Spam on list?

Spam on list?

[Justin Piszcz]

Who runs the XFS mailing list admin-wise?

Could we add some basic anti-spam measures, I am not subscribed to many 
mailing lists but this one seems to generate the most spam.

Any chance they'd consider switching from Sendmail -> Postfix?

Justin.

Re: Spam on list?

[Eric Sandeen]

Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Who runs the XFS mailing list admin-wise?

A cabal...

> Could we add some basic anti-spam measures, I am not subscribed to many 
> mailing lists but this one seems to generate the most spam.
> 
> Any chance they'd consider switching from Sendmail -> Postfix?
> 
> Justin.
> 
> 

There are actually many spam measures in place... spamassassin, and 
others, but it seems they just can't keep up.

The one spam measure that's not in place is subscriber-only posting.

I think it may be time to revisit that decision.  It's gotten really bad 
lately.

-Eric

Re: Spam on list?

[Emmanuel Florac]

Le Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:44:18 -0600 vous écriviez:

> The one spam measure that's not in place is subscriber-only posting.
> 
> I think it may be time to revisit that decision.  It's gotten really
> bad lately.

All other lists I'm following do so, and nobody complains.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac               www.intellique.com   
--------------------------------------------------

Re: Spam on list?

[Eric Sandeen]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> There are actually many spam measures in place... spamassassin, and 
> others, but it seems they just can't keep up.

In the meantime we added another measure today, we'll see if it helps. 
I know it's bad...

Thanks,
-Eric (not the admin per se but at least the admin-pesterer)

Re: Spam on list?

[Andi Kleen]

Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> writes:
> 
> I think it may be time to revisit that decision.  It's gotten really
> bad lately.

Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.

-Andi

Re: Spam on list?

[Jason White]

On 2007-02-05, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> writes:
>> 
>> I think it may be time to revisit that decision.  It's gotten really
>> bad lately.

I agree.
>
> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.

Posting from Gmane (nntp://news.gmane.org/) is also desirable, and
(relatively) safe as it implements a challenge/response procedure and has
other anti-spam controls.

Is it possible to configure the list server to be more selective about who can
post (i.e., detecting header contents that include known good lists, Gmane
  postings, etc.)? There's always "greylisting", too.

Re: Spam on list?

[Martin Schröder]

05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.

Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.

Best
   Martin

Re: Spam on list?

[Andi Kleen]

On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote:
> 05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
> > Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
> > from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.
> 
> Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.

That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders
with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists.

Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because
bug report addresses must be available to everyone.

In general it's a bad idea.

-Andi

Re: Spam on list?

[Eric Sandeen]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote:
>> 05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
>>> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
>>> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.
>> Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.
> 
> That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders
> with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists.
> 
> Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because
> bug report addresses must be available to everyone.
> 
> In general it's a bad idea.
> 
> -Andi
> 

Well, I agree w/ those arguments too, Andi.

I honestly don't know why oss seems to have so much more spam than, say, 
LKML.  It is getting to a really bad level, and I sympathize with those 
whose inboxes are bombarded, too.

-Eric

Re: Spam on list?

[Sami Farin]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 08:18:33 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote:
> >>05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
> >>>Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
> >>>from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.
> >>Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.
> >
> >That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders
> >with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists.
> >
> >Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because
> >bug report addresses must be available to everyone.
> >
> >In general it's a bad idea.
> >
> >-Andi
> >
> 
> Well, I agree w/ those arguments too, Andi.
> 
> I honestly don't know why oss seems to have so much more spam than, say, 
> LKML.  It is getting to a really bad level, and I sympathize with those 
> whose inboxes are bombarded, too.

Those 419 scams and phishes are caught by for example a bayesian filter.
That's what I have done since 2003.

As for the "only subscribers can post" as an anti-spam measure,
I can say that for those mailing lists where they are doing it,
the emails from non-subscribers go to /dev/null and if you
contact owner, it goes, too, because you are not subscribed (!!)
OR they just tell you to screw off.  After waiting for a week.
If they feel like it.

This is not to say that xfs ml would be doing this /dev/nulling ,
this is just my general feeling about this anti-spam measure
and its usability.  Besides, I use different (secret) subscription
email address for mailing lists than in the From header field
when I write to the list.  This way it's easy to have different
anti-spam measures for subscription email (e.g., none)
than for the email in From (e.g., I can reject out-of-office
notices and other brokeness).  If I had to use the same
email for both purposes, I couldn't for example reject
based on 419 scammers' IP addresses found in Received
etc. header fields because then I would get auto-unsubscribed
from this mailing list when ecartis thinks my email is broken.

-- 
Do what you love because life is too short for anything else.

Re: Spam on list?

[Nathan Scott]

On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 08:18 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote:
> >> 05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
> >>> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
> >>> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.
> >> Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.
> > 
> > That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders
> > with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists.
> > 
> > Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because
> > bug report addresses must be available to everyone.
> > 
> > In general it's a bad idea.

*nod*, it really cannot become a closed list.

> 
> Well, I agree w/ those arguments too, Andi.
> 
> I honestly don't know why oss seems to have so much more spam than, say, 
> LKML.  It is getting to a really bad level, and I sympathize with those 
> whose inboxes are bombarded, too.

Another option would be to move the list to vger.kernel.org and have
it spam protected by whatever they're successfully using over there
already (or maybe ask Davem what they're using and replicate on oss?).

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

Re: Spam on list?

[Eric Sandeen]

Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 08:18 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> On Monday 05 February 2007 12:52, Martin Schröder wrote:
>>>> 05 Feb 2007 11:32:25 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>:
>>>>> Please don't do that. It means nothing can be cross posted
>>>>> from l-k anymore, which would be pretty bad.
>>>> Then set up a list admin who can approve such postings.
>>> That adds unacceptable latency. Also lists who spam senders
>>> with bounce messages tend to be dropped quickly from cc lists.
>>>
>>> Also you couldn't list xfs@ as bug report address anymore because
>>> bug report addresses must be available to everyone.
>>>
>>> In general it's a bad idea.
> 
> *nod*, it really cannot become a closed list.

Ok ok everyone, it was just a thought ;-)

-Eric