Re: [Gaim-devel] spam flood

[Luke S. <lsc...@us...>]

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:00:28PM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Luke Schierer spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > After today's flood of fake bounce messages, I have changed this list
> > such that you must be subscribed to post.  I realize this is somewhat
> > of a pain, as users who are cc'ed on help threads will not be able to
> > reply to the list in general, however, I think given the usage
> > patterns I have been seeing, where you all come through with just the
> > right answer and no reply is needed, I think we can survive this
> > change.
> > 
> > if someone thinks this is a bad idea and can support their position
> > logically and persuasively, I will revert the change.
> 
> I  think this is a bad idea, because I have no idea what address I might
> have used to sign up to this list.  I generally despise  subscriber-only
> lists,  for  a  number  of reasons, this being only one. A probably more
> important reason is, as you mentioned, non-list-subscribers who are Cc'd
> in order to bring in important outside opinions or information.
> 
> I  didn't  look  closely at the flood this morning, so perhaps they were
> just tricky spams, but it looked  to  me  like  they  were  bounces  ...
> there's  no  logical reason for the list to accept mail from mailer-dae-

they were fake bounces.  the email supposedly bouncing was not sent
from the list.

> mon@ anyway, so I would take the approach of simply  shutting  out  that
> address.   As  far  as  other spams ... I don't get those, because I use
> effective spam filtering.  I cannot condone impingement upon the utility
> of this list simply for the sake of those who do not have effective spam
> filters.

right, I do not get most spam but fake bounces are particularly hard
to filter out without missing real bounces.

I have however turned on posting from anywhere in responce to sf's
stepped up efforts to reduce spam.  apparently the flood that hit us
was SF-wide.

luke

> 
> Ethan
> (Who may or may not get bounced by the new policy)
> 
> -- 
> The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
> for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
> determined to commit crimes.
> 		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764