[bf1942] Verification required for whoccares at comcast.net, protected by 0Spam.com.

Rick Thompson fortweb at fortweb.com
Sat Mar 20 14:47:50 EST 2004

I agree with your sentiments on Qmail and majordomo. Don't get me wrong, I 
have always thought majordomo was a pita to install and way, way overly 
complicated to manage. Nothing wrong with this list software at all, it's 
just different and going to take a few years before people get used to how 
it operates.

Your logic on a 2/3 punch is a good idea. After this thread subsides I am 
just going to add a filter for  "[bf1942] + 0spam" and forget about it.


At 01:20 PM 3/20/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>Well the obvious reason for not having majordomo is the fact that this 
>domain is running qmail and ezmlm works with qmail out of the box, whereas 
>majordomo still has security issues with its wrapper and is a royal pain 
>in the ass to get working with qmail.
>And in this case, unless the person in question owns the comcast.net 
>domain, it is in fact some person who has decided to transfer his 
>individual spam problem to everyone who sends him an email rather than 
>dealing with the problem himself.  Either way, most other people have 
>figured out by now that they can make a yahoo address to use for a 
>spam-dump and use their real email address for real email.  If some can't 
>grasp that concept, then they can deal with the spam, there's no way I'm 
>gonna go through their retarded filter myself to accomodate them and their 
>spam problem, though.
>" The simple fact of the matter is that people use this stuff for spam 
>protection and there is nothing anyone can do about that. "
>And with that in mind I would suggest a hybrid of 2 and 3.  Put a big 
>warning in the welcome email that users of any email-verification antispam 
>service will be removed from the list ;).
>Rick Thompson wrote:
>>I tried to discuss this rationally a few weeks ago but was shouted down 
>>for bringing up the reality of it.
>>The reason we see this over and over and over again on this list is 
>>because of the way it operates. People are used to majordomo because it 
>>has been the standard for mailing lists forever. Nothing wrong with this 
>>software but most people are automatically going to assume it's majordomo 
>>and whitelist icculus.org.
>>There will be the occasional clueless idiot who uses a protected email 
>>without whitelisting at all and then wonder why they never get any mail. 
>>The majority of them are not ignorant rookies though, they will whitelist 
>>icculus.org, find the error quickly and correct it. Nobody whitelists 
>>"Mailing-List:" anymore because it whitelists a large number of spammers.
>>As long as you guys use this software instead of majordomo we might as 
>>well get used to seeing this because it is going to continue to happen 
>>often. I don't know if you can config it to use a list domain instead of 
>>the senders but that is the only thing that would prevent it. The simple 
>>fact of the matter is that people use this stuff for spam protection and 
>>there is nothing anyone can do about that.
>>Before I get accused of being off topic again or slammed just for 
>>bringing up the obvious, let me say that I don't care what your take on 
>>spam or spamprotection is. The question of 0spam type services being 
>>effective is not relevant. People use it and because mailman functions 
>>differently than majordomo, we are going to have to get used to seeing 
>>that reply.
>>There *are* several solutions however.
>>1. Kill every spammer out there (preferably with a claw hammer, starting 
>>at the ankles).
>>This solution is not very realistic but it does give me a warm feeling 
>>inside to think about.
>>2. Adopt an auto-cancel policy when seeing that subject. This would not 
>>be real effective because the person would just signup again not even 
>>knowing what went wrong. I am aware there are people out there who think 
>>of this option as the best solution but I am confident more rational 
>>minds would not consider it.
>>3. Put a big notice at the top of the list signup response with "NOTICE 
>>TO SPAM PROTECTION USERS" that tells people email will be coming from the 
>>senders address and not to whitelist just the icculus.org domain.
>>This is probably the most practical solution and I think the majority of 
>>people would get it right the first time.
>>At 01:32 AM 3/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 22:52, Neal Clayton wrote:
>>> > Can we PLEASE get these people yanked from the list?  They're spamming
>>> > each of us individually with this crap each time a message goes out from
>>> > the list.
>>> >
>>> >  whoccares at comcast.net, please remove this person and if you see him in
>>> > real life break his fingers to keep him away from any and all computers
>>> > or something.
>>>fwiw, even after jumping through the spam-verification hoops, I didn't
>>>get a response from the whoccares account owner, so I removed him from
>>>the list manually.
>>>I don't have any intention of breaking his fingers, but if you happen to
>>>be reading that account still and want to be on the list, please
>>>resubscribe from an account that doesn't auto-respond to each list post.
>>>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
-------------- next part --------------

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.611 / Virus Database: 391 - Release Date: 3/3/2004

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list