Spam on the list

Spam on the list

[James Colannino]

I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam.  Shouldn't the 
list be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb the 
bulk of that spam?  That's how most mailing lists I'm on are and it 
works well.  Please don't flame me for this... :)  Just thought I'd 
mention it.

James

-- 
My blog: http://www.crazydrclaw.com/
My homepage: http://james.colannino.org/

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." --G. K. Chesterton

Re: Spam on the list

[Ken Brush]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:51:10 -0700, James Colannino <lkml@colannino.org> wrote:
> I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam.  Shouldn't the
> list be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb the
> bulk of that spam?  That's how most mailing lists I'm on are and it
> works well.  Please don't flame me for this... :)  Just thought I'd
> mention it.
> 

They already filter a lot of stuff. And I believe that they are
constantly adding to the filters.

As for making it subscriber-only, that would just make the list less
open. And we like really, really open lists that don't shut out any
opinions.

-Ken

Re: Spam on the list

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, James Colannino wrote:

> I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam.  Shouldn't the
> list be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb the
> bulk of that spam?  That's how most mailing lists I'm on are and it
> works well.  Please don't flame me for this... :)  Just thought I'd
> mention it.
>
> James

Most of the spam comes from spam-machines that pretend that
they are vger.kernel.org. Anything on vger.kernel.org isn't
going to help that.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.26 on an i686 machine (5570.56 BogoMips).
            Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.

Re: Spam on the list

[Norbert van Nobelen]

Can't we run it through spamassassin with a whitelist for the real users on 
the list, and standard filters for the new users. With keeping track of the 
pointsscore they will be auto whitelisted if they are not spammers.

On Thursday 14 October 2004 18:03, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, James Colannino wrote:
> > I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam.  Shouldn't the
> > list be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb the
> > bulk of that spam?  That's how most mailing lists I'm on are and it
> > works well.  Please don't flame me for this... :)  Just thought I'd
> > mention it.
> >
> > James
>
> Most of the spam comes from spam-machines that pretend that
> they are vger.kernel.org. Anything on vger.kernel.org isn't
> going to help that.
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> Penguin : Linux version 2.4.26 on an i686 machine (5570.56 BogoMips).
>             Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Spam on the list

[Lee Revell]

On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 14:41, Norbert van Nobelen wrote:
> Can't we run it through spamassassin with a whitelist for the real users on 
> the list, and standard filters for the new users. With keeping track of the 
> pointsscore they will be auto whitelisted if they are not spammers.

Is this really worth the trouble, just to accomodate the vocal minority
of subscribers who cannot tolerate ANY spam?  The list actually gets
very little spam, way less that 1% I would think.  Just delete it or run
SA locally. 

Lee

Re: Spam on the list

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday 14 of October 2004 20:41, Norbert van Nobelen wrote:
> Can't we run it through spamassassin with a whitelist for the real users on 
> the list, and standard filters for the new users. With keeping track of the 
> pointsscore they will be auto whitelisted if they are not spammers.

I'd rather not like _legitimate_ messages being filtered out as 
false-positives.  You can always run spamassassin locally with any rules you 
like and feed the LKML traffic to it before it gets to your mailbox.

Greets,
RJW

-- 
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
		-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Re: 2.8.6.1 deadlock and ext3/i2o corruption (Was: Spam on the list)

[Nate Riffe]

I cannot believe Rafael J. Wysocki said this on the ENTARNET:
> On Thursday 14 of October 2004 20:41, Norbert van Nobelen wrote:
> > Can't we run it through spamassassin with a whitelist for the real users on 
> > the list, and standard filters for the new users. With keeping track of the 
> > pointsscore they will be auto whitelisted if they are not spammers.
> 
> I'd rather not like _legitimate_ messages being filtered out as 
> false-positives.  You can always run spamassassin locally with any rules you 
> like and feed the LKML traffic to it before it gets to your mailbox.

This whole thread is spam.  Can we talk about kernels or something?

I've recently (re-)subscribed to the list and I've been watching to
see if anyone was discussing a problem like the one I had.

Specifically, about three weeks ago I attempted to build and boot a
series of 2.8.6.1 kernels which each failed in exactly the same way.
With each kernel, the system would freeze up solid partway through the
initscripts.  The *timing* of the deadlock was incredibly consistent,
but related to any specific activity in userspace which I determined
after enabling and disabling various things in my initscripts.  Every
permutation that I tried hung about 45 seconds after LILO handed
control over to the kernel.

I tried about a half dozen slightly different configs to try to
isolate the problem and I have determined that none of the following
made any difference: ACPI vs. no ACPI, i2o_block vs. dpt_i2o (for an
Adaptec 2100S), eepro100 vs. 3c59x (they're both in there, but I only
use one anymore... it doesn't really matter which as long as it's
eth0), modular vs. static, and probably a couple of others (this was a
few weeks ago, after all).  I gave up and decided to wait for 2.6.9,
and went back to my old and reliable 2.4 kernel.

Fast forward to two days ago, I started to have major problems
exec()ing things and decided to take the machine down.  The root
partition (ext3) was severely corrupted.  /lib, lots of stuff in
/sbin, lots of stuff in /etc, and a few things in /dev had become
unlinked or crossed with other inodes.  In particular, /etc/init.d/rc
had gotten relinked as /lib.

I suspect that the series of crashing 2.8.6.1 kernels introduced
incosistencies in the filesystem which e2fsck never caught because all
it ever did was replay the journal, and as a result my 2.4 kernel was
left working with a corrupted filesystem for three weeks,
proliferating the corruption to new and interesting places.  All other
filesystems (all of which are in LVM volumes) were clean.

MB Chipset: VIA KT133
CPU: 1 Ghz Athlon (Thunderbird)
RAM: 1 GB PC133
Network: 3Com 905B and Intel EE Pro 100
RAID: Adaptec 2100S with 3-way RAID 5 (contains the root partition)
IDE: Promise PDC20265 with a single drive attached

Everything except / is in two LVM groups, one on each of the RAID and
the IDE drive.  Video is in text mode.  Audio, USB, serial ports,
parallel ports, and ISA bus are enabled in the kernel but otherwise
unused.

Last attempted 2.6.8.1 config is here:
http://goose.movealong.org/~inkblot/config-2.6.8.1-goose

I'll do my best to provide more information on request, but I'd like
to avoid taking the system down other than for a new permanent kernel.

-Nate

-- 
--< ((\))< >----< inkblot@movealong.org >----< http://www.movealong.org/ >--
pub  1024D/05A058E0 2002-03-07 Nate Riffe (06-Mar-2002) <inkblot@movealong.org>
     Key fingerprint = 0DAC F5CB D182 3165 D757  C466 CD42 12A8 05A0 58E0

Re: Spam on the list

[Jesper Juhl]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, James Colannino wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:51:10 -0700
> From: James Colannino <lkml@colannino.org>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Spam on the list
> 
> I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam. 

Compared to my ordinary mailboxes (both private and work) the amount of 
spam I get from lkml is quite small.


> Shouldn't the list
> be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb the bulk of that
> spam? 

The traditional reply to that is no. It would prevent a lot of bug-reports 
from users from reaching the list as well as other useful stuff from 
people who want to contribute one or two things but don't actually want to 
read the list.

This is actually covered in the LKML FAQ (http://www.tux.org/lkml/), take 
a look at these entries: 

http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-3

http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-14
A small quote from that one "...Some of the good kernel development people 
cannot keep up with the volume on linux-kernel. But they do occasionally 
post. Therefore we need to keep the submissions open for "everybody". Some 
of the other important people have two or three Email addresses. They too 
need to post from different addresses. ..."


--
Jesper Juhl

Re: Spam on the list

[Ben Pfaff]

James Colannino <lkml@colannino.org> writes:

> I was just thinking that the list receives a lot of spam.  Shouldn't
> the list be locked down to be posted to by subsribers only as to curb
> the bulk of that spam?  That's how most mailing lists I'm on are and
> it works well.  Please don't flame me for this... :)  Just thought I'd
> mention it.

You could subscribe via the newsserver at gmane.org.  It has
additional spam filtering, plus it provides a way for you to help
out.
-- 
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
"It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
 sick of laser pointers."