From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 24 18:58:08 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 E63CC16A46C for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd01@dgmm.net) Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5899D13C4E5 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd01@dgmm.net) Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.125] helo=webmaker country=GB ident=dave$pop3*dgmm*net) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.250) id 46cf2a39.28dc.d4 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:58:01 +0100 (envelope-sender ) From: dgmm To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:58:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20070823131957.GA35322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200708232237.53712.freebsd01@dgmm.net> <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <3C597D5B83F708C2E8D52922@utd59514.utdallas.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708241958.07982.freebsd01@dgmm.net> 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 18:58:09 -0000 On Friday 24 August 2007, 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? =A0I'= ve > > never =A0operated a mailing list so I don't understand what work is > > involved in =A0operating one or how that workload might be increased if > > some people post =A0with one name while having the automated system mail > > out to a different, =A0subscribed address > > Most modern mailing list software tests addresses periodically, > automatically to make sure they are accepting mail. =A0Some have suggested > "solving" the spam problem by using throwaway addresses to send email to > the list **even if the address doesn't work**. =A0Now the maintainers hav= e 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. =A0And endure the endless bounce > notifications from hundreds of thoughtless people. You're looking at it the from the wrong perspective. From what you say abo= ve,=20 so long as the posting address is valid and accepts mail either "correctly"= =20 or dumps it to /dev/nul then if I choose use two separate email addresses t= he=20 only people affected are those who try to reply directly to said posting=20 address, ie, on the whole, spammers. > >> Seems rather self-centered to me. > > > > In what way? > > You have a problem. =A0You want someone else to help you solve it by crea= ting > more work for them so that you'll have less work to do. No, actually I don't have a problem. I was making a suggestion which might= be=20 useful to the original poster. Even it it was my problem, I don't see how= =20 doing as I've outlined above would create more work for anyone. > >> This is the internet. =A0Spam is endemic. > > > > So rather than look for multiple methods to reduce the amount of incomi= ng > > to =A0*my* address I should just accept it all and filter it locally? > > Absolutely. =A0It isn't the responsibility of the rest of the world to so= lve > your problem. "splendid isolation". I wonder where FreeBSD would be today if all the=20 developers and users took that attitude. > > That seems rather irresponsible to me, =A0ANy method which can help sto= p 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. =A0It's alwa= ys > "better" if you can get someone else to expend energy on your behalf while > you sit back and reap the benefits. =A0That's why unthinking people love > socialism. Or maybe it how unthinking people think socialism works. What you just=20 described is exactly how capitalism works. > >> 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. =A0Let me get down on my knees and= beg > forgiveness. Not at all. Your perspective is interesting. As is that of others who hav= e=20 posted to this thread. > I subscribe to more than 50 lists. =A0You 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.) =A0If 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. I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this. it's way OT for here n= ow=20 so I won't be making any more posts on this subject. =2D-=20 Dave