Re: LYNX-DEV lynx-dev list status/problems

[Jim Dennis]

> CONTINUING:
> 
> Filter rules: 
> 
> Any spam that I get these days has invoked my edress in a Bcc:
> header.  It doesn't appear in either To: or Cc: headers.  This is
> my idea of the first filter we should apply to messages which
> arrive at SigNet for delivery to lynx-dev.  This is a rule that
> messages are suspect unless they contain either "lynx-dev" or
> "address@hidden" in their To: or Cc: header value.  I am hopeful that
> that kind of rule can be done either in standard MajorDomo
> configuration media or via Perl patched into MajorDomo that
> SigNet will tolerate (and MajorDomo will want to incorporate).

        That doesn't make sense.  The Bcc: header shouldn't 
        show up on the recipient's envelope.

        If you are getting spam that doesn't show lynx-dev in the
        To: or Cc: lines then the mail is probably bypassing this
        list altogether.  (The spammer may be grabbing your address
        from this list -- or from the archives of it -- and just 
        delivering straight to your mailbox).  Naturally SigNet
        can't help you with that.  You'll just want to install and
        use procmail yourself.

        A drastic approach which I've considered (but refuse to 
        use myself for business reasons) is to create a set of 
        recipes that allows all your list and known associates'
        mail through -- and auto-responds to all others with a 
        note to the affect that getting to your mailbox requires a
        "password of the week" until that sender is added to your
        "associates" list.

        You can then put all such mail into a "junk" folder -- 
        which you can periodically review for "good" stuff -- and
        blithely trash.
 
> I would consider it up to Bob and SigNet to decide whether they
> would agree to patch MajorDomo at all or whether they would allow
> the lynx-dev login to run Procmail to perform this filtering if
> MajorDomo can't do it.  

        Majordomo is written in perl.  It can do anything you can
        program in the pathologically ecclectic vernacular.

        Procmail can call perl (or other types) of scripts.
        An admin can create a set of host-wide /etc/procmailrcs
        (recipes that are applied to *all* incoming mail).  
        Most sites that use procmail install it as the local
        delivery agent (supplanting that facet of sendmail's 
        operations).  Also an procmail recipe could deliver to 
        Majordomo as easily as it can deliver to any other program.
 
> There are other flows that are possible if MajorDomo does not
> comprehend open posting as an option.  We could create an
> auto-approve agent by a login which runs Procmail and is known to
> Majordomo as an approval authority.  There are many ways to skin
> a cat.
> 
> I would still have the messages that get kicked out by automatic
> screening be reviewed by a human (team).  But I want to reduce
> the set of bonafide walk-up questions that get sidetracked for
> clearance reduced to a small fraction of the total walk-up
> traffic.  It seems that with current spamming practices we can
> sidetrack most spam and not sidetrack most posts from strangers
> at the same time.
> 
> Edress exposure at the archive:
> 
> Any sweep that comes across my FAQ gets into the message pages of
> the archive, and could crawl from there to the indices and all
> messages.  Putting a form at the front door doesn't mean that
> there aren't back doors.
> 
> Putting a form at the front door makes a significant difference
> to the ease of use by spambots (good) and blind Internauts (bad).
> Really buggering up access to the archive such that messages
> there could not be bookmarked would hurt its use as a Help annex.
> 
> I am still interested in having the archive offer the opportunity
> of follow-ups that get threaded right.  This is a topic in work
> with the WAI and not just lynx-dev.  So if there are spam-related
> downsides I want to understand them and try to find a balanced
> response.  Since the critical form of follow-up is to the list
> address, maybe we should only put that mailto: in the pages
> and leave it to people who post but don't subscribe to either
> 
>       - read follow-ups via the threading in the archives, or
>       - manually insert their email and request a manual Cc:
> 
> Al Gilman

--
Jim Dennis,                                address@hidden
Proprietor,                          address@hidden
Starshine Technical Services              http://www.starshine.org

        PGP  1024/2ABF03B1 Jim Dennis <address@hidden>
        Key fingerprint =  2524E3FEF0922A84  A27BDEDB38EBB95A 
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;