From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 1 06:57:33 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FCA6E6 for ; Thu, 1 May 2014 06:57:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F2C41561 for ; Thu, 1 May 2014 06:57:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-108-40.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.108.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3207C3CD3F; Thu, 1 May 2014 08:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s416vNov002144; Thu, 1 May 2014 08:57:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 08:57:23 +0200 From: Polytropon To: jungleboogie0 Subject: Re: Spam to list participants (from openhosting.com & softcom.com) Message-Id: <20140501085723.b3b9a6f3.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <73354.1398734218@server1.tristatelogic.com> <535F1667.1050406@soliddataservices.com> <20140429114019.0eb3ce48@X220.alogt.com> <20140429124618.06d708ba@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140429204204.2e561935@X220.alogt.com> <20140429140123.GA910@taco-shack.cow> <20140429162810.76013a19@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140430101545.GA931@taco-shack.cow> <20140430211232.1a1f06dc99b4b799b1dabfc5@sohara.org> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 06:57:34 -0000 On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:34:14 -0700, jungleboogie0 wrote: > Hi Steve, > On 30 April 2014 13:12, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 05:15:46 -0500 > > Mike Sanders wrote: > > > >> Which implies all list members email addresses are exposed > >> to the world at large? How else would an email address be > >> gained by spammers... If that's the case it needs to be changed. > > > > I think it's only hitting posters, whose addresses are revealed in > > the From header. I'll probably get some extra spam now. Given that it is > > desirable that non subscribers can post questions and get replys thanks to > > the common habit of replying to all this is unavoidable without sacrificing > > that capability which has been a long standing and valued feature of > > FreeBSD mailing lists. > > > > But this also means messages to the list could be lost because not > everyone remember to reply-all. Some participants do not _like_ to "addressed twice" (first via the mailing list, the regular reply, then CC'ed), others do explicitely ask for it ("please cc me, I'm not subscribed"). When the sender's address is omitted (when a list member receives a post), this flexibility is lost. Additionally, addresses could have been harvested from a post itself: Most MUAs write a short reply header in which they state the name and address of the sender (and usually the date signature) of the message they reply to. If Mailman removes the addresses, but keeps the name, this functionality could be kept. (Additionally, some MUAs already so something like that: keeping the name and date, removing the address, as mine does due to a request). But on the other hand, writing off-list to someone would then be impossible... FreeBSD's list policy always has been "be open". It's possible to apply functional limitations to a mailing list, but the question is: Does the amount of spam justify it for _this_ mailing list? I know, it's much easier to deal with this kind of problems in a web forum, but a mailing list _is not a_ web forum. Allow me to add my very individual opinion: The amount of spam which _I_ currently receive is so low that "dealing with it" has the following form on my side: hitting the DEL key from time to time. It isn't _that_ great, but it's still acceptable. If the amount of "DEL pressing" would raise, I'd probably define some (MUA-based) filter rules for client-side deletion. And if the amount increases, I'd probably move that functionality over to the mail server so I don't even receive the messages. But the current amount, as I said, is too low (for me!) to even think about it. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...