Is there any option that can be set in Mailman so that a message by anon-member is automatically deleted, rather that pestering the list manager about appoving/deleting it?
I've just moved to a new site. I had Mailman on both sites. Since I'vegotten onto the new one, I am getting these quite frequently. I rarely got these before. It's getting to be quite annoying.
Regards,
Fred
There sure is, for Mailman 2.1.5 (and I belive earlier versions as well):
go to Privacy > Sender filters > scroll down to "Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit action is defined" (near the bottom) > set to Discard, yahoo no more pestering.
Some other good options on that page & others, look through and read each page in the admin section.
Regards, Tom Wolfe
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 07:50 -0400, Fred Atkinson wrote:
At 7:50 AM -0400 2006-05-25, Fred Atkinson wrote:
Deleting? No, not really. You could automatically discard the message, but that would cause some problems for people who would otherwise think that the message was accepted and posted to the list. Generally speaking, the recommended solution is to automatically reject such messages -- which informs the sender, and allows them to take appropriate action.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Thus spake Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>, circa 5/25/2006 9:54 AM:
In the old days, this was certainly true, but today, when 70-80% of all emails on the internet are spam, you may easily find that rejecting all those messages will (a) eat up a lot of your internet bandwidth, and (b) exacerbate the problem by telling the "sender" of the message -- which will, 90% of the time, be a forged address -- that "their" mail was rejected.
I have a handful of lists set to "reject," but most are set to discard. In my opinion, the poster should be subscribed to the list and set to receive mail; otherwise they should have no expectation that their message was distributed.
peter-- Peter C.S. Adams Director of Information and Communication Technologies College of Public and Community Service, UMass Boston "Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
At 5:32 PM -0400 2006-05-25, Peter C.S. Adams wrote:
This is a pretty sore point in the business right now.
Which is more important? Wasting your bandwidth, eating up your MTA resources, and potentially notifying spammers that they didn't get through? Or simply throwing everything away, including messages that might have had great personal or business significance?
Think about spam in general. Which is worse? Dealing with large quantities of spam to try to find the relatively small amount of legitimate mail? Or throwing everything away that might potentially be spam, possibly including important messages from your boss, your spouse, your parents, your children, your co-workers, prospective business partners, etc...?
Myself, I tend to err on the side of caution. If they've managed to get through my anti-spam filters and the message fails the test of whether or not the poster is a subscriber to the list, the best thing to do is to hold those messages for moderation. Failing that, the next best thing to do is to attempt to notify the sender that the message was rejected (making sure to use rate-limiting technology so as to avoid excessive joe-job blowback).
Only as a last resort is it appropriate to simply throw away messages that would otherwise have been held for moderation.
But then maybe you've got different kinds of mailing lists where you don't really care about the content and where the posters don't really care about the content, and no one is going to get upset if some messages get thrown away.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Thus spake Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>, circa 5/26/2006 2:03 AM:
I'm not following. My lists accept all mail from subscribers. If they're not subscribed, they can't post. If the messages are important, people will notice if they're not distributed.
Most of my lists are for people who are subscribed. On the very rare occasion that a message is from a different email address, they contact me and ask me where the message went, and I either whitelist their other address or add them as nomail subscribers. This has happened 3-4 in four years on about 20 lists.
Meanwhile, I often get dozens of messages per day helpfully telling me that my Mac is infected with SoBig or some other Windows virus and is sending copies of itself out, as an example. "From" lines are routinely forged, making "you are not subscribed" messages far less useful than they could be.
I'm not saying this is right for everyone, but neither is setting lists to reject.
-- Peter C.S. Adams (617) 287-7118 Director of Information and Communication Technologies College of Public and Community Service, UMass Boston "Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
At 5:40 PM -0400 2006-05-26, Peter C.S. Adams wrote:
I'm not saying this is right for everyone, but neither is setting lists to reject.
You run your lists your way, I run my lists my way. Neither way is the best solution in all cases.
This is why we have multiple options to choose from.-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
There sure is, for Mailman 2.1.5 (and I belive earlier versions as well):
go to Privacy > Sender filters > scroll down to "Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit action is defined" (near the bottom) > set to Discard, yahoo no more pestering.
Some other good options on that page & others, look through and read each page in the admin section.
Regards, Tom Wolfe
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 07:50 -0400, Fred Atkinson wrote:
At 7:50 AM -0400 2006-05-25, Fred Atkinson wrote:
Deleting? No, not really. You could automatically discard the message, but that would cause some problems for people who would otherwise think that the message was accepted and posted to the list. Generally speaking, the recommended solution is to automatically reject such messages -- which informs the sender, and allows them to take appropriate action.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Thus spake Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>, circa 5/25/2006 9:54 AM:
In the old days, this was certainly true, but today, when 70-80% of all emails on the internet are spam, you may easily find that rejecting all those messages will (a) eat up a lot of your internet bandwidth, and (b) exacerbate the problem by telling the "sender" of the message -- which will, 90% of the time, be a forged address -- that "their" mail was rejected.
I have a handful of lists set to "reject," but most are set to discard. In my opinion, the poster should be subscribed to the list and set to receive mail; otherwise they should have no expectation that their message was distributed.
peter-- Peter C.S. Adams Director of Information and Communication Technologies College of Public and Community Service, UMass Boston "Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
At 5:32 PM -0400 2006-05-25, Peter C.S. Adams wrote:
This is a pretty sore point in the business right now.
Which is more important? Wasting your bandwidth, eating up your MTA resources, and potentially notifying spammers that they didn't get through? Or simply throwing everything away, including messages that might have had great personal or business significance?
Think about spam in general. Which is worse? Dealing with large quantities of spam to try to find the relatively small amount of legitimate mail? Or throwing everything away that might potentially be spam, possibly including important messages from your boss, your spouse, your parents, your children, your co-workers, prospective business partners, etc...?
Myself, I tend to err on the side of caution. If they've managed to get through my anti-spam filters and the message fails the test of whether or not the poster is a subscriber to the list, the best thing to do is to hold those messages for moderation. Failing that, the next best thing to do is to attempt to notify the sender that the message was rejected (making sure to use rate-limiting technology so as to avoid excessive joe-job blowback).
Only as a last resort is it appropriate to simply throw away messages that would otherwise have been held for moderation.
But then maybe you've got different kinds of mailing lists where you don't really care about the content and where the posters don't really care about the content, and no one is going to get upset if some messages get thrown away.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
Thus spake Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>, circa 5/26/2006 2:03 AM:
I'm not following. My lists accept all mail from subscribers. If they're not subscribed, they can't post. If the messages are important, people will notice if they're not distributed.
Most of my lists are for people who are subscribed. On the very rare occasion that a message is from a different email address, they contact me and ask me where the message went, and I either whitelist their other address or add them as nomail subscribers. This has happened 3-4 in four years on about 20 lists.
Meanwhile, I often get dozens of messages per day helpfully telling me that my Mac is infected with SoBig or some other Windows virus and is sending copies of itself out, as an example. "From" lines are routinely forged, making "you are not subscribed" messages far less useful than they could be.
I'm not saying this is right for everyone, but neither is setting lists to reject.
-- Peter C.S. Adams (617) 287-7118 Director of Information and Communication Technologies College of Public and Community Service, UMass Boston "Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none." -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
At 5:40 PM -0400 2006-05-26, Peter C.S. Adams wrote:
I'm not saying this is right for everyone, but neither is setting lists to reject.
You run your lists your way, I run my lists my way. Neither way is the best solution in all cases.
This is why we have multiple options to choose from.-- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
participants (4)
-
Brad Knowles -
Fred Atkinson -
Peter C.S. Adams -
Tom Wolfe