From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Apr 5 5:39:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail3.ucles.org.uk (mail3.ucles.org.uk [192.149.119.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1071D37B419 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.ucles.org.uk (unverified) by mail3.ucles.org.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:35:42 +0100 Received: by forest.nrl.navy.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:35:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0B0368CED76DD4118E1200D0B73E9B5D041E9FAA@MAIL1> From: Mike Dewhirst To: "'questions@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: hub.freebsd.org spam policy Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:36:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1DCA6.D6799A60" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DCA6.D6799A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" just picking up on an earlier thing about HTML email (and begin guilty myself) - is it not possible to strip all HTML messages down to plain text format? I think the jakarta-struts mailing list does it... > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceri [mailto:setantae@submonkey.net] > Sent: 05 April 2002 13:56 > To: Philip J. Koenig > Cc: Questions@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: hub.freebsd.org spam policy > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:52:46AM -0800, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2002, at 11:54, Ceri boldly uttered: > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:27:02AM -0800, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > > > > Also, I have posted to this list in the past from at > least 4 different > > > addresses, and I don't see why I should have to subscribe > with each one. > > > > You mean like almost every other email list on earth? C'mon now, I > > think we're grasping at straws here. > > Not really. You see, I don't actually care about this issue. > I just posted to this thread to make a few facts clear, and > then my last > post was just filled with my humble opinions. > > I'm not trying to defend FreeBSD list policy, so I've no need to grasp > at straws. I'm just saying. > > > > You also should bear in mind that developers have > @FreeBSD.org addresses, > > > so the policies currently in place work for them too, > whereas using a > > > subscription option as you suggest wouldn't. > > > > Well I'm not sure what that proves. I do however know that > I had to > > email the freebsd postmaster at his own personal domain in > order for > > him to receive any email from me until we found out what rule was > > blocking me. I'm sure it's not the first time such an independent > > mail account became necessary. > > Oh, it doesn't prove anything, and I didn't mean to imply it did. > I was just saying that changing the lists to subscriber-only > posting and > lifting the "you must have reverse DNS in place" restriction > wouldn't be > a perfect solution. > > > I also know that there are a plethora of local user > measures that can > > be used to address the spam problem, and I really don't think one > > should assume that there can be no distinction between how list > > traffic is dealt with and how personal addresses are dealt with. > > True. I don't think freefall would cope too well with 400+ copies of > procmail firing up every second though. > > > > And I know other lists that have the same policies > (nom-steer, for one). > > > > Oh I'm sure there are a few. But if I had to make a wild > assumption, > > I suspect the percentage setup that way are a small > fraction of 1% of > > all public lists. > > Well, throwing wild assumptions to the lions for the time > being in favour > of facts: of all the unmoderated lists I'm subscribed to, > 100% of them are > set up this way (I don't admin any lists). > Perhaps I'm unrepresentative, I'm not sure, but each of us > can only speak > from their experience, not being privy to the administrative > policy of every > list on the net. > > Ceri > > -- > keep a mild groove on > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > =********************************************************** If you are not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication and its attachments in error, please return the original message and attachments to the sender using the reply facility on e-mail. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the UCLES Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UCLES Group unless otherwise specifically stated. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses although this does not guarantee that this email is virus free. **********************************************************= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DCA6.D6799A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: hub.freebsd.org spam policy

just picking up on an earlier thing about HTML email (and= begin guilty myself) - is it not possible to strip all HTML messages down = to plain text format?

I think the jakarta-struts mailing list does it...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ceri [mailto:setantae@submonkey.net]
> Sent: 05 April 2002 13:56
> To: Philip J. Koenig
> Cc: Questions@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: hub.freebsd.org spam policy
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:52:46AM -0800, Philip J.= Koenig wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2002, at 11:54, Ceri boldly uttered: =
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:27:02AM -0800,= Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > Also, I have posted to this list in the p= ast from at
> least 4 different
> > > addresses, and I don't see why I should h= ave to subscribe
> with each one.
> >
> > You mean like almost every other email list on= earth?  C'mon now, I
> > think we're grasping at straws here. 
>
> Not really.  You see, I don't actually care ab= out this issue.
> I just posted to this thread to make a few facts cl= ear, and
> then my last
> post was just filled with my humble opinions.
>
> I'm not trying to defend FreeBSD list policy, so I'= ve no need to grasp
> at straws.  I'm just saying.
>
> > > You also should bear in mind that develop= ers have
> @FreeBSD.org addresses,
> > > so the policies currently in place work f= or them too,
> whereas using a
> > > subscription option as you suggest wouldn= 't.
> >
> > Well I'm not sure what that proves.  I do= however know that
> I had to
> > email the freebsd postmaster at his own person= al domain in
> order for
> > him to receive any email from me until we foun= d out what rule was
> > blocking me.  I'm sure it's not the first= time such an independent
> > mail account became necessary.
>
> Oh, it doesn't prove anything, and I didn't mean to= imply it did.
> I was just saying that changing the lists to subscr= iber-only
> posting and
> lifting the "you must have reverse DNS in plac= e" restriction
> wouldn't be
> a perfect solution.
>
> > I also know that there are a plethora of local= user
> measures that can
> > be used to address the spam problem, and I rea= lly don't think one
> > should assume that there can be no distinction= between how list
> > traffic is dealt with and how personal address= es are dealt with.
>
> True.  I don't think freefall would cope too w= ell with 400+ copies of
> procmail firing up every second though.
>
> > > And I know other lists that have the same= policies
> (nom-steer, for one).
> >
> > Oh I'm sure there are a few.  But if I ha= d to make a wild
> assumption,
> > I suspect the percentage setup that way are a = small
> fraction of 1% of
> > all public lists.
>
> Well, throwing wild assumptions to the lions for th= e time
> being in favour
> of facts: of all the unmoderated lists I'm subscrib= ed to,
> 100% of them are
> set up this way (I don't admin any lists).
> Perhaps I'm unrepresentative, I'm not sure, but eac= h of us
> can only speak
> from their experience, not being privy to the admin= istrative
> policy of every
> list on the net.
>
> Ceri
>
> --
> keep a mild groove on
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org<= /FONT>
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in t= he body of the message
>



=3D**********************************************************

If you are not the intended recipient, employee or agent responsible for de= livering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified tha= t any dissemination or copying of this communication and its attachments is= strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication and its attachments in error, pleas= e return the original message and attachments to the sender using the reply= facility on e-mail.

Internet communications are not secure and therefore the UCLES Group does n= ot accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views= or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessaril= y represent those of the UCLES Group unless otherwise specifically stated.<= BR>
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses although this does not gua= rantee that this email is virus free.

**********************************************************=3D
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DCA6.D6799A60-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message