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

Thu Aug 3 13:23:27 CDT 2006

I could probably help watch the lists.  It's actually not that hard -
I already do this for the imc and imc-staff lists.  The thing is that
you don't really have to do anything until you get a message that
looks like it might be legitimate.  Otherwise, you can just 
periodically go in and do a mass discard.  It's sometimes useful
to let them build up, because if you get repeated spam from the
same address, you can set it to auto-discard.

Wendy

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:14:42PM -0500, Randall Cotton wrote:
> ----- 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
> :
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace