From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 24 00:22:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D6F16A417 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:22:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl (smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl [213.51.146.200]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0691513C46E for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:22:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@ricin.com) Received: from [213.51.146.189] (port=39267 helo=smtp2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl) by smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1IOMwU-0005dJ-4n for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:22:26 +0200 Received: from cp1228410-a.dbsch1.nb.home.nl ([84.27.157.163]:51648 helo=desktop.homenet) by smtp2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1IOMwP-0003AW-Qh for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:22:21 +0200 From: Danny Pansters To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:22:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20070823131957.GA35322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200708232237.53712.freebsd01@dgmm.net> <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> X-Face: U%PgEJ2IfD9niTG.6[,9!; !G|I$ZCvvZDD|.X; H*T1xqk>Fc$W?~t]FD@a4))=?utf-8?q?=2EFi=5CCn4!=7D=0A=09?=,u!3+a^.v+%fL2J~SN%'23mIhZ#G#i=[NZv#w*Q& X-AtHome-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@home.nl for more information X-AtHome-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: spammers harvesting emaill address from this list X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:22:27 -0000 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 > > 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.