More spam :-( Was Re: [Mailman-Users] Would you like toreceive information on registering your pet online for free?

JC Dill jcdill at
Tue Mar 27 22:40:20 CEST 2001

On 12:12 PM 3/27/01, Dan Mick wrote:
 >JC Dill wrote:
 >> It sounds as if you are ignoring or overlooking my proposed solution which
 >> continues to let non-subscriber posts go through to the list unmoderated,
 >> when they contain keyword(s) indicative of an on-topic non-spam
 >> post.
 >I would estimate that 25% of my posts contain any keyword you might have on
 >your list.  Good luck generating any sort of useful list.

You are a subscriber.  As such, your posts get passed through to the list 
before any keyword check would come into play.

 >> Further, even if a post goes to the moderator, that doesn't mean it
 >> can't be approved and sent on to the list, all you have introduced is a
 >> slight delay.
 >Who is it that's providing this free moderation service?  You?

I'd much rather have to moderate and approve a few posts now and then than 
have the spam get through to hundreds of subscribers.  It's a task I've 
taken on for several other lists already.  It's part of doing my part to 
make the 'Net work.

 >> This seems an acceptable tradeoff for avoiding the spam.  If
 >> someone doesn't want their post held up by a moderation process, they
 >> should subscribe, or use the appropriate keyword.
 >> I fail to see how this would hurt newbies, or cause any significant
 >> overhead (beyond software development of what will be a very useful feature
 >> :-).
 >It's equally obvious to me that it would not serve the purpose you intend,

The keyword filter software would serve the purpose intended if implemented 
as I suggested (specifically the part about mentioning, everywhere you give 
out the list submission address, that non-subscriber posts that fail to use 
the keyword might be held for moderation ).

Times change.  There once was a time when every mail server on the 'Net was 
an open relay and all was good.  Then the green card spam hit and nothing 
has been the same since.  There once was a time when every mailing list on 
the 'Net was hosted at MIT, via an alias, and to add yourself to a list you 
went and edited the alias file yourself.  Today we have mailing list 
servers because that method didn't scale.  There once was a time when you 
could run an open list and not worry about the results when non-subscribers 
posted to the list.  I believe that this too needs to change, now or very 
soon.  So I'm looking at how it can be changed to continue to fulfill the 
needs that are met with the current implementation, without causing undue 
problems associated with the change.

 >and it's pretty obvious to me that it's a non-problem, in the Grand
 >Scheme.  Anti-spam measures are apparently addictive; no one can eat
 >just one.

I subscribe to the theory that one is either a part of the problem or a 
part of the solution.  I believe that spam is an ever increasing 
problem.  Thinking about how to keep spam away from those who don't want to 
receive it (pretty much everyone) and thinking about how to implement said 
solutions in a way that causes the fewest inconveniences to everyone else, 
is part of how I work to be part of the solution.


More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list