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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========4F26730FBFAC87285B33========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On Thursday, August 23, 2007 22:37:53 +0100 dgmm <freebsd01@dgmm.net>=20 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,=20 automatically to make sure they are accepting mail. Some have suggested=20 "solving" the spam problem by using throwaway addresses to send email to=20 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=20 that those throwaway addresses aren't dropped from the list automatically=20 after the requisite number of bounces. And endure the endless bounce=20 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. =C2=A0Spam 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=20 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=20 "better" if you can get someone else to expend energy on your behalf while=20 you sit back and reap the benefits. That's why unthinking people love=20 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**. =C2=A0Either 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=20 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=20 to read, over and over again, about other people's problems with spam.=20 It's useless chatter that solves nothing and makes the list less valuable.=20 (And yes, you do enough of it, and I'll /dev/null your address and never=20 hear from you again.) If people took a few minutes to figure out how to=20 rid themselves of the spam, they'd accomplish more than all the endless=20 discussions about how to solve an unsolveable problem. --=20 Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ --==========4F26730FBFAC87285B33==========--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922>