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering at the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all ability to supervise and correct is lost. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 22:52:16 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF5D195B74 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:52:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1Q6npi80358 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:49:51 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:52:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: false positives Message-ID: <3E5BF390.22609.A9A2CC4@localhost> References: Message from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 PST." <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> In-reply-to: <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/205 X-Sequence-Number: 1268 > > For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a > > problem... > > Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering at > the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all ability > to supervise and correct is lost. For those who don't already know, use of our HUL (Habeas Users List, which is a DNSWhitelist [to help eliminate false positives]) is free - you're welcome to use it. There is a small license which you need to sign, but only so that you promise to not ever use it as a block list. :-) The info is at: http://www.habeas.com/services/hul.htm Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 22:59:40 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658CF1962E7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1Q6xafr002192; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:59:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:59:35 -0800 Subject: Re: false positives Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/206 X-Sequence-Number: 1269 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > Another of our licensees, TidBits, experienced as much as a *10%* > delivery failure rate when one issue contained the word "V------a" > once. god, one can only wonder how many list members won't see THAT message because of that word. me, I've seen blockages based on things like "14 year old girls" (it was a youth hockey tournament). It's scary what causes the bounce systems to kick in these days. And worse, it means there are people out there that think this is HELPING the spam problem. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Tue Feb 25 23:55:22 2003 Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C86195F28 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (lev@localhost) by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1Q7tCL09716; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:55:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:55:12 -0500 (EST) From: Paul K- X-X-Sender: To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Subject: Re: Lurkers -Bartleby the clerk In-Reply-To: <86784519-4931-11D7-86B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/207 X-Sequence-Number: 1270 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > > Another reason people lurk is because they find they get flamed when > > they post. > > god, what a stupid comment!! > > (sorry, I had to...) > Heck I only usually lurk for safety's sake. Will do better next time > > > -- Paul Bloomington, Indiana "Imagine all the people, ................................... living life in peace." --John Lennon ........................................................................ From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 00:01:27 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558E6196660 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nwVI-0000gD-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:01:24 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from Chuq Von Rospach of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:59:35 PST." 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: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:01:24 -0800 Message-ID: <2616.1046246484@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/208 X-Sequence-Number: 1271 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:59:35 -0800 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, > Esq. wrote: >> Another of our licensees, TidBits, experienced as much as a *10%* >> delivery failure rate when one issue contained the word "V------a" >> once. > god, one can only wonder how many list members won't see THAT message > because of that word. I run a list whose topic is the design and development of certain forms of games. Fairly regularly someone posts a message containing the word, "sex", or "screwed" or even "tits" (a large visual component of games like Everquest is breast size...), and every time they do I get a stack of bounces for "inappropriate language". Even better, if there are enough quoting replies in that day which quote those words, then I get a rash of people being unsubscribed who then scream... > me, I've seen blockages based on things like "14 year old girls" (it > was a youth hockey tournament). It's scary what causes the bounce > systems to kick in these days. My list of keyword bounces is long, inane, and beyond my ability to comment on, tho I rather liked "japanese" and "doll" being bounced during a discussion discussion of kibuki theatre as a game form. In the end I decided to simply not care. I'm willing to tell victims what happened, willing to suggest they scream blue murder, willing to provide documentation upon request, but that's it. If they really want to use a service that does that to their mail, that's their choice and I've little interest in reading thru my logs just so I can go, "Nyahh! Neener neener neener!" every few days. > And worse, it means there are people out there that think this is > HELPING the spam problem. Yup. The same people who believe that writing "firewall" on their hub adds security. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 00:14:58 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED78195A51 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1Q8EqLW029790; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:53 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1Q8EqNW029789; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:52 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302260814.h1Q8EqNW029789@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail To: amitchell@habeas.com (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:52 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <3E5BF390.22609.A9A2CC4@localhost> from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." at Feb 25, 2003 10:52:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/209 X-Sequence-Number: 1272 hi ya > Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > For those who don't already know, use of our HUL (Habeas Users > List, which is a DNSWhitelist [to help eliminate false positives]) is > free - you're welcome to use it. There is a small license which you > need to sign, but only so that you promise to not ever use it as a > block list. :-) > > The info is at: > > http://www.habeas.com/services/hul.htm i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date c ya alvin From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 00:15:05 2003 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE67195A51 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum88.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.89.8] helo=queernet.org) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18nwiB-0001PS-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5C7778.8030004@queernet.org> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:14:48 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Doug McNutt , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/210 X-Sequence-Number: 1273 Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: > >> But, with regard to the original problem, it's not so easy to post to >> just THIS list. > > > this server, unfortunately, runs on software that doesn't support > RFC2369. No, actually this server is run by people who choose not to implement RFC2369. Mj2 makes it optional, and they've opted not to. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 00:18:38 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3379195B64 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1Q8GDi81161 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:16:13 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:18:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail Message-ID: <3E5C07DC.10942.1420BA@localhost> In-reply-to: <200302260814.h1Q8EqNW029789@planet.fef.com> References: <3E5BF390.22609.A9A2CC4@localhost> from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." at Feb 25, 2003 10:52:00 PM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/211 X-Sequence-Number: 1274 > i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date ..really? If so, then I apologize! Would it have been spam if I didn't work for the company, but still mentioned it, given that it was absolutely on topic, and simply an offer of a *free* tool to help deal with the issue at hand? Anyways, if so, I sincerely apologize! Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 01:18:23 2003 Received: from ms.chinmin.edu.tw (ms.chinmin.edu.tw [140.126.111.3]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A96195A81 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lang@localhost) by ms.chinmin.edu.tw (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1Q9RH215792 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:27:17 +0800 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:27:16 +0800 From: Greg Matheson To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: not about (was Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Message-ID: <20030226172716.A13731@ms> Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com References: <23445.1046202941@kanga.nu> <8263C069-4903-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15963.57454.999473.128664@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15963.57454.999473.128664@gargle.gargle.HOWL>; from bwarsaw@python.org on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 16:30:22 -0500 X-Archive-Number: 200302/212 X-Sequence-Number: 1275 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > I also like ideas that are morphing traditional discussion mailing > lists into more diverse communication tools. Lists are like a cross between a party and a symposium. In the pre-email and pre-photocopier age, written communications among a group often took the form of circulars. Photocopying (and emailing) copies of the same thing to everyone, even when they may not want to read it, could be considered impolite, or wasteful or something. -- Greg Matheson In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. Dr Bean's Penpal Pool In practice, they are different. Address: palpool --Yogi Berra Domain: @cn91.chinmin.edu.tw From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 03:26:09 2003 Received: from ntcorp.com (ntcorp.com [198.65.128.165]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D09195B64 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (fidelman@localhost) by ntcorp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QBQ6H27213 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:26:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:26:06 -0500 (EST) From: X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail In-Reply-To: <200302260814.h1Q8EqNW029789@planet.fef.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/213 X-Sequence-Number: 1276 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Alvin Oga wrote: > > Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > > > For those who don't already know, use of our HUL (Habeas Users > > List, which is a DNSWhitelist [to help eliminate false positives]) is > > free - you're welcome to use it. There is a small license which you > > need to sign, but only so that you promise to not ever use it as a > > block list. :-) > > i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date That's ridiculous. A referal to a piece of useful freeware, in context, by a list participant is as far from spam as you can get. Personally, I've been collecting all the links that have been coming up as part of this discussion, for use next time I update my list software environment. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" ************************************************************************** From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 03:33:06 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D1219600E for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21047 invoked by uid 511); 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> From: "Angel Rivera" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/214 X-Sequence-Number: 1277 J C Lawrence writes: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0800 > Anne P Mitchell wrote: > > > >> For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a >> problem... > > Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering at > the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all ability to > supervise and correct is lost. A lot of these problems are probably due to misconfigured tools. I am a firm believer of RBLs and we use that as the first line of defense against spam. If it has come to the point where someone is on one of the RBLs we use-we need a break. To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false positives that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted. -ar From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 03:40:44 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6B01959D9 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21629 invoked by uid 511); 26 Feb 2003 11:40:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20030226114043.21628.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <3E5BF390.22609.A9A2CC4@localhost> <"Anne P. Mitchell, Esq."> <25> <> <> <3E5C07DC.10942.1420BA@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3E5C07DC.10942.1420BA@localhost> From: "Angel Rivera" To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:40:43 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/215 X-Sequence-Number: 1278 Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. writes: > >> i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date > > ..really? If so, then I apologize! Would it have been spam if > I didn't work for the company, but still mentioned it, given that it > was absolutely on topic, and simply an offer of a *free* tool to help > deal with the issue at hand? > > Anyways, if so, I sincerely apologize! No this is not spam. It was on topic. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 04:21:42 2003 Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [66.92.182.248]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021AD195B3F for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 04:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from yemaozi.tcp.com (adsl-sta-tpe-65-26.so-net.net.tw [61.64.65.26]) by tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QCLdcp008382 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 04:21:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from yemaozi.tcp.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by yemaozi.tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QCLchx005893 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:21:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by yemaozi.tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id h1QCLbu7005890 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:21:38 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:21:37 +0800 (CST) From: James Lick To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> Message-ID: References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/216 X-Sequence-Number: 1279 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Angel Rivera wrote: > To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false positives > that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted. SpamAssassin 2.50 which was released last week also supports Bayesian filtering. Bayesian filters can be trained on a per user basis what is and isn't spam according to the individual user. After being taught, it is a fairly accurate counterweight to the standard SpamAssassin rules. If you find a message that has incorrectly been tagged as spam or not spam, just use sa-learn, and the weightings will be adjusted in the future. Using previous versions of SpamAssassin, I had few false positives (some real Chinese mails, etc.), the new version no longer flags those as spam thanks to the Bayesian filters. I'm getting much fewer false negatives to boot. PS- Anyone managed to wedge SpamAssassin into any list manager? It would be really nice if MailMan just chucked out spams straight away rather than asking me to slog through rejecting them each morning. ---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com.tw ---- http://drivel.com.tw/ ---- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 05:05:28 2003 Received: from tcp.com (tcp.com [66.92.182.248]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BEE1959D9 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from yemaozi.tcp.com (adsl-sta-tpe-65-26.so-net.net.tw [61.64.65.26]) by tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QD5Dcp011037 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from yemaozi.tcp.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by yemaozi.tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QD5Dhx005937 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:05:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (jlick@localhost) by yemaozi.tcp.com (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id h1QD5Cfm005934 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:05:12 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:05:12 +0800 (CST) From: James Lick To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/217 X-Sequence-Number: 1280 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, James Lick wrote: > PS- Anyone managed to wedge SpamAssassin into any list manager? It would > be really nice if MailMan just chucked out spams straight away rather than > asking me to slog through rejecting them each morning. How embarassing, answering my own question. Yes it has been done: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300103&aid=534577&group_id=103 ---- James Lick ---- jlick@drivel.com.tw ---- http://drivel.com.tw/ ---- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 07:17:59 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E3F195A89 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1QFH8O85656 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:17:08 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:17:10 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives Message-ID: <171281031.1046254630@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <488.1046239495@kanga.nu> References: <4373E580-4904-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> <15964.12072.364914.86758@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <29202.1046229649@kanga.nu> <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <488.1046239495@kanga.nu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/218 X-Sequence-Number: 1281 --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:04 PM -0800 J C Lawrence wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:27 -0500 > Tom Neff wrote: >> --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:20 PM -0800 J C Lawrence >> wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:06:16 -0500 Barry A Warsaw >>> wrote: > >>> The difference is that those are your fault, not your software's >>> fault. > >> That is, as they say, a distinction without a difference. A missed >> legitimate email has no way of knowing whether it was missed as the >> result of software miscalibration or a tired eye on the 1AM Inbox. > > True, objectively, but there is a significant subjective difference. In > one way I had the opportunity to see the mail, and didn't, and the other > way something hid it from me without my explicit per-message consent. > > Think like a control freak... I always think like a control freak. :) A good spam filter doesn't write to /dev/null, it reroutes to a holding pen. There, just like with a nonfiltered approach, I have the opportunity to see it (now or later) if I want. This sometimes happens when I order from a new merchant. These days what I tend to do (unless I want to maintain an 'account' of some kind) is create a temporary email alias, like E_030226@grassyhill.net, and use that for my transaction. (This allows me to go through my aliases file every week and delete old temp aliases, so that even if a merchant sells its database the addy is useless for future spam.) So I make my purchase, carefully noting that the paisley waffle iron is in stock :) - and also use a one-time "virtual card number" from Citibank where possible - and wait for my emailed confirmation of charge and shipping. Sometimes I don't see it right away, and sometimes that's because the merchant sends confirms that Bayes-test a bit spammy. So I just pop open the 'spamhold' folder in Mulberry, and bang there the confirm is. I drag it to a holding folder called 'spamgood' which is harvested once a minute by a cron job that takes each message, whitelists it in the Bayes filter, and throws it over into my Inbox. Now I'm good with that merchant for as long as I want to keep the alias around. I just thought I'd give an example of a technique. The other thing I do is periodically purge that 'spamhold' folder, but before I do, I search for all messages sent *personally* to my one or two real-McCoy addresses, and do a quick scan of the From field to see if anyone I know is worth rescuing. Anything I see (a musician's tour dates for example) I drag to Spamgood. Then I purge and reset the spamhold folder. I also have a log (1 line per email) that I never purge, so if by chance someone says to me "I sent you that powerpoint file three months ago" I can check. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 07:32:02 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91359195F64 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QFVHfr008498; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:31:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:31:14 -0800 Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <3E5C07DC.10942.1420BA@localhost> Message-Id: <5756F2AE-499F-11D7-A0F1-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/219 X-Sequence-Number: 1282 On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:18 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > >> i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date > > ..really? If so, then I apologize! Why? here people go, defining as spam stuff they don't care about, even if the rest of us on the list do, and even if it's relevant to the topic of the list. and people wonder why we can't solve the problem. we can't define the problem. People keep hijacking it for their own purposes. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 07:41:43 2003 Received: from parrot.squawk.com (parrot.squawk.com [64.244.111.110]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53421196626 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshiba.scifi.squawk.com (toshiba.squawk.com [199.74.151.118]) by parrot.squawk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4C725B17F for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:41:21 -0500 (EST) X-America-Has-Resolve: yes X-Message-Flag: Microsoft Outlook is insecure. Upgrade your Mail Program Now! Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225111637.53948090@199.74.151.1> X-Sender: njs@199.74.151.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:07 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Nick Simicich Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS In-Reply-To: <9E63ECAE-48D6-11D7-B4B5-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225052754.4b2fe140@199.74.151.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6C174D61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/220 X-Sequence-Number: 1283 At 07:34 AM 2003-02-25 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:37 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > >>At 07:38 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >>How many times are we going to have this conversation? As I recally, you >>also wanted it in red Helvetivca, at least 30 point. Eventually you >>cried uncle when I delivered. > >18, and no, I didn't. I simply read it when you sent it until you stopped. I remembered you asking me to stop as an aside to some other message. I can't find the message. I did find the 18 point message. I will assume you are right and that I imagined it. >>Please ignore Chuq: He is not serious when he claims he wants private >>copies. > >Please ignore Nick. he's lying. again. Yep, my comment was uncalled for, and rude. It was based on my faulty memory and I apologize for it. Chuq really does want the extra copies. However, I still assert that it is rude to send (or cause to be sent) multiple copies of the same e-mail to people who have not specifically said that they want them. It is much easier for those people to generate the extra copies that they want in their own in boxes and to flag the mail (provided that people do not mung the References: lines) than it is for other people to delete the extra copies, especially since the mailing list copies are likely to arrive slower than the direct copies and all that. Your assertion that it is up to people to fix their own incoming mail rings like the spammer (although your mail is not spam, it just rings the same way) who says, "Well, who cares how many copies I send you, if you don't want to read the 20 copies of the spam I sent you to all of your aliases and role accounts, you should just delete it. Just delete it, what is the big deal.") It is especially rude for a couple of people to assert that because they want extra copies of mail that it is right to bombard people who have said that they do not with extra copies of mail, or that it is normal or acceptable to not fix up headers as a matter of course to delete extra recipients. The claim that "people can fix up their incoming mail" is akin to but opposite of a reasonable position that I believed you took regarding e-postage. It is interesting for people to build these houses of cards regarding these mail complexities, but when challenged to make them work, it frequently ends up being just hand-waving and vast complexity --- these things are not as simple as they seem. As I searched my mail logs, I noted that any conversation I was in with you had the same pieces of mail repeated twice. I got the ones from the mailing list, which I signed up for, and the ones from you, whether or not you were replying directly to me. I thought about the problems with "undelivering" the mail I might have gotten and mis-filed which came directly from you when the mailing list mail came in. I guess that if my mail backing store was a database and I was simply able to move the entries from table to table (or more likely, to fix up the pointer records as the duplicate mail arrived) it would be possible. And, of course, as we know well, just because the mail had the same message id does not mean that the mail is interchangeable. I came to the conclusion that your assertion that someone could fix up their inbox based on mail arrival from multiple sources was interesting but impractical. It is, of course, easy to filter individual messages as they arrive, but it is somewhat harder to filter based on messages that have arrived, and at least an order of magnitude harder to filter based on messages that have not yet arrived, which is what I would actually have to do to implement your suggestion. The right thing to do is to not get the extra copies of the mail in the first place. (The implementation that MJ2 does, to not send copies through the mailing list when the mail has the potential recipient in the headers is borked. The mail ends up not being filed in the mailbox with the threads (unless one puts mail into mailing list threads based on the assertion that someone else sent it there...whether or not it actually is accepted and delivered by the mailing list manager. I get way too much mail to want to break conversations across mailboxes.) In any case, I assert that all polite people should ignore you and fix all headers not to send extra private copies when they send responses. You can do what you want. The fact that you want extra copies should not stop people from doing the right thing. -- SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel. spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer? Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html Stop by and light up the world! From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 08:08:03 2003 Received: from mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.97]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADE71961BD for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (ori.ccmr.cornell.edu [128.84.231.243]) by mercury.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1QG6FIb026565; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:06:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (mitch@localhost) by ori.ccmr.cornell.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1QG6FY7009961; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:06:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: ori.ccmr.cornell.edu: mitch owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:06:15 -0500 (EST) From: Mitch Collinsworth To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail In-Reply-To: <5756F2AE-499F-11D7-A0F1-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> Message-ID: References: <5756F2AE-499F-11D7-A0F1-0003934516A8@plaidworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200302/221 X-Sequence-Number: 1284 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:18 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. > wrote: > > >> i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date > > > > ..really? If so, then I apologize! > > Why? > > here people go, defining as spam stuff they don't care about, even if > the rest of us on the list do, and even if it's relevant to the topic > of the list. When I read that I was torn between wondering if he was serious or if he was playing the "hey, let's spend a day acting clueless like a lot of the users on our lists" game that everyone was playing yesterday. I started composing a message in defense of Anne but then decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and canned it. I suspect some folks have had about as much winter as they can take and need to get outside more. :-) -Mitch From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 08:09:22 2003 Received: from mail.wooz.org (dsl093-082-039.wdc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.82.39]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E73A196217 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.wooz.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2DA751BF57B; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:07:07 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15964.58923.43997.412226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:07:07 -0500 To: James Lick Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 11) "Native Windows TTY Support" XEmacs Lucid From: bwarsaw@python.org (Barry A. Warsaw) X-Attribution: BAW X-Oblique-Strategy: Be dirty X-Url: http://barry.warsaw.us X-Archive-Number: 200302/222 X-Sequence-Number: 1285 >>>>> "JL" == James Lick writes: JL> PS- Anyone managed to wedge SpamAssassin into any list JL> manager? It would be really nice if MailMan just chucked out JL> spams straight away rather than asking me to slog through JL> rejecting them each morning. There are two submitted patches for integrating SpamAssassin with Mailman: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103&atid=300103&func=detail&aid=534577 http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=103&atid=300103&func=detail&aid=640518 Both appear to be for Mailman 2.0.x so I can't comment further. I have some experimental patches for integrating Spambayes with Mailman 2.1.x. They're sitting on my laptop but will probably soon be checked into the 2.2alpha branch for others to play with. It may or may not make it into a future release. -Barry From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 08:32:06 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704FD19637F for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:31:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1QGVJfr009623; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:31:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:31:17 -0800 Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT CC ME ON MESSAGES TO THIS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Nick Simicich From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225111637.53948090@199.74.151.1> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/223 X-Sequence-Number: 1286 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 08:20 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: > Yep, my comment was uncalled for, and rude. It was based on my faulty > memory and I apologize for it. Chuq really does want the extra > copies. thanks, Nick. Appreciate that. > However, I still assert that it is rude to send (or cause to be sent) > multiple copies of the same e-mail to people who have not specifically > said that they want them. And you're welcome to. Me, I assert it's rude to try to force people to do things your way, or force people to have to remember how each of the 500 people in their address book want things done, because it's not just you that has that "right of assertion" but every person, and if I was to agree to your request, I'd have to do it for everyone -- and I can't. and won't try. so when two assertions clash, the one that wins is -- the one I have control over. I.e. mine. It has veto power over yours, just like you have veto power over any request I make of you to do your stuff my way. And that's why my position is not "do it this way" or "do it that way" but "if you want it done a certain way, set up your own system to do it that way" -- because that's what you have control over. And that's what's manageable, and minimized the kind of arguments we're in now. I'm not proposing a policy based on my preference or against yours, but towards most harmony and least flames, and because it's the only one that has a chance of working. So I guess you'll have to consider me rude, which is your privilege. Just as I consider folks rude who walk into my life and tell me how to run it on any number of levels. You always have the right, of course, if you consider me rude enough, to simply deny communication, too. ultimately, that's your choice. But I won't change my way of doing things because someone tells me they don't like the way it's done. Not unless *I* think that person is correct. you don't own my mail client. I do. Just like I don't own yours, and I'd never think of trying to tell you how to set it up, what mail to accept, and what to reject. I just wish you'd show me and others the same respect. But I won't demand it. > In any case, I assert that all polite people should ignore you and fix > all headers not to send extra private copies when they send responses. > You can do what you want. you and people who feel the way you do are welcome to. I have no problem with that, any more than I try to force admins (see! I'm putting this back on topic! honest!) to set reply-to the way *I* prefer it on *their* lists. it's their choice. I'll advise if they ask. I won't demand. Same issue, different scenario. My computer, I control. Your computer, you control. when you start telling me how you want me to run my computer, I have a problem. until then, we're best buddies. because I know you'd do the same for me, and you should. > The fact that you want extra copies should not stop people from doing > the right thing. > But see? I *am* doing the right thing. You and I simply disagree on what the right thing is, and when it comes to my computer -- you don't get a vote. And THAT is the basic underlying issue here. You're complaining because you want a fix you have no power to make. So rather than complain, go fix something you do have power to change. How your own system deals with this stuff. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ But I can hear the sound Of slamming doors and folding chairs And that's a sound they'll never know From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 10:53:35 2003 Received: from jerusalem.christianitytoday.com (jerusalem.christianitytoday.com [12.158.13.148]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDFA195B12 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from IO06 ([12.24.216.130]) by christianitytoday.com ([12.158.13.148]) with SMTP (MDaemon.PRO.v6.0.7.R) for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:50:35 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Tatum, Richard" To: Subject: Godwin's Law... and more Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:51:18 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225111637.53948090@199.74.151.1> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-MDRemoteIP: 12.24.216.130 X-Return-Path: rich@ChristianityToday.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Archive-Number: 200302/224 X-Sequence-Number: 1287 "Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result in a flamewar." http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.html Regards, Rich -- Richard Tatum Website manager for Christianity Today International email: rich@christianitytoday.com web: christianitytoday.com aol im: richtatum -Stephen L. Talbott From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 11:34:22 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C081D1959FE for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18o7Jk-0004xs-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:34:12 -0800 To: "Angel Rivera" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from "Angel Rivera" of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT." <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.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, 26 Feb 2003 11:34:12 -0800 Message-ID: <19087.1046288052@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/225 X-Sequence-Number: 1288 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT Angel Rivera wrote: > J C Lawrence writes: >> Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering >> at the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all >> ability to supervise and correct is lost. > A lot of these problems are probably due to misconfigured tools. Accepted, partially. Various RBLs have a tendency to mark associated netblocks, which I find deceptive. > I am a firm believer of RBLs and we use that as the first line of > defense against spam. If it has come to the point where someone is on > one of the RBLs we use-we need a break. > To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false > positives that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted. I use RBLs, SpamAssasin, Razor, TMDA and a few privately developed filters in concert at LDA time to assist in correct folder filing. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 11:35:43 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690AC195F4C for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18o7KX-0004y3-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:35:01 -0800 To: James Lick Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from James Lick of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:21:37 +0800." References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.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, 26 Feb 2003 11:35:01 -0800 Message-ID: <19098.1046288101@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/226 X-Sequence-Number: 1289 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:21:37 +0800 (CST) James Lick wrote: > PS- Anyone managed to wedge SpamAssassin into any list manager? It > would be really nice if MailMan just chucked out spams straight away > rather than asking me to slog through rejecting them each morning. I did for a while -- just threw a procmail layer in front of wrapper. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 11:44:35 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E19B195B12 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:44:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20117 invoked by uid 511); 26 Feb 2003 19:44:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20030226194433.20116.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <19087.1046288052@kanga.nu> In-Reply-To: <19087.1046288052@kanga.nu> From: "Angel Rivera" To: J C Lawrence Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:44:33 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/227 X-Sequence-Number: 1290 J C Lawrence writes: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT > Angel Rivera wrote: >> J C Lawrence writes: > >>> Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering >>> at the MTA. The potential cost of error is high, and almost all >>> ability to supervise and correct is lost. > >> A lot of these problems are probably due to misconfigured tools. > > Accepted, partially. Various RBLs have a tendency to mark associated > netblocks, which I find deceptive. ah, but I don't find those deceptive-at least in those I use. SPEWS, for example will expand the blocked IPs if they do not act on complaints-the theory being to give them a little finacial push for them to do the right thing. >> I am a firm believer of RBLs and we use that as the first line of >> defense against spam. If it has come to the point where someone is on >> one of the RBLs we use-we need a break. > >> To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false >> positives that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted. > > I use RBLs, SpamAssasin, Razor, TMDA and a few privately developed > filters in concert at LDA time to assist in correct folder filing. I do use razor and have submitted some spam. I don't use TMDA-more nuisance than I want to deal with. I do like the idea of configuring SpamAssassin so each user can configure their own whitelists as they choose, so I will most likely be heading in that direction. -ar From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 11:52:58 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FB91961AB for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18o7bm-00059P-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:50 -0800 To: "Angel Rivera" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives In-Reply-To: Message from "Angel Rivera" of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:44:33 GMT." <20030226194433.20116.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <130798312.1046214147@[192.168.254.79]> <3E5BF111.13482.A908AAE@localhost> <1399.1046242169@kanga.nu> <20030226113300.21046.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <19087.1046288052@kanga.nu> <20030226194433.20116.qmail@houston.wolf.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, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:50 -0800 Message-ID: <19801.1046289170@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/228 X-Sequence-Number: 1291 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:44:33 GMT Angel Rivera wrote: > J C Lawrence writes: >> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT Angel Rivera wrote: >>> J C Lawrence writes: >> Accepted, partially. Various RBLs have a tendency to mark associated >> netblocks, which I find deceptive. > ah, but I don't find those deceptive-at least in those I use. SPEWS, > for example will expand the blocked IPs if they do not act on > complaints-the theory being to give them a little finacial push for > them to do the right thing. I should clarify. I don't find it deceptive on the part of the RBL operator as most of them are quite forward about that, but deceptive on the part of the resultant behaviour of my RBL tool: I loose mail via collateral damage without direct opportunity to review or alter the criteria creating that umbra. That's deceptive as I use the tool to only catch nodes which are directly misbehaving and don't have a means of distinguishing. > I do use razor and have submitted some spam. I have a variety of addresses, some static, and some dictionary/CGI derived which pipe directly to razor-report. They don't get a lot of traffic, but they do get enough to seem worthwhile. > I don't use TMDA-more nuisance than I want to deal with. At this point I have TMDA down to the point where I simply ignore it. For those addresses on which its active I get periodic messages detailing new arrivals in the hold queue which I glance at occasionally (for things like the stats that I quoted earlier), but that's it. It runs itself. What I haven't yet done fully is integrating TMDA with my mail sending patterns so I can more transparently use things like dated or sender addresses. I'll probably do that before too lone (I've got a little Exim recipe cooked up that makes it site-wide with per-user configurability). > I do like the idea of configuring SpamAssassin so each user can > configure their own whitelists as they choose, so I will most likely > be heading in that direction. The Debian/Linux package does a rather nice job there. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 12:29:07 2003 Received: from mscan1.ucar.edu (mscan1.ucar.edu [192.43.244.120]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041F5195A3C for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mscan1.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A33B8021 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:30:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from snowcrash.scd.ucar.edu (snowcrash.scd.ucar.edu [128.117.8.131]) by mscan1.ucar.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189DCB8020 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:29:59 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Godwin's Law... and more From: Greg Woods To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 26 Feb 2003 13:29:09 -0700 Message-Id: <1046291349.5135.87.camel@snowcrash> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.43-cvs X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200302/229 X-Sequence-Number: 1292 On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:51, Tatum, Richard wrote: > http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.html :-) While I agree that Godwin's Law is misunderstood and often applied inappropriately, it does have a basis in fact. The point is, almost every time someone compares one's opponent in a net debate to a man who knowingly ordered the deaths of six million people who didn't meet his ethnic standards, the comparison is inappropriate, and indicates that the person making this comparison doesn't know what they are talking about and has nothing real to say. So I agree with the way it is most often stated these days, even if it's not what Mike Godwin originally meant, which is that, as soon as someone brings Hitler or the Nazis into a discussion, it means that it is already more heat than light, or soon will be, and either way, it's usefulness has ended. --Greg From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 13:52:38 2003 Received: from firehouse.net (machine-254.firehouse.net [192.160.237.254]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF4801959FE for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 20206 invoked by uid 85); 26 Feb 2003 21:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO machine-254.firehouse.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.ncren.net with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 21:51:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:51:06 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Godwin's Law... and more Message-ID: <20030226215106.GA19964@shazam.wetworks.org> References: <1046291349.5135.87.camel@snowcrash> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1046291349.5135.87.camel@snowcrash> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Alan B Clegg X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.69 (Count Fleet) X-TMDA-Fingerprint: 90+W+sExm6cbOR1xajjc8iqeY8Y X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 X-Archive-Number: 200302/230 X-Sequence-Number: 1293 --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unless the network is lying to me again, Greg Woods said:=20 > The point is, almost > every time someone compares one's opponent in a net debate to a man who > knowingly ordered the deaths of six million people who didn't meet his > ethnic standards, the comparison is inappropriate, and indicates that > the person making this comparison doesn't know what they are talking > about and has nothing real to say. Greg, you are such a Sadam. ... oh ... you said SIX million ... nevermind. AlanC {running to hide} --=20 Alan Clegg, CISSP HCS Systems Security Consultant Garner, NC 919-779-3055 --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+XTbKyJP8xSfQVdsRAuywAJ9hjtQkfjdJdALYTGIQmAzUNPE/cgCeI0la yZueVVPXTZta6atwIjkQGAM= =d31p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 14:33:25 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0C51960B3 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1QMX2LW031536; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:33:02 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1QMX2KS031535; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:33:02 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302262233.h1QMX2KS031535@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail - humm To: amitchell@habeas.com (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:33:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <3E5C07DC.10942.1420BA@localhost> from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." at Feb 26, 2003 12:18:36 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/231 X-Sequence-Number: 1294 hi ya anne > Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > > > i say that is a worst piece of spam and junkmail in this list to date . > Anyways, if so, I sincerely apologize! well looks like i've been outvoted ... so for that i apologize to you Anne ( maybe i should keep quiet and lurk too .. ) but before i do that.. just wanted to say that even if a post is on topic, it can still be considered spam .. :-) - everybody's definition of spam is different - for me ... - any spam/virus filter that allows "false positives" is worthless to me ( 2x - 3x much faster to simply hit "d" once than to worry abouot ( if a real email went to the (supposedly) spam bunket that is NOT ( checked as often - and the habeas one was "deemed spam" due to excessive headers and contains no useful info .. just one line for the url suffice ( see below ) i am heading down the road to spam-hell..:-0 for my punishment... hehehee again, my apologies for posting my initial spam comment.. thanx alvin X> Return-Path: X> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X> X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X> X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X> X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X> X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X> X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X> X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X> X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X> X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X> Organization: Habeas - the email you want X> To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 19:26:02 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F97195F35 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23275 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5D8575.2010301@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:26:45 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail - humm References: <200302262233.h1QMX2KS031535@planet.fef.com> In-Reply-To: <200302262233.h1QMX2KS031535@planet.fef.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/232 X-Sequence-Number: 1295 Alvin Oga wrote: > but before i do that.. just wanted to say that even if a post is > on topic, it can still be considered spam .. :-) > - everybody's definition of spam is different You can say that if you want, but you would be wrong, just as wrong as if you said "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east". When you have subscribed and confirmed your subscription request to a discussion list, and someone else sends a message to that list that conforms with the list's rules (and thus is "on topic"), that message is NEVER SPAM. You opted-in to the list! In doing so, you explicitly requested/solicited to accept all email from that list. Requested/solicited email is, by defintion, the opposite of spam (which is, by any accepted definition, ALWAYS *unsolicited* email, with or without additional qualifications such as "commercial" or "bulk"). Attempting to redefine spam as "any email I don't like" makes the term spam useless, for you and for everyone else. We already have a perfectly good word for that type of email, it is "unwanted". Just because an email is unwanted does not make it spam! When some small fraction of list email is unwanted by an individual, the correct response is to use your delete key or your filters to discard it. When this fraction becomes too high for you to tolerate, unsubscribe. Duh? jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 20:20:29 2003 Received: from planet.fef.com (unknown [166.90.172.7]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6322A195F97 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from planet.fef.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.7/check_local-5) with ESMTP id h1R4K8LW032175; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:08 -0800 Received: (from alvin@localhost) by planet.fef.com (8.12.7/8.12.4/Submit) id h1R4K8GK032174; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:08 -0800 From: Alvin Oga Message-Id: <200302270420.h1R4K8GK032174@planet.fef.com> Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail - spam To: inet-list@vo.cnchost.com (JC Dill) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:20:07 -0800 (PST) Cc: alvin@planet.fef.com (Alvin Oga), list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: <3E5D8575.2010301@vo.cnchost.com> from "JC Dill" at Feb 26, 2003 07:26:45 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/233 X-Sequence-Number: 1296 hi ya > > but before i do that.. just wanted to say that even if a post is > > on topic, it can still be considered spam .. :-) > > - everybody's definition of spam is different > > You can say that if you want, but you would be wrong, just as wrong as > if you said "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east". > > When you have subscribed and confirmed your subscription request to a > discussion list, and someone else sends a message to that list that > conforms with the list's rules (and thus is "on topic"), that message is > NEVER SPAM. You opted-in to the list! In doing so, you explicitly > requested/solicited to accept all email from that list. geez .... so if the nigeerian spam emails gets past thru the lsit filters and makes it to the subscribers ... that is not spam ??? geez... i say that its spam ... simply because of its content nothng to do with subscribed or opt-in or content ... - spam is spam no matter if from a list or received separately - like i said .. my spam rules will vary compared to your definition of spam -- think this is another dead horse ... about "what is spam" or not c ya alvin From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 20:27:37 2003 Received: from shedevil.annepmitchell.com (adsl-64-165-36-235.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.165.36.235]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D56195F96 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from annie (windows.annepmitchell.com [192.168.0.8]) by shedevil.annepmitchell.com (8.11.6/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1R4P2i94047 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:25:02 -0800 (PST) X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Organization: Habeas - the email you want To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Questions for those who have this information Message-ID: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) X-Archive-Number: 200302/234 X-Sequence-Number: 1297 Hi All! Well, let's see if I can keep spam out of this I'd be really interested to know if any of you have any information (statistical or even anecdotal) on the following: 1. Average % of your mailing list mail which you figure is undelivered due to spam filters erroneously blocking it as spam. 2. If your list is now confirmed opt-in, but was not at one time, what % of subscribers did you lose by going to confirmed opt-in? And how, if at all, has the quality of the subscribers, or the list in general, changed? 3. If you could sit down, face to face, with the CEO of $BIGISP, what are the three things you would most like to impress upon them in terms of how they handle incoming mailing list mail from a list such as yours? Thanks! Anne From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 21:16:50 2003 Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.46]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71C21959E9 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcaum88.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.89.8] helo=queernet.org) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18oGPJ-0001mT-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:16:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5D9F39.7090300@queernet.org> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:16:41 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr, fr-lu, fr-mc, fr-ch MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alvin Oga Cc: JC Dill , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: false positives - junkmail - spam References: <200302270420.h1R4K8GK032174@planet.fef.com> In-Reply-To: <200302270420.h1R4K8GK032174@planet.fef.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/235 X-Sequence-Number: 1298 Alvin Oga wrote: >geez .... so if the nigeerian spam emails gets past thru the lsit filters >and makes it to the subscribers ... that is not spam ??? > >geez... i say that its spam ... simply because of its content > That depends on whether it's on-charter for the list... >nothng to do with subscribed or opt-in or content ... > - spam is spam no matter if from a list or received separately > > If you subscribe to a list, and a subscriber posts a message that is on-charter for the list, it's not spam. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Feb 26 21:30:35 2003 Received: from dingo.home.kanga.nu (ocker.kanga.nu [198.144.204.213]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018351959EC for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by dingo.home.kanga.nu with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18oGcZ-0000U0-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:30:15 -0800 To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Questions for those who have this information In-Reply-To: Message from "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." of "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:19 PST." <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> 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, 26 Feb 2003 21:30:15 -0800 Message-ID: <1859.1046323815@kanga.nu> From: J C Lawrence X-Archive-Number: 200302/236 X-Sequence-Number: 1299 On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:27:19 -0800 Anne P Mitchell wrote: > I'd be really interested to know if any of you have any information > (statistical or even anecdotal) on the following: I don't track, so this is anecdotal. > 1. Average % of your mailing list mail which you figure is undelivered > due to spam filters erroneously blocking it as spam. Roughly one message in forty contain sufficient keywords that 0.5% of my target MXes bounce the message (that's a bit high actually -- they keep getting unsubscribed due to the bounces thus keeping the percentage down). > 2. If your list is now confirmed opt-in, but was not at one time, > what % of subscribers did you lose by going to confirmed opt-in? And > how, if at all, has the quality of the subscribers, or the list in > general, changed? My main list is now double opt-in (standard Mailman). Prior to that it was invitation-only (you had to be sponsored by a member in good standing). Prior to that it was a rather clubby shared secret. I've lost no subscribers due to the transitions that I know of as all were grandfathered across each translation. In the invitation only days it ran just over 85% posters. Now, having been double-opt-in for several years its hovering around 12% posters (total number of posters hasn't grown much, but churn rate in the poster population has (it used to be nearly static)). Quality of posters has almost bell-curved. Previously it was heavily skewed toward the top end. It remains skewed currently, but only by about a couple standard deviation points. Within the population of posters the quality level is a standard power curve. Additionally, reflecting the surrounding market and posting audience, the list has become increasingly commercial in tone and topic (the commercial applications and use of the subject topic) over the last few years.. > 3. If you could sit down, face to face, with the CEO of $BIGISP, what > are the three things you would most like to impress upon them in terms > of how they handle incoming mailing list mail from a list such as > yours? How they do or how they should? I suspect you're not quite asking the question you wish. Note that I'm in a slightly unusual position in that AOL+MSN+Hotmail+Yahoo together occupy less than 3% of my total membership roster. I'll leave this one to others with the note that I'd like to see SMTP extended to enclude VERP encoding within (larger) RCPT-TO bundles. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 03:45:14 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3441195A24 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:44:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12102 invoked by uid 511); 27 Feb 2003 11:44:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> From: "Angel Rivera" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Questions for those who have this information Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:44:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/237 X-Sequence-Number: 1300 Good Morning, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. writes: > Hi All! > > Well, let's see if I can keep spam out of this > > I'd be really interested to know if any of you have any information > (statistical or even anecdotal) on the following: Mostly anecdotal. > > 1. Average % of your mailing list mail which you figure is undelivered > due to spam filters erroneously blocking it as spam. Hardly ever in the last two years. Had issues getting mail to anyone at themail about 2.5 years ago. Did not persue, just placed a notice on the list page that if you were a themail clients you would most likely not be able to get mail from us. That was fixed. > > 2. If your list is now confirmed opt-in, but was not at one time, > what % of subscribers did you lose by going to confirmed opt-in? > And how, if at all, has the quality of the subscribers, or the list in > general, changed? Our lists are and have always been confirmed opt-in. We consider anything other than confirmed opt-in to be unworkable and can very well lead to a spam complaint. ~50% of the stuff caught in my spamtrap are from "lists" that non-existant persons have join. We do LART on them. > 3. If you could sit down, face to face, with the CEO of $BIGISP, > what are the three things you would most like to impress upon them > in terms of how they handle incoming mailing list mail from a list > such as yours? Nothing. -ar From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 07:59:06 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F45A196022 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1RFwxO65649 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:59:00 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:59:02 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Message-ID: <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/238 X-Sequence-Number: 1301 Is anyone else starting to see bounces of the form ... while talking to air-xj05.mail.aol.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 SomeMember IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER 550 ... User unknown I have started to see more and more of these, and I find myself wondering whether AOL members (and possibly on other services) are using the ever-expanding "spam blocking" facilities as a shortcut to leave lists, rather than figure out how to do it at the listserv level. Maybe if we worked with AOL and MUA makers to translate the RFC2369 Unsub header into an equally easy "button," members would use it? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 08:24:26 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED44195A7D for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:24:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 29185 invoked by uid 511); 27 Feb 2003 16:24:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20030227162423.29184.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> From: "Angel Rivera" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:24:23 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/239 X-Sequence-Number: 1302 Tom Neff writes: > Is anyone else starting to see bounces of the form > > ... while talking to air-xj05.mail.aol.com.: > >>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 SomeMember IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER > 550 ... User unknown > > I have started to see more and more of these, and I find myself wondering > whether AOL members (and possibly on other services) are using the > ever-expanding "spam blocking" facilities as a shortcut to leave lists, > rather than figure out how to do it at the listserv level. I am not sure it is a "spam blocking" facility. It clearly states it does know now the use and returns a 550 which means it is permanent. More than likely the user went away or deleted that profile and created another one. Deleting their membership is about all you can do. > Maybe if we worked with AOL and MUA makers to translate the RFC2369 Unsub > header into an equally easy "button," members would use it? Getting these idiots is one of the crosses you carry for running a list. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 08:31:44 2003 Received: from plaidworks.com (www.plaidworks.com [64.81.78.180]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D387196194 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:31:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (dsl081-078-186.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.78.186]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h1RGVSfr003511; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:31:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:31:26 -0800 Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com To: Tom Neff From: Chuq Von Rospach In-Reply-To: <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Archive-Number: 200302/240 X-Sequence-Number: 1303 On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 07:59 AM, Tom Neff wrote: > I have started to see more and more of these, and I find myself > wondering > whether AOL members I've seen this for a long time on AOL. doesn't bother me, since it's handled as a bounce. I long ago gave up on teaching AOL users to do it "right", since basically, the AOL system is set up so they don't have to, and to actually encourage them to not do it. -- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.plaidworks.com/chuqui/blog/ IMHO: Jargon. Acronym for In My Humble Opinion. Used to flag as an opinion something that is clearly from context an opinion to everyone except the mentally dense. Opinions flagged by IMHO are actually rarely humble. IMHO. (source: third unabridged dictionary of chuqui-isms). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:06:27 2003 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB7B1959D8 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ord351473 (localhost.panix.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DC148A9E for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:06:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c801c2de82$5dd2b540$21985742@ord351473> From: "David W. Tamkin" To: References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:04:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Archive-Number: 200302/241 X-Sequence-Number: 1304 Tom Neff asked, | Is anyone else starting to see bounces of the form | | ... while talking to air-xj05.mail.aol.com.: | >>> RCPT To: | <<< 550 SomeMember IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER | 550 ... User unknown I was seeing those in the mid-1990s. | I have started to see more and more of these, and I find myself wondering | whether AOL members (and possibly on other services) are using the | ever-expanding "spam blocking" facilities as a shortcut to leave lists, | rather than figure out how to do it at the listserv level. Sometimes it's that. But there's also a setting to block all mail from outside AOL. A blanket block on all mail from outside AOL, last I knew, generated the same "NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER" response as a block against the sender's specific address. Some of the time an AOL customer will get convinced that the surest way to block spam and infections is to refuse all mail from outside AOL. Often the user is a minor on a subsidiary screen name of a parent's account, and parent blocks all mail from outside AOL, usually, I've found, without saying anything to the offspring, who is just left baffled when mailing lists dry up and pen pals don't write, and who sends "What happened to my subscription?" queries, which the list manager cannot answer because mail from outside AOL is blocked. It's rumored that there are parenting fora on AOL that advise not only blocking outside mail to one's children's screen names but also not telling one's children about the block. Sometimes, though, the child does find out, either because parents brag to the child about what good protectors they are; or a blocked correspondent knows the child off-line and asks what is going on. Unfortunately, nothing stops the users behind these (self-imposed or parentally imposed) blocks from sending mail anywhere else, and it's quite common for them to block their incoming mail without realizing what they're doing, or to be unaware that their parents blocked it, and then to keep sending complaints about not getting mail, which, of course, the recipient cannot answer. So you can't always assume that it's a substitute for a proper unsubscribe. I had one case where definitely it was: I was maintaining the list's membership rolls manually, and when I got an unsub request I processed it and sent an acknowledgment to the former list member. It was rejected as above; the jerk was so sure I'd disregard his request and keep sending him the list. I wrote to him from another address (that message didn't bounce but he never answered it) telling him that of course I had unsubbed him and that his distrust was highly insulting. Angel wrote, > More than > likely the user went away or deleted that profile and created another one. No, that's not it. If the screen name has been deleted or the account closed, you get a different message. I don't remember it, but it isn't "not accepting mail from this sender." From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:36:24 2003 Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71B91959D8 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 216-240-38-250.ip.idiom.com ([216.240.38.250] helo=APTITUDE) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18oRx8-0007fm-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:36:14 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Angel Rivera'" , Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:34:12 -0800 Message-ID: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9462@sfdc.us.sychron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C2DE43.639576F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <20030227162423.29184.qmail@houston.wolf.com> Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 95a5daa1092a4a38d780f4a490ca69564776905774d2ac4b458bfbc1e2ed057decef1ccf9a0d8919350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Archive-Number: 200302/242 X-Sequence-Number: 1305 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C2DE43.639576F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > [mailto:list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com] On Behalf Of Angel Rivera > > I am not sure it is a "spam blocking" facility. It clearly > states it does > know now the use and returns a 550 which means it is > permanent. More than > likely the user went away or deleted that profile and created > another one. > Deleting their membership is about all you can do. It's not a deleted "profile" -- a profile is a screenname is a login is a user. It means that the user has set up their mail rules so as not to accept mail from you -- whether explicitly or, more likely, because they turned off all non-AOL mail and didn't realize it affected the list's delivery. AOL does return a 5xx on this, because they want that delivery attempt to be treated as permanent failure; it does NOT mean the screenname has been deleted. I generally log in to AOL and send them mail asking if they blocked us intentionally, and if so, tell them how to unsubscribe; if they fail to, I report them to AOL as a ToS violator. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C2DE43.639576F0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Roger B.A. Klorese (rogerk@sychron.com).vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Roger B.A. Klorese (rogerk@sychron.com).vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Klorese;Roger FN:Roger Klorese TEL;WORK;VOICE:(650) 931-0707 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:;San Mateo;1900 South Norfolk=3D0D=3D0= ASuite 260;San Mateo;CA;94403 LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:San Mateo=3D0D=3D0A1900 South Norfol= k=3D0D=3D0ASuite 260=3D0D=3D0ASan Mateo, CA 94403 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:RogerK@sychron.com REV:20030121T192255Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C2DE43.639576F0-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:48:59 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2CC19623C for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from onceler.int.kciLink.com (onceler.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.2]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A854D2178C for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by onceler.int.kciLink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8D2603D17; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:48:57 -0500 (EST) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15966.20361.432015.460171@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:48:57 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? In-Reply-To: <20030227162423.29184.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> <20030227162423.29184.qmail@houston.wolf.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200302/243 X-Sequence-Number: 1306 >>>>> "AR" == Angel Rivera writes: >> <<< 550 SomeMember IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER >> 550 ... User unknown AR> I am not sure it is a "spam blocking" facility. It clearly states it does AR> know now the use and returns a 550 which means it is permanent. More than AOL has the ability to refuse mail for anyone not on your list of "accepted" senders. It seems to be what is the issue here. The particular member is refusing mail from this sender (either explicitly, or implicitly because the sender is not whitelisted.) If the user didn't exist, AOL would have said so. From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:51:13 2003 Received: from grassyhill.org (grassyhill.org [208.231.0.71]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A390E195F92 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grassyhill.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h1RHp6O72851 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:51:06 -0500 (EST) X-Envelope-To: Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:51:09 -0500 From: Tom Neff To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Message-ID: <266919578.1046350269@[192.168.254.79]> In-Reply-To: <00c801c2de82$5dd2b540$21985742@ord351473> References: <3E5D2327.14296.4665DEC@localhost> <20030227114452.12101.qmail@houston.wolf.com> <260192593.1046343542@[192.168.254.79]> <00c801c2de82$5dd2b540$21985742@ord351473> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archive-Number: 200302/244 X-Sequence-Number: 1307 --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:04 AM -0600 "David W. Tamkin" wrote: > Often the user is a minor on a subsidiary screen name of a parent's account, > and parent blocks all mail from outside AOL, usually, I've found, without > saying anything to the offspring, who is just left baffled when mailing > lists dry up and pen pals don't write, and who sends "What happened to my > subscription?" queries, which the list manager cannot answer because mail > from outside AOL is blocked. Unless the list manager maintains an AOL account for emergencies (I think I still have mine somewhere :)) > I had one case where definitely it was: I was maintaining the list's > membership rolls manually, and when I got an unsub request I processed it > and sent an acknowledgment to the former list member. It was rejected as > above; the jerk was so sure I'd disregard his request and keep sending him > the list. yeah, I think I've seen at least one instance where the member's last posting was an angry one, so they probably slammed the door. Ain't list life great :) From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:55:55 2003 Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3F4195F14 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from 216-240-38-250.ip.idiom.com ([216.240.38.250] helo=APTITUDE) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18oSG8-0003TS-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:55:52 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Vivek Khera'" , Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:53:50 -0800 Message-ID: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9465@sfdc.us.sychron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <15966.20361.432015.460171@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 95a5daa1092a4a38d780f4a490ca69564776905774d2ac4b7574052aa3a61f53219b4838a9f8ade9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Archive-Number: 200302/245 X-Sequence-Number: 1308 > From: list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com > [mailto:list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com] On Behalf Of Vivek Khera > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:49 AM > To: list-managers@greatcircle.com > Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? > > > If the user didn't exist, AOL would have said so. Well, it sorta does -- it does say "550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND"... From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 09:59:52 2003 Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDFF196401 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 216-240-38-250.ip.idiom.com ([216.240.38.250] helo=APTITUDE) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18oSJy-0004FQ-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:59:50 -0800 From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" To: "'Vivek Khera'" , Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:57:49 -0800 Message-ID: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9466@sfdc.us.sychron.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2DE46.AFB755A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <15966.20361.432015.460171@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 95a5daa1092a4a38d780f4a490ca69564776905774d2ac4befa119e3de7226da593807c73b9b4d59350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Archive-Number: 200302/246 X-Sequence-Number: 1309 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2DE46.AFB755A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My error on my last post -- the 550 error is exact, but we still see "User unknown" which is confusing. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2DE46.AFB755A0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Roger B.A. Klorese (rogerk@sychron.com).vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Roger B.A. Klorese (rogerk@sychron.com).vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Klorese;Roger FN:Roger Klorese TEL;WORK;VOICE:(650) 931-0707 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:;San Mateo;1900 South Norfolk=3D0D=3D0= ASuite 260;San Mateo;CA;94403 LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:San Mateo=3D0D=3D0A1900 South Norfol= k=3D0D=3D0ASuite 260=3D0D=3D0ASan Mateo, CA 94403 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:RogerK@sychron.com REV:20030121T192255Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C2DE46.AFB755A0-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 10:38:52 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFAE195F14 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5325 invoked by uid 511); 27 Feb 2003 18:38:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20030227183850.5324.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9466@sfdc.us.sychron.com> In-Reply-To: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9466@sfdc.us.sychron.com> From: "Angel Rivera" To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Cc: "'Vivek Khera'" , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:38:50 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/247 X-Sequence-Number: 1310 Roger B.A. Klorese writes: > My error on my last post -- the 550 error is exact, but we still see > "User unknown" which is confusing. It is indeed confusing-but then that's AOL, eh? From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 11:13:39 2003 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631A0196778 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from h-66-167-132-76.phndaz91.covad.net ([66.167.132.76] helo=Vaio.earthlink.net) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18oTTN-0000Nq-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:13:38 -0800 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> X-Sender: bobbish@pop.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:13:25 -0700 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Bob Bish Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? In-Reply-To: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9466@sfdc.us.sychron.com > References: <15966.20361.432015.460171@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/248 X-Sequence-Number: 1311 I believe that message means the AOL user is blocking mail from the ORIGINAL sender of the message, not from the entire mailing list. I see these a lot, but lately they've been taking the form like: Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because they are not accepting mail from user@some.dom: aoluser ...Bob From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 11:15:46 2003 Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [216.194.193.105]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445AF19662B for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:15:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from onceler.int.kciLink.com (onceler.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.2]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57324217B5 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by onceler.int.kciLink.com (Postfix, from userid 100) id 405AC3D17; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:15:44 -0500 (EST) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15966.25568.133775.797595@onceler.int.kciLink.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:15:44 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? In-Reply-To: <20030227183850.5324.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <7AD6B1A7CA734A48B95E96591302A9B90B9466@sfdc.us.sychron.com> <20030227183850.5324.qmail@houston.wolf.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid X-Archive-Number: 200302/249 X-Sequence-Number: 1312 >>>>> "AR" == Angel Rivera writes: AR> Roger B.A. Klorese writes: >> My error on my last post -- the 550 error is exact, but we still see >> "User unknown" which is confusing. AR> It is indeed confusing-but then that's AOL, eh? Or Outlook, which purposefully hides the actual error message sent by the remote mail server (and displays the Sender as the "From"... go figure). From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 12:25:33 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511F0195A3B for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26881 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:30:58 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5E7493.9050306@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:26:59 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? References: <15966.20361.432015.460171@onceler.int.kciLink.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/250 X-Sequence-Number: 1313 Bob Bish wrote: > I believe that message means the AOL user is blocking mail from the > ORIGINAL sender of the message, not from the entire mailing list. I see > these a lot, but lately they've been taking the form like: > > Your mail to the following recipients could not be delivered because > they are not accepting mail from user@some.dom: > aoluser Me too. I manage a bursty volume list, it goes quiet for a week or two then has a burst of traffic. I have one AOLuser who has blocked email from one other subscriber, and when that other subscriber posts I (the list administrator) get the bounce message. This is annoying. IMHO, if a message comes from a list but is being bounced due to the original sender, this *particular* type of bounce message should be sent to the address that triggers the bounce, not to the list admin. I don't want these bounces, I didn't cause these bounces (the person who pissed off the AOLuser did). I don't want to pushish the AOLuser for causing the bounces, but I'm getting tired enough of them that I'm considering telling the AOLuser to either accept all email from the list, or I'll unsub her from the list, and that my decision to do this is based on AOL's stupid way of addressing this problem. jc jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 12:47:47 2003 Received: from mail.rev.net (server02.rev.net [206.67.68.98]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0286196BF4 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:47:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from admin3 (natpool3.rev.net [63.148.93.3] (may be forged)) (authenticated) by mail.rev.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h1RKliA09955 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:47:44 -0500 From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:45:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? Reply-To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com Message-ID: <3E5E32A3.20276.51D96BB6@localhost> In-reply-to: <3E5E7493.9050306@vo.cnchost.com> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.3.1(snapshot 20020108) (server02.rev.net) X-Archived: msg.1046378864.TbSLFB@server02.rev.net X-Archive-Number: 200302/251 X-Sequence-Number: 1314 On 27 Feb 2003 at 12:26, JC Dill wrote: > ...I have one AOLuser who has blocked email from one > other subscriber, and when that other subscriber posts I (the list > administrator) get the bounce message. This is annoying. IMHO, if a > message comes from a list but is being bounced due to the original > sender, this *particular* type of bounce message should be sent to the > address that triggers the bounce, not to the list admin. I have several on my lists and it is actually hard to figure the pattern [since some of the blocked stuff appears unlikely to be intentional]. I wonder if they can do wildcard blocks and so do "*.yahoo.com" or some such... In any event: what do you all do with those bounces? I get them, too [in addition to the equally obnoxoius "No thanks" from world.std.com and similar from a few other sites]. Do you forward them back to the original poster or not? I just trashcan the thing. I realize that this means that person A doesn't know that person B never got their message, but, for me, life's too short and this feels like it should be someone else's problem. What I could do [since I have an appropriate mail client -- there are remarkably few that can!] I could 'resent-*' the bounce to the original author and it wouldn't even look [to the casual observer] that I had gotten in the middle of their dispute... but, alas, even that is more bother than I go to [but I'd be willing to modify my behavior here if y'all really thought it was better-practice to pass the bounce on]. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 13:51:28 2003 Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE47195ADA for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:50:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from vo.cnchost.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27193 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:56:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5E8894.8010903@vo.cnchost.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:52:20 -0800 From: JC Dill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> <3E5E32A3.20276.51D96BB6@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3E5E32A3.20276.51D96BB6@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/252 X-Sequence-Number: 1315 Bernie Cosell wrote: > In any event: what do you all do with those bounces? I get them, too [in > addition to the equally obnoxoius "No thanks" from world.std.com and similar > from a few other sites]. Do you forward them back to the original poster or > not? I just trashcan the thing. I realize that this means that person A > doesn't know that person B never got their message, but, for me, life's too > short and this feels like it should be someone else's problem. I'm saving them in my list-admin email box, and if I decide to confront the AOLuser about AOL's stupid handling of this problem, I'll have the whole lot of them to send to the AOLuser to show what an annoying problem it is. I have a fundamental problem with JHD, I shouldn't have to do that, period. > > What I could do [since I have an appropriate mail client -- there are > remarkably few that can!] I could 'resent-*' the bounce to the original author > and it wouldn't even look [to the casual observer] that I had gotten in the > middle of their dispute... but, alas, even that is more bother than I go to > [but I'd be willing to modify my behavior here if y'all really thought it was > better-practice to pass the bounce on]. I don't think list-managers should have to do special handling to process bounces to go to the appropriate recepient. AOL has chosen to give their Lusers this stupid filtering option without thinking thru the ramifications of bouncing email that a blocked address submits to a mailing list that the AOLuser is subscribed to. I suggest that doing anything to coddle AOL and the AOLuser is wrong, as it will just encourage more such stupidity in the future. We already are having to do more and more mime-stripping to strip away the AOL "feature" of HTML bloated email off our lists. Then we can setup special bounce filtering behavior to send AOL's stupid bounce messages to the appropriate recepient. When will we say ENOUGH!? At what point do we make the AOLuser responsible for their patronage of an ISP that doesn't care about how their software make things harder for the rest of the Internet community? jc From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 15:41:22 2003 Received: from www.lofcom.com (oldradio.net [216.105.35.108]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B363196D97 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:39:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.123.10] (lof@washdc3-ar1-4-46-251-038.washdc3.dsl-verizon.net [4.46.251.38]) by www.lofcom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29827; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:39:31 -0500 X-Envelope-From: charlie@lofcom.com X-Sender: lof@oldradio.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3E5E32A3.20276.51D96BB6@localhost> References: <3E5E7493.9050306@vo.cnchost.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030227121057.00b95748@pop.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:35:25 -0500 To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Charlie Summers Subject: Re: Are members blocking instead of leaving? X-Archive-Number: 200302/253 X-Sequence-Number: 1316 At 3:45 PM -0500 2/27/03, Bernie Cosell is rumored to have typed: > In any event: what do you all do with those bounces? The server treats them like any other bounce; four in a reasonable period and the server removes the address, regardless of the reason. Sometimes, if I notice them on the lists I actively maintain before the server takes action, I remove them manually. > the equally obnoxoius "No thanks" from world.std.com I got so sick of that triggering for no-darned-good-reason-at-all that on the one list I actively maintain (hobbiest list dealing with Old-Time Radio), I refuse to accept subscriptions from theworld.com or std.com, rejecting them back to the attemptor with an explaination. (Other lists on the server accept them, but then it's not my direct problem since I don't actively maintain 'em, and it wouldn't be fair for me to make decisions like that for clients, paid or not.) I had one subscriber who used to be a customer run a test by bouncing mail through his virtual domain (so he'd receive the bounces instead of the sender), and he was shocked by the amount of innocent mail TheWorld was rejecting with that teeth-gnashing, "No, thank you." He ended up finding another provider. Charlie From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 17:04:54 2003 Received: from webburner.propagation.net (webburner.propagation.net [63.249.129.194]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74004197046 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from c5x6x4.zionsbest.com (33.juneau-01-04rs16rt.ak.dial-access.att.net [12.12.210.33]) by webburner.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA10324 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:04:30 -0600 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227153919.009f6b60@mail.zionsbest.com> X-Sender: gazelem@mail.zionsbest.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:04:34 -0900 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: "John W. Redelfs" Subject: Educate Me Please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Archive-Number: 200302/254 X-Sequence-Number: 1317 I've been running lists for many years as the listowner. My first lists were ListServ, ListProc and Majordomo. But for the last few years I've been using such free list servers as Topica.com, Smartgroups.com, and Yahoogroups.com. Today I have decided to go back to paying for my lists. The free servers are just too crappy anymore. My website hosting service won't run a Majordomo list for me, so I am shopping for a new host. I've found two that I'm interested in but one of them runs Smartlist and the other runs Mailman. I'm probably going to decide between these two companies based on a comparison of the mailing list managers. I'm really not interested in running one on my own machine. Can anyone here help me with a comparison between Mailman and Smartlist? My main list has 80 members and averages about 26 messages per day. I have a number of other lists, but they enjoy even less traffic. A couple of other things. I like to administer my lists by email, not on the web. And to me, one of the most important features of a MLM is archives that can be downloaded to my hard drive by FTP. What do you think? Am I asking the right crowd here? If not, where should I go for answers? Sincerely John W. Redelfs, gazelem@zionsbest.com From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Thu Feb 27 18:31:59 2003 Received: from houston.wolf.com (houston.wolf.com [216.40.226.30]) by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374041962E7 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 18:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4176 invoked by uid 511); 28 Feb 2003 02:31:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20030228023155.4175.qmail@houston.wolf.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227153919.009f6b60@mail.zionsbest.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227153919.009f6b60@mail.zionsbest.com> From: "Angel Rivera" To: "John W. Redelfs" Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Educate Me Please Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:31:55 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200302/255 X-Sequence-Number: 1318 John W. Redelfs writes: > What do you think? Am I asking the right crowd here? If not, where > should I go for answers? Since you are down to two MLMs, you will probably best get all your questions answered by doing a little primary research.