Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:22:12 +0200 From: Danny Pansters <danny@ricin.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spammers harvesting emaill address from this list Message-ID: <200708240222.13112.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> References: <20070823131957.GA35322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200708232237.53712.freebsd01@dgmm.net> <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't want to hijack this, erm, thread, but I get loads of spam (my mail= =20 goes through a hosting provider, I (post-)filter locally) and a significant= =20 part of it is loaded with technical terms, even FreeBSD specific. I suppose= =20 it's meant to confuse filters. Do other folks get this too? Dan On Friday 24 August 2007 01:00:20 Paul Schmehl wrote: > --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 li= st > >> 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 creati= ng > more work for them so that you'll have less work to do. > > >> This is the internet. =A0Spam is endemic. > > > > So rather than look for multiple methods to reduce the amount of incomi= ng > > 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**. =A0Either learn to deal with it or stop subscribi= ng > >> 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 b= eg > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708240222.13112.danny>