Self-Approve Link in Member-Only error messages
Hello,
a lot of mailing lists have posting only available to members just to prevent spam. For these lists there should be an option that adds a link to the „Your message is held...“ notification that will allow the message to go through, just like the link to delete it, or the check in the subscription handshake. This would reduce work for the list administrator and be more friendly to the casual poster.
In http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=407530 it was argued that spammers would then soon start to learn to „click“ this link. I disagree though that this feature will indeed open the gates to spammers: If they figure out how to activate a link in a confirmation message, they will figure out how to subscribe anyways.
Alternatively, a message to a members-only mailing list could automatically trigger a subscribe challenge that, if acted upon, not only subscribes the sender, but also approves the held-back message.
What do you think?
Greetings, Joachim
-- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Key: 4743206C JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
--On 22 January 2007 22:42:11 +0100 Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Hello,
a lot of mailing lists have posting only available to members just to prevent spam. For these lists there should be an option that adds a link to the „Your message is held...“ notification that will allow the message to go through, just like the link to delete it, or the check in the subscription handshake. This would reduce work for the list administrator and be more friendly to the casual poster.
In http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=407530 it was argued that spammers would then soon start to learn to „click“ this link. I disagree though that this feature will indeed open the gates to spammers: If they figure out how to activate a link in a confirmation message, they will figure out how to subscribe anyways.
Alternatively, a message to a members-only mailing list could automatically trigger a subscribe challenge that, if acted upon, not only subscribes the sender, but also approves the held-back message.
What do you think?
Well, some people may think this is useful. It should be possible for a list owner or a site owner to disable it, though.
-- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Alternatively, a message to a members-only mailing list could automatically trigger a subscribe challenge that, if acted upon, not only subscribes the sender, but also approves the held-back message.
I often miss stuff but near as I can tell this would be a bad thing. Joe Job/backscatter wise.
Zombie soliders 1-n send email on behalf of joe@job.com to list- L@lists.foo.org.
Worst case, list-L sends N subscribe challenges to joe.
Likely case, Joe gets a (1) challenge and clicks "this is spam", thefore making it harder for nancy@job.com to get her list emails.
Best case, Joe gets (1) subscribe challenge and ignores it.
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 24.01.2007, 20:13 -0500 schrieb Dan MacNeil:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Alternatively, a message to a members-only mailing list could automatically trigger a subscribe challenge that, if acted upon, not only subscribes the sender, but also approves the held-back message.
I often miss stuff but near as I can tell this would be a bad thing. Joe Job/backscatter wise.
Zombie soliders 1-n send email on behalf of joe@job.com to list- L@lists.foo.org.
Worst case, list-L sends N subscribe challenges to joe.
Likely case, Joe gets a (1) challenge and clicks "this is spam", thefore making it harder for nancy@job.com to get her list emails.
Best case, Joe gets (1) subscribe challenge and ignores it.
Currently, Joe would get N messages telling him that he is not subscribed. If he marks these as spam we get the same result, don’t we? Thus adding a “self-approve mail” link or a “subscribe” link to this message this scenario is not any more likely.
Greetings, Joachim
-- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Key: 4743206C JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
Am Mittwoch, den 24.01.2007, 20:13 -0500 schrieb Dan MacNeil:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Alternatively, a message to a members-only mailing list could automatically trigger a subscribe challenge that, if acted upon, not only subscribes the sender, but also approves the held-back message.
Dan writes:
I often miss stuff but near as I can tell this would be a bad thing. Joe Job/backscatter wise.
[examples snipped]
Joachim writes: Currently, Joe would get N messages telling him that he is not subscribed. If he marks these as spam we get the same result, don’t we? Thus adding a “self-approve mail” link or a “subscribe” link to this message this scenario is not any more likely.
Is this is true if the moderator has clicked "Discard" rather than "Hold" or "Reject" ?
If not, I'd argue the current setup is imperfect.
--On 25 January 2007 10:48:52 +0100 Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Currently, Joe would get N messages telling him that he is not subscribed. If he marks these as spam we get the same result, don’t we? Thus adding a “self-approve mail” link or a “subscribe” link to this message this scenario is not any more likely.
Only if list owners are stupid enough to use the "reject" feature. I advise all my list owners to use "discard and notify" instead. I'd like to have proper SMTP time rejection, but - failing that - the notifications of discarded messages should include at least the sender email address, so that something useful can be done with false positives.
Greetings, Joachim
-- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex
participants (3)
-
Dan MacNeil -
Ian Eiloart -
Joachim Breitner