[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Spam levels

Thu Aug 3 12:14:42 CDT 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wendy Edwards" <wedwards at uiuc.edu>
To: <peace at lists.chambana.net>; <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: [Peace] Spam levels

: Hi, we seem to be getting more spam than ever on peace
: and peace-discuss.  Would it be OK if we turned the
: moderation on?  It just doesn't seem like we get many
: legitimate messages from people who aren't on the list.
:
: Wendy

Yeah, the SPAM level has reached a new height. Below is my summary of the SPAM
issue from a while back. I'd be willing to take on moderation of non-member
posts (option 3 below), but only if at least a couple other folks are willing to
share the work. And as before, I wouldn't feel comfortable making a change in
the list without AWARE approval at a meeting (since any change comes with at
least a small drawback).

R

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
To: <Peace at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace] emails

: We've rarely had significant problems with "spam" (unsolicited junk e-mail) on
: the peace and peace-discuss lists. That's what these messages are from
addresses
: like "Abraham Barlow", "Lew Cain", and so on (you can be nearly certain
they're
: all fictional names, by the way). There is software running on the mailing
list
: server that normally stops nearly all spam effectively. However, there has
been
: a bit of a spate of spam getting through recently (a dozen or so in the last
few
: days). It may be a temporary thing, but if it continues, it may be sensible to
: take some counter-measure.
:
: I've been volunteering as mailing list administrator for the peace and
: peace-discuss lists for a couple years or so (additional volunteers for this
: task are always welcome, by the way 8-). In summary, there is one easy thing I
: could do to help the situation (and it may or not help, see below). There are
: other options, but they each entail drawbacks that may not be worth it,
: especially if this surge in spam is just temporary. Because of the drawbacks,
I
: feel it would be best that I only go forward with such options if they've been
: discussed and approved at an AWARE meeting.
:
: Full details for those who care:
:
: Here are several ways we could counter the SPAM, in increasing order of
: difficulty
:
: 1. Appeal to the administrator(s) of the IMC server to improve or adjust their
: spam-blocking software to reduce or eliminate the spam messages we're getting.
:
: This is easy to do, no drawbacks. So I'll go ahead with it.
:
: 2. Close off the peace and/or peace-discuss lists to postings from people who
: aren't subscribed to the list.
:
: This is easy to configure, but has the significant drawback of, well, closing
: off the list to folks. Many people who attempt to post, say, a timely
: announcement or call to action regarding local peace and justice issues will
be
: thwarted from doing so. If they're force to jump through the hoop of having to
: figure out how to subscribe to our list, they may not (and often, in practice,
: will not) bother to try to navigate that obstacle and as a result, we are
: deprived of some important postings.
:
: In addition, this also forces all current subscribers to explicitly
re-subscribe
: from *all* the e-mail addresses they might send from. Often, folks send from
: more than one different e-mail address (say one from work and one from home).
: Once the list is closed off, any post from an address that hasn't been
: explicitly subscribed will be flat out rejected. This in itself will be a
: confusing inconvenience to many.
:
: 3. Moderate peace and/or peace-discuss lists postings from non-subscribed
: addresses.
:
: This is just like number 2 above except that instead of posts being flat out
: rejected, they are "held for moderation". This requires ongoing, dedicated
: attention by one person (preferably several people) who will frequently check
: their e-mail for messages from the mailing list server indicating that
messages
: are being held (upon which the moderator(s) check out each individual message
: and judges whether they should send it on through to the list).
:
: While this prevents the lists from being deprived of important postings that
: would otherwise be rejected, it does require daily, time-consuming, ongoing
work
: by some lucky volunteer and even given that, all such postings will be delayed
: by whatever time it takes for the moderator to attend to the "held" messages.
:
: 4. Full moderation of the peace and/or peace-discuss lists.
:
: This is a foolproof way of eliminating any kind of junk postings, but it means
: that *each and every posting* to the lists would have to be explicitly
approved
: by volunteer moderators who frequently check their e-mail every day,
constantly
: watching for new posting notifications from the mailing list server. For a
list
: like peace-discuss, in particular, this would be quite demanding and would
: require multiple dedicated volunteers constantly on watch.
:
: In addition, troublesome delays are unavoidable with this measure,
particularly
: regarding crucial or emergency short-notice announcements. Also, postings on
hot
: topics are hampered by delays. Delays in approving posts on a hot topic
: sometimes causes several others to post messages that they wouldn't otherwise
: have posted (or that they would have worded differently) if they saw the
: messages that were being queued up for moderation at the time.
:
: So there are counter-measures that can be taken, but all of them (save one)
also
: come with drawbacks. As list administrator, I don't feel I should implement
any
: change that entails a drawback without explicit approval at an AWARE meeting.
So
: I will send a request to the mailing list server administrator to try and
: improve the spam-blocking mechanisms and hope that the problem is either fixed
: that way or otherwise subsides on its own.
:
: If the spate of spam continues, perhaps someone will suggest one of the above
: counter-measures at an AWARE meeting (or a different solution I haven't
thought
: of 8-)
: R
:
: ----- Original Message ----- 
: From: "Wendy Edwards" <wedwards at uiuc.edu>
: To: "linda f weber" <lweber0311 at insightbb.com>
: Cc: <peace at ucimc.org>
: Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:35 AM
: Subject: Re: [Peace] emails
:
:
: : The lists probably need to be moderated like many of the IMC ones are.
: :
: : On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:34:06AM -0600, linda f  weber wrote:
: : > I don't want to receive emails such as those from Rudolph Wright, Roger
: Butts, Lew Cain, Pen King, and others.  Where are they coming from?  I don't
: want to drop the Peace list, but I don't want such stuff.
: : >
: : > linda
: : > _______________________________________________
: : > Peace mailing list
: : > Peace at lists.chambana.net
: : > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
: :
: : _______________________________________________
: : Peace mailing list
: : Peace at lists.chambana.net
: : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
: