...making Linux just a little more fun!
Dr. Parthasarathy S [drpartha at gmail.com]
There is tooooo many garbage mails/spam mails in the TAG mailing list. Can no one take some action ? Please filter out all garbage. Otherwise people will stop reading or answering TAG mails.
Thank you,
partha
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. S. Parthasarathy | mailto:drpartha@gmail.com Algologic Research & Solutions | 78 Sancharpuri Colony | Bowenpally P.O | Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA | WWW-URL: http://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:51:40AM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote:
> There is tooooo many garbage mails/spam mails in the TAG mailing list. > Can no one take some action ? Please filter out all garbage. Otherwise > people will stop reading or answering TAG mails.
Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so important to allow non-members to post here anyway.
I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second subscription process.
I'll be watching the list closely to see if any problems arise as a result of this change; hopefully, result #1 will be a sharp drop in the amount of spam.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Mulyadi Santosa [mulyadi.santosa at gmail.com]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Ben Okopnik <ben@linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > may post" list.
Wise decision, Ben! IMO that's the only way to go to really bash those
spams. After all, is it hard to spend just few seconds (ok, maybe up
to minutes) to subscribe? 
-- regards, Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com
Jim Jackson [jj at franjam.org.uk]
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick > has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my > problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so > important to allow non-members to post here anyway. > > I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to > suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second > subscription process. > > I'll be watching the list closely to see if any problems arise as a > result of this change; hopefully, result #1 will be a sharp drop in > the amount of spam. >
Ok I'm not too sure what the setup is but...
Below (see the sig) people are asked to send all replies to tag@lists.linuxgazette.net so presumably follow ups will bounce unless they have signed up to the list.
How is this meant to work for people with one off queries? I think maybe I'm being a bit thick here.
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:57:38PM +0100, Jim Jackson wrote:
> > Ok I'm not too sure what the setup is but... > > Below (see the sig) people are asked to send all replies to > tag@lists.linuxgazette.net so presumably follow ups will bounce unless > they have signed up to the list. > > How is this meant to work for people with one off queries? > I think maybe I'm being a bit thick here.
I'm assuming you mean the standard list footer:
>> +-+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-+ >> You've asked a question of The Answer Gang, so you've been sent the reply >> directly as a courtesy. The TAG list has also been copied. Please send >> all replies to tag@lists.linuxgazette.net, so that we can help our other >> readers by publishing the exchange in our monthly Web magazine: >> Linux Gazette (http://linuxgazette.net/) >> +-+--------------------------------------------------------------------+-+
Since they must (now) be signed up to post their original queston in the first place, there won't be any bounces. The message still makes sense as a reminder, though: it essentially says "*don't* reply just to the person answering your question, reply to the list."
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Sam Bisbee [sbisbee at computervip.com]
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:45:01PM -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:51:40AM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote: > > There is tooooo many garbage mails/spam mails in the TAG mailing list. > > Can no one take some action ? Please filter out all garbage. Otherwise > > people will stop reading or answering TAG mails. > > Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick > has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my > problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so > important to allow non-members to post here anyway. > > I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to > suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second > subscription process. > > I'll be watching the list closely to see if any problems arise as a > result of this change; hopefully, result #1 will be a sharp drop in > the amount of spam. >
So, big +1 on this from me; my mobile device hasn't been buzzing nearly as much. However, I do like the low barrier to entry to TAG and our fair community that an open mailing list allowed. I agree with everyone who has posted that sign up is trivial, but my experience is that even trivial things turn users away (see low attention span). Especially when creating a username and password are involved.
Going to float an idea: set up a form with a captcha on the site that allows users to send e-mails to the mailing list. They would need to provide an e-mail to receive answers, or leave out the e-mail and read their answers in the mail bag - we would need to setup a noreply or AnonymousCoward e-mail for the envelope.
If people like this idea, then I would have no problem volunteering my time to whip this code together - should be easy lifting. I'll just need my current LG rate to be doubled ($0 x 2).
-- Sam Bisbee
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:07:28AM -0400, Samuel Bisbee-vonKaufmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:45:01PM -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > > may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to > > suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second > > subscription process. > > > > I'll be watching the list closely to see if any problems arise as a > > result of this change; hopefully, result #1 will be a sharp drop in > > the amount of spam. > > So, big +1 on this from me; my mobile device hasn't been buzzing nearly as > much.
I'll float a cautious "hurrah", for a start.
> However, I do like the low barrier to entry to TAG and our fair community > that an open mailing list allowed.
Yah... that would be the "reason" that TAG has stuck with a 1980s list model. However, given that
a) Rick's commitments keep him too busy to tweak the list as he used to,
b) it's rather unfair to ask him to do so, since the effort we ask of the users otherwise is a trivial one, and
c) this is what every single list out there requires these days,
it appears that the whole premise is a weak one, and has been kept in existence far longer than it should have been. Much thanks to Rick for his effort and patience, and to everyone who has been putting up with the spam flood for their tolerance, but that phase is now done. If we lose some querents as a result... well, you know that rule about posting to lists, where you're supposed to show the effort you've put in before asking for help? We don't want the other kind - and the sign-up procedure should act as a weak but positive filter.
> I agree with everyone who has posted that > sign up is trivial, but my experience is that even trivial things turn users > away (see low attention span). Especially when creating a username and password > are involved. > > Going to float an idea: set up a form with a captcha on the site that allows > users to send e-mails to the mailing list. They would need to provide an e-mail > to receive answers, or leave out the e-mail and read their answers in the mail > bag - we would need to setup a noreply or AnonymousCoward e-mail for the > envelope.
I hear what you're saying, Sam, but the annoyance factor of dealing with a CAPTCHA isn't much different from that of signing up for a mailing list. Besides, you can do the latter from a phone - but not the former.
> If people like this idea, then I would have no problem volunteering my time to > whip this code together - should be easy lifting. I'll just need my current LG > rate to be doubled ($0 x 2).
Consider it done, with a 50% bonus!
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Sam Bisbee [sbisbee at computervip.com]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:56:04PM -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:07:28AM -0400, Samuel Bisbee-vonKaufmann wrote: > > I agree with everyone who has posted that > > sign up is trivial, but my experience is that even trivial things turn users > > away (see low attention span). Especially when creating a username and password > > are involved. > > > > Going to float an idea: set up a form with a captcha on the site that allows > > users to send e-mails to the mailing list. They would need to provide an e-mail > > to receive answers, or leave out the e-mail and read their answers in the mail > > bag - we would need to setup a noreply or AnonymousCoward e-mail for the > > envelope. > > I hear what you're saying, Sam, but the annoyance factor of dealing with > a CAPTCHA isn't much different from that of signing up for a mailing > list. Besides, you can do the latter from a phone - but not the former.
Oddly enough it is different (I say "odd", because in engineering terms those flows are basically the same thing). Signing up for something has a huge dark cloud because of its connection with magazine subscriptions and the fact that you have to remember something (see the motivations behind the underwhelming OpenID). While people are still [somewhat] annoyed with CAPTCHAs, they're mostly annoyed by ones that they can't read. I don't think we need to use Re-CAPTCHA or any of those other impossible-to-read-but-are-still-popular options; I'd be happy with any image or "type tux in this box" style question.
Also, I'm not sure where the mobile device part came in - mine has no problem displaying images.
I'm not bent on getting this put through; I'd hazard a blind, half educated guess that between 20% and 50% of users with questions won't create an account. I don't know if the number of users that that actually translates into is worth deploying and maintaining a simple contact form, but I'm still willing to do it.
> > > If people like this idea, then I would have no problem volunteering my time to > > whip this code together - should be easy lifting. I'll just need my current LG > > rate to be doubled ($0 x 2). > > Consider it done, with a 50% bonus!
w0000, gettin' paid!
p.s. Does removing public posting negate the need to CC replies to members? (Assuming the contact form doesn't go through.)
-- Sam Bisbee
Karl-Heinz Herrmann [kh1 at khherrmann.de]
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:05:32 -0400 Sam Bisbee <sbisbee@computervip.com> wrote:
> OpenID). While people are still [somewhat] annoyed with CAPTCHAs, > they're mostly annoyed by ones that they can't read. I don't think we > need to use Re-CAPTCHA or any of those other > impossible-to-read-but-are-still-popular options; I'd be happy with > any image or "type tux in this box" style question.
I would be in favour of the captcha option -- but a reasonable captcha otherwise we are asking for bots posting automated garbage -- which would negate the closing of the list.
K.-H.
P.S.: I was running a local bayesianly educated spamassassin on the mails and very few spams survived that. So I certainly didn't feel overwhelmed by spam... but I have to note that a little more than 50% of my assassinated spam folder is [TAG] mail.
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
2009/10/13 Karl-Heinz Herrmann <kh1@khherrmann.de>:
> Hi, > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:05:32 -0400 > Sam Bisbee <sbisbee@computervip.com> wrote: > >> OpenID). While people are still [somewhat] annoyed with CAPTCHAs, >> they're mostly annoyed by ones that they can't read. I don't think we >> need to use Re-CAPTCHA or any of those other >> impossible-to-read-but-are-still-popular options; I'd be happy with >> any image or "type tux in this box" style question. > > I would be in favour of the captcha option -- but a reasonable captcha > otherwise we are asking for bots posting automated garbage -- which > would negate the closing of the list. > > > K.-H. > > P.S.: I was running a local bayesianly educated spamassassin on the > mails and very few spams survived that. So I certainly didn't feel > overwhelmed by spam... but I have to note that a little more than 50% > of my assassinated spam folder is [TAG] mail.
Wow, lucky you At worst, [TAG] spam makes up 5% of mine; a current
glance at the 82 (since 2pm today) spam messages I have shows 0 [TAG]
messages. 20% are in Russian, though, so maybe Ben was in some way
involved
René Pfeiffer [lynx at luchs.at]
On Oct 13, 2009 at 2139 +0100, Jimmy O'Regan appeared and said:
> 2009/10/13 Karl-Heinz Herrmann <kh1@khherrmann.de>: > > [...] > > P.S.: I was running a local bayesianly educated spamassassin on the > > mails and very few spams survived that. So I certainly didn't feel > > overwhelmed by spam... but I have to note that a little more than 50% > > of my assassinated spam folder is [TAG] mail. > > Wow, lucky you
At first I had a hard time guessing what the problem is, because my
Postfix/DSPAM/SpamAssassin has a very good hit count.
Cheers, René, who is back, BTW.
Breen Mullins [breen.mullins at gmail.com]
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 18:45, Ben Okopnik <ben@linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> > Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick > has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my > problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so > important to allow non-members to post here anyway.
I may be one of the last original members of The Answer Gang. I subscribed to the list when I felt like a real newbie, and thought I could find lots of answers. I'm pretty sure that I was here before either Ben or Rick. (On TAG, of course -- they've both got many more years than me...)
It turned out that in those days I could answer lots of questions. The favorite was "Why can't I telnet into my new Linux box?"
We got very good at answering that question, and better as the months went on at explaining why you didn't want telnetd to be enabled by default.
There were lots of 'root password' questions, too.
I think Ben and Rick are right - we don't have the supply of the real newbies that once made 'subscribers only' the default. Asking for a subscription is a good move now.
-- Breen Mullins <breen.mullins@gmail.com>
Thomas Adam [thomas.adam22 at gmail.com]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:35:26PM -0700, Breen Mullins wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 18:45, Ben Okopnik <ben@linuxgazette.net> wrote: > > > > Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick > > has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my > > problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so > > important to allow non-members to post here anyway. > > I may be one of the last original members of The Answer Gang. I subscribed
Nope. Not quite.
-- Thomas Adam
-- "It was the cruelest game I've ever played and it's played inside my head." -- "Hush The Warmth", Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.
Breen Mullins [breen.mullins at gmail.com]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 16:39, Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:35:26PM -0700, Breen Mullins wrote: >> I may be one of the last original members of The Answer Gang. I subscribed > > Nope. Not quite.
I didn't subscribe? I was sure I did...
(who are these people, and why are they in my inbox?)
-- Breen Mullins <breen.mullins@gmail.com>
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting Mulyadi Santosa (mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com):
> Wise decision, Ben! IMO that's the only way to go to really bash those > spams. After all, is it hard to spend just few seconds (ok, maybe up > to minutes) to subscribe?
It's not necessary to subscribe. Postings from non-subscribed addresses will merely be held for listadmin approval -- and the claimed sender will receive a notice saying so. Any listadmin who approves a particular held post can also optionally hit a checkbox saying (paraphrased) "Any additional postings from this claimed sender should be allowed through without being delayed in the held-postings queue."
The antispam capabilities of my MTA have been limited since an emergency rebuild I was obliged to do in April, on account of sudden hardware failure (power spike during a lightning storm) and just before I underwent major surgery. Since then, I've been reluctant to do any major reworkings because it is now, you see, a production system that I cannot afford to have downtime or aberrant behaviour on.
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben@linuxgazette.net):
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:51:40AM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote: > > There is tooooo many garbage mails/spam mails in the TAG mailing list. > > Can no one take some action ? Please filter out all garbage. Otherwise > > people will stop reading or answering TAG mails. > > Y'know, I think we're reached the break-over point on this issue. Rick > has brought this up again and again, and I've reached the limit of my > problem/spam tolerance - and I seem to have lost track of why it was so > important to allow non-members to post here anyway. > > I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to > suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second > subscription process.
Can I ask what option you "flipped"?
I suspect you changed this (on http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/admin/tag/privacy/sender):
Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit
action is defined.
[x] Accept [ ] Hold [ ] Reject [ ] Discard
to this:
Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit
action is defined.
[ ] Accept [ ] Hold [x] Reject [ ] Discard
I am, right now, changing that to "Hold", and changing
Discard held messages older than this number of days. Use 0 for no
automatic discarding.
on http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/admin/tag/general from 0 to 5.
If I understand correctly the change you made to be the one described above, that would have silently autodiscarded all feedback mail from readers trying to reach TAG -- which is a rather more hardcore remedy than is required address the problem. A "hold" setting for mail from non-subscribed addresses has been the standard for mailing lists worldwide for at least a decade, and is what I've repeatedly, over and over, urged for TAG in the past.
My apologies for being late to this discussion, but I have been out of town for the past week.
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
Coming back to this discussion late - lots of work, travel, kid-wrangling, writing a book, etc.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:24:39PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben@linuxgazette.net): > > > I've just flipped an option in Mailman, and TAG is now an "only members > > may post" list. Anyone who wants to ask questions here will just have to > > suffer the horrible, arduous privations of going through a 10-second > > subscription process. > > Can I ask what option you "flipped"?
[...]
> Action to take for postings from non-members for which no explicit > action is defined.
That one, yes.
> I am, right now, changing that to "Hold", and changing > > Discard held messages older than this number of days. Use 0 for no > automatic discarding. > > on http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/admin/tag/general from 0 to 5. > > > If I understand correctly the change you made to be the one described > above, that would have silently autodiscarded all feedback mail from > readers trying to reach TAG -- which is a rather more hardcore remedy > than is required address the problem.
I guess I misunderstood the above to mean "reject with notification" rather than "silently send to /dev/null". Thanks for correcting it.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben@linuxgazette.net):
> I guess I misunderstood the above to mean "reject with notification" > rather than "silently send to /dev/null". Thanks for correcting it.
OK. But, also, even rejecting (as opposed to silently discarding) is an unnecessarily harsh remedy, that would have needlessly cut off TAG from LG's public. Setting that configuration item to "Hold" (rather than either Reject or Discard) restores our ability to interact with our readership -- with the only disadvantage being that posts from non-subscribed addresses will get delayed in the admin queue until a listadmin approves them.
And, actually, there's a related improvement to the scheme that it's just occurred to me to implement. On admin screen http://lists.linuxgazette.net/mailman/admin/tag/general, this question
Send mail to poster when their posting is held for approval?
(o) Yes ( ) No
is better set to
Send mail to poster when their posting is held for approval?
( ) Yes (o) No
That way, non-subscribed LG readers who write to TAG won't get "Your post to mailing list TAG has been held for moderator approval" notices every time they write in.
I've just now made that change.