analyses

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Sun Jan 11 14:05:50 PST 2004


On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Matthew Burgess wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:23:09 -0500
> Billy O'Connor <billyoc at gnuyork.org> wrote:
> > Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
> > >><snip>

> > BTW, this issue has been raised before, and as you can see, the
> > mailing lists(and bugzilla) are still open to anyone.  Because this
> > is still the way we want it.

"We" also includes some who do not want it that way apparently. So it is
a resonable topic for discussion regardless of previous conversations. I
have yet to see a single topic here that is raised only once and never
again. This one is no different.

And saying "... still open to anyone. Because this is still the way we
want it." is sort of self-evident but serves little purpose in
re-examining the issue. Other things that indicate re-examination is
*not* warranted would be useful though. As would some of your other
statements regarding the benefits of having things open.

>
> Until when?  Until the number of spams is greater than the number of
> valid/acceptable emails, or comprises 50%, 40%???  Have a look at the
> bug-grub archives to see what happens when nothing is done.  IMNSHO we
> have to do something now before things spiral out of control.  This may
> just involve slightly tweaking spamassasin or other email-related tools,
> or it may be something more radical, maybe only the server-admins are
> the ones who can really comment on what is doable.

*This* seems a resonble point of investigation. I would point out that
prior to the recopnfiguration of the server(s), we didn't see *any* spam
that I can recall. Is it possible that there is some "hole" opened now
that was not open before? I doubt that the spam schemes that overcome
the filters are so new that they didn't hit until after the changes. So
this might be a place that the admin folks could examing and see what
they could see.

I know some changes were made recently (website/search/archives?) that
mask e-mail addresses. Is it possible that will suffice (no future
increase from harvesting)?

Another simple, but *extremely* distasteful, solution would be
moderation of the lists. Probably unlikely.

For me, for now, until the volume gets *much* higher, I will "suffer in
silence" as the alternatives strongly suggested thus far do more harm
than good IMO.

>
> Regards,
>
> Matt.
>

-- 
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
lfsbillATearthlinkDOTnet
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list