Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:00:20 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spammers harvesting emaill address from this list Message-ID: <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <200708232237.53712.freebsd01@dgmm.net> References: <20070823131957.GA35322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200708232006.47499.freebsd01@dgmm.net> <48424AE4482EFBB0113C8C96@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <200708232237.53712.freebsd01@dgmm.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
--On Thursday, August 23, 2007 22:37:53 +0100 dgmm <freebsd01@dgmm.net> wrote: >> >> Basically, what you (and others as well) are suggesting is that the list >> maintainers do double the work so that you don't have to bother with spam >> filtering. > > How does this equate to double the work for the list maintainers? I've > never operated a mailing list so I don't understand what work is > involved in operating one or how that workload might be increased if > some people post with one name while having the automated system mail > out to a different, subscribed address > Most modern mailing list software tests addresses periodically, automatically to make sure they are accepting mail. Some have suggested "solving" the spam problem by using throwaway addresses to send email to the list **even if the address doesn't work**. Now the maintainers have to maintain a separate list of exemptions and configure separate options so that those throwaway addresses aren't dropped from the list automatically after the requisite number of bounces. And endure the endless bounce notifications from hundreds of thoughtless people. >> Seems rather self-centered to me. > > In what way? You have a problem. You want someone else to help you solve it by creating more work for them so that you'll have less work to do. > >> This is the internet. Spam is endemic. > > So rather than look for multiple methods to reduce the amount of incoming > to *my* address I should just accept it all and filter it locally? > Absolutely. It isn't the responsibility of the rest of the world to solve your problem. > That seems rather irresponsible to me, ANy method which can help stop it > source appeaers on the face of it to be a better solution. > Of course it does, because it requires no work on your part. It's always "better" if you can get someone else to expend energy on your behalf while you sit back and reap the benefits. That's why unthinking people love socialism. >> Short of encasing your computer in >> concrete, there's no way to avoid getting spam **even if you never post >> to a mailing list**. Either learn to deal with it or stop subscribing >> to lists. > > I'm sure that attitude will appear welcoming to new users. Gee, I'm sorry I hurt someone's feelings by suggesting they take responsibility for their own problems. Let me get down on my knees and beg forgiveness. I subscribe to more than 50 lists. You have no idea what a pleasure it is to read, over and over again, about other people's problems with spam. It's useless chatter that solves nothing and makes the list less valuable. (And yes, you do enough of it, and I'll /dev/null your address and never hear from you again.) If people took a few minutes to figure out how to rid themselves of the spam, they'd accomplish more than all the endless discussions about how to solve an unsolveable problem. -- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922>