Obviously you have not patched your MJ @ hole;) Here is the patch:
Read the top 10 lines for instructions.
_/ _/_/_/ _/ ____________ __o
_/ _/ _/ _/ ______________ _-\<,_
_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ ......(_)/ (_)
_/_/ oe _/ _/. _/_/ ah email@example.com
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Daniel Liston wrote:
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:57:08 -0600
> From: Daniel Liston <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Tom Lettington <email@example.com>
> Cc: majordomo-Users@greatcircle.com
> Subject: Re: which @
> I guess it depends on what you mean by news. I have been suggesting that
> max_which_hits=1 (or your actual number of lists) since about late 1999
> or early 2000 when email farming became noticable to me. Along with that,
> I usually put "firstname.lastname@example.org" as the first entry in all my membership
> files. Nobody is of course aliased to /dev/null, so even if the addess
> as the first match in the first list is farmed, the spam to "nobody" goes
> immediately to the internet black hole.
> The functionality of which=list in the individual listname.config files
> only determines whether a match from that list will be returned to the
> requestor. In the case of matching "@" as that requestor, the max number
> of addresses returned is governed by the majordomo.cf max_which_hits.
> Unfortunately, 0 (zero) is interpretted as unlimited rather than "none".
> Dan Liston
> Tom Lettington wrote:
> > I found out the hard way that which_access = list does not limit which
> > access to list members and $max_which_hits = 0; does not limit which
> > hits (although email@example.com does seem to have a functioning
> > match limit of 2).
> > It seems the only way I can protect my list's email addresses from
> > prying eyes (as in SPAMMERS) is to use which_access = closed.
> > Is this news to the members of this list?