On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:42:14 -0700 (PDT) "Lee Daniel Crocker"
<email@example.com (none)> writes:
> > Would it not be possible to stop the spam on this list by setting
> > majordomo to reject posts from any address which is not in the
> list of> > addresses subscribed? Wherever this spam is coming from, it
> almost> > certainly not from an address signed up to the list. And if
> is, that> > address could be deleted from the subscription list.
> Doesn't help. I manage 5 mailing lists, most of which have this
> setting, and they get no less spam than the others. Spammers are
> crafty buggers--they won't let simple countermeasures get in their
> way. They just use automated software that creates bogus send
> addresses, subscribes them to the list, sends mail, then removes
> any trace that the address ever existed so there's no one to
> complain to.
I would think that if majordomo asked for a confirmation response from the bogus send address when an attempt was made to subscribe the address, it would not get a response since the address is bogus. Some mailing lists to which I have subscribed ask for a confirmation from the requestor before activating the subscription.
I am on several onelist.com mailing lists, and I have never gotten any spam through any of those lists, in thousands of messages. I don't know how onelist stops it, but whatever they do seems to be very effective. Since onelist is free of charge, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to move the extropians lists to onelist.com. This can be done without the current subscribers having to re-subscribe; they can all be re-subscribed by the list owner in one operation.
> This setting does, however, make it tricky for folks like me who
> get on the net from several different access points to send mail
> to the list from some of them (my postings often come from
> "firstname.lastname@example.org" even though my real address is
> "email@example.com"). That's a minor annoyance, and I (and others)
> can work around it, but it's an example of how security can get
> in the way of legitimate use.
I would think that a person who uses several addresses habitually could subscribe each of them, but perhaps there is some reason why that would be inconvenient, like getting the same messages at all the addresses.
> Spammers are scum. I don't mean to imply that they should be
> simply tolerated. Reasonable countermeasures can be done and are
> being done. I'm just saying that trying to prevent 100% is a bit
> beyond reasonable, so being annoyed by the occasional one that
> slips through the cracks is pointless.
There is so little spam on this list that it's easy to ignore. Here's hoping things don't get worse.