From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 7 19:14:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA20164 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:14:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA20156 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:14:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA02461; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:13:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:13:59 -0500 (EST) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Graeme.Cross@sci.monash.edu.au cc: "Jason C. Wells" , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New Majordomo Feature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org How about a 'post-only' subscription with required confirmation? Another list I post to is set up that way, and it seems to eliminate 99.9% of spam. Charles --- Charles Sprickman spork@super-g.com --- "...there's no idea that's so good you can't ruin it with a few well-placed idiots." On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Graeme Cross wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Jason C. Wells wrote: > > >On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Graeme Cross wrote: > > > >>Jason, there is too much potential here for abuse. > > > >Perhaps. I say that we already trust ourselves to not abuse the lists. > > > >Also, the description of the possible solution was incredibly simple. As a > >check against abuse there could be a tally of spamthread commands. Two > >strikes and your out. > > > >>mailing list spam becomes negligible. > > > >Nearly all of my spam comes from these lists. Granted, spam is a low > >percentage of my total traffic. I thought maybe my idea could help the > >people on the lists help themselves as well as the postmaster. > > The problem is that the lists are open - AFAIK you can post to the FreeBSD > lists without being subscribed to them. > > While I understand the reasons behind this, the policy assists spammers. > > It would also allow abuse of a spamthread feature: once the feature became > known, a simple posting by some 3l33t d00d on alt.2600 and you would have > every idiot on the web sending spamthreads to the lists. > > Your fundamental idea is great, but it would need to be carefully > implemented: > > 1. Only a subscribed person could send the command > > 2. You could have a blacklist of people forbidden from sending the > spamthread command (as you say, two strikes and you're out) > > 3. Certain key subjects could never be spamthreaded (eg. freebsd!) > > Cheers > Graeme > > -- > Graeme Cross > Water Studies Centre, Monash University Phone: +61 3 990 54089 > Clayton, Victoria, Australia > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message