Re: You've been selected (aka SPAM)

Re: You've been selected (aka SPAM)

[Tom Watson]

> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:27:41 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> To: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Alsa-devel] You've been selected!
> 
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:21:05AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Eleanor Lee wrote:
> > > [a09fvjoqpvapktqct]
> > > Available to anyone currently living in the US as well as international
> applicants
> > 
> > time to allow only registered subscribers to post to the list, perhaps?
> > 
> > alsa-devel is now 99% spam :-(
> 
> This is the second time (in a brief period) where I've seen you whining
> about spam, when I never even saw the spam itself.  As Lee pointed out,
> there's a SpamAssassin header right there; use it.  Allowing posts from
> non-subscribers is very useful; stop asking that it be disabled simply
> because you won't use existing spam filtering mechanisms.  I see perhaps
> one spam or spam-related bounce per page of 50 mails on this list--and
> that's *after* filtering out BTS messages--a far cry from your "99%".
> 
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> 	spam
> 
> -- 
> Glenn Maynard
> 
> 

Glenn...

Unfortunately the digester (or whatever assembles the group of messages into a
digest) DOES NOT forward SpamAssassin Headers.  It treats ALL messages as
equal.  This means that the digest traffic has more visable SPAM in it.  I
suspect that what everyone would like (as suggested before) is to get
sourceforge to do the filtering.  If it were done there, us users (regular and
digest ones) wouldn't need to do it.  Why do the filtering for every subscriber
when it can be done once at the source.  Isn't that logical?

My understanding is that sourceforge doesn't do the filtering (or won't do it)
for some reason.  Why, I don't know.

For the moment I will live with it.  We all live with it to some degree.

If you want to experiment, just use another address and subscribe in the digest
format.  You will readly see the problem.  I'm not really complaining about the
problem, but your answer of "Look at the headers" is FAR from universal.

Enough.....

=====
-- 
Tom Watson
tsw@johana.com


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click

Re: Re: You've been selected (aka SPAM)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:59:11PM -0700, Tom Watson wrote:
> Unfortunately the digester (or whatever assembles the group of messages into a
> digest) DOES NOT forward SpamAssassin Headers.  It treats ALL messages as
> equal.  This means that the digest traffic has more visable SPAM in it.  I

The fact that digests are inflexible doesn't make suggestions like "disallow
thread crossposting" and "ban an entire IP block wholesale" good ones.

> suspect that what everyone would like (as suggested before) is to get
> sourceforge to do the filtering.  If it were done there, us users (regular and
> digest ones) wouldn't need to do it.  Why do the filtering for every subscriber
> when it can be done once at the source.  Isn't that logical?

Spam filtering isn't perfect; it's up to each individual to decide for himself
whether he trusts it not to lose mails (false positives), and putting the spam
scanning results in a header allows this, instead of forcing it on everyone.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click

Re: Re: You've been selected (aka SPAM)

[Lee Revell]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:44 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:59:11PM -0700, Tom Watson wrote:
> > Unfortunately the digester (or whatever assembles the group of messages into a
> > digest) DOES NOT forward SpamAssassin Headers.  It treats ALL messages as
> > equal.  This means that the digest traffic has more visable SPAM in it.  I
> 
> The fact that digests are inflexible doesn't make suggestions like "disallow
> thread crossposting" and "ban an entire IP block wholesale" good ones.
> 
> > suspect that what everyone would like (as suggested before) is to get
> > sourceforge to do the filtering.  If it were done there, us users (regular and
> > digest ones) wouldn't need to do it.  Why do the filtering for every subscriber
> > when it can be done once at the source.  Isn't that logical?
> 
> Spam filtering isn't perfect; it's up to each individual to decide for himself
> whether he trusts it not to lose mails (false positives), and putting the spam
> scanning results in a header allows this, instead of forcing it on everyone.
> 

That being said, the original poster does have a point - the result of
this policy decision by Sourceforge, to add headers but not to filter,
is that digest users are stuck with all the spam.  There should probably
be an option to filter spam out of the digests.  SpamAssassin can do
this, you would just pipe the digest through it deleting anything above
a configurable spam score.

You should report this to Sourceforge though, I don't think the people
who could implement this read alsa-devel. 

-- 
Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>



-------------------------------------------------------
This Newsletter Sponsored by: Macrovision 
For reliable Linux application installations, use the industry's leading
setup authoring tool, InstallShield X. Learn more and evaluate 
today. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSI/go/ins0030000001msi/direct/01/