Re: making SPI's public mailing lists subscriber-posting-only

Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
subscribers can post?

--
G. Branden Robinson, Deputy Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
branden(at)deadbeast(dot)net
http://www.spi-inc.org/

Please go ahead and do that. I've operated the UserLinux lists as
subscriber-post-only from day one, and nobody has complained, nor have
we had a single spam posting.

Thanks

Bruce

Branden Robinson wrote:

>Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
>archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
>subscribers can post?
>
>
>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> subscribers can post?

Does that mean non-subscribers will recieve messages saying their posts
have are waiting for moderator approval? If so, doesn't that have the
potential to send innocent parties moderator approval messages?

--
gram

G. Branden Robinson writes:
> Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> subscribers can post?

Please do so.
--
John Hasler

As long as there still is some method to post via gmane -- I do so
sometimes and have converted most of my list-watching to gmane.

* Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com> [041014 18:14]:
> Please go ahead and do that. I've operated the UserLinux lists as
> subscriber-post-only from day one, and nobody has complained, nor have
> we had a single spam posting.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> >Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> >archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> >subscribers can post?
> >
> >
> >
>

> !DSPAM:416f084e208091088514491!

--
Scott Dier <dieman(at)ringworld(dot)org> KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/
-- http://www.railworks.org/ -- http://publictransportation.org/ --
Stop "playing political splat ball," support the Northstar Train!

Mailman sends them those messages, yes. And it can send people whose
emails have been forged. Our only way to prevent that would be to
/require /SPF.

Thanks

Bruce

Graham Wilson wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>
>>Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
>>archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
>>subscribers can post?
>>
>>
>
>Does that mean non-subscribers will recieve messages saying their posts
>have are waiting for moderator approval? If so, doesn't that have the
>potential to send innocent parties moderator approval messages?
>
>
>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Please go ahead and do that. I've operated the UserLinux lists as
> subscriber-post-only from day one, and nobody has complained, nor have
> we had a single spam posting.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce

Bruce,

Please observe my mail headers.

Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.

Some MUAs are coded to respect the first of the two headers above; the
second one is for everyone else.

(Before anyone starts to argue that recipients can always filter duplicate
messages on their end -- don't. The Debian mailing list archives contain
extensive refutations of this reasoning. That people can also filter spam
doesn't mean it's okay for people to send it in the first place.)

--
G. Branden Robinson, Deputy Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
branden(at)deadbeast(dot)net
http://www.spi-inc.org/

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:16:22PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> > archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> > subscribers can post?
>
> Does that mean non-subscribers will recieve messages saying their posts
> have are waiting for moderator approval? If so, doesn't that have the
> potential to send innocent parties moderator approval messages?

As far as I know, all autoresponders (and quite a few humans) are tricked
by joe jobs.

So yes, that is a downside to my proposal.

--
G. Branden Robinson, Deputy Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
branden(at)deadbeast(dot)net
http://www.spi-inc.org/

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:01:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> subscribers can post?

Please do, but be sure to unsubscribe me in the process, since I
don't use my subscription address as my sender address and I don't
want to be subscribed to a mailing list I can't post to.

Alternatively, the list could also accept GPG signed email so I would
still be able to post.

Thanks,
Bill.

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:41:10PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I don want to be subscribed to a mailing list I can't post to.

I was under the assumption that non-subcriber mails would get manually
moderated. So if you only write occasionally, this should not be a big
problem, provded moderation is really the case.

Michael

--
<elmo> daniels: stop pretending you listen to music other than David
Hasslehof

Branden Robinson writes ("making SPI's public mailing lists subscriber-posting-only"):
> Would anyone object to changing the configuration of SPI's publicly
> archived mailing lists (spi-general, spi-www, et al.) such that only
> subscribers can post?

I think this would be an excellent idea and it should be done
immediately.

The downside is that some poor sod will have to fight the awful
Mailman moderation UI to actually delete the spams (and weed out the
odd real posting from a non-subscriber).

Bruce Perens writes:
[ `Your message is awaiting moderation' messages ]
> Mailman sends them those messages, yes. And it can send people whose
> emails have been forged. Our only way to prevent that would be to
> /require /SPF.

It is true that these messages are annoying. But it is better to send
a backscatter message to one alleged-sender than to send the spam to
dozens or hundreds of list members.

Don't talk to me about SPF or I shall have to become very rude, and
anyway it's probably off-topic.

Ian.

Bill Allombert writes ("Re: making SPI's public mailing lists subscriber-posting-only"):
> Please do, but be sure to unsubscribe me in the process, since I
> don't use my subscription address as my sender address and I don't
> want to be subscribed to a mailing list I can't post to.

This is not necessary. What you do, is subscribe your posting address
to the list and then change the settings to `no mail delivery'. That
way you are `subscribed' but don't actually get the mails in the
wrong mailbox.

This is a bit of faff, which is unfortunate, but I think on balance
that I'd rather have a list I had to wrestle the MLM software for
once, than one that's full of spam.

> Alternatively, the list could also accept GPG signed email so I would
> still be able to post.

I'm working on software to do this in my Copious Free Time (tm).

Ian.

Bill Allombert wrote:

>Please do, but be sure to unsubscribe me in the process, since I
>don't use my subscription address as my sender address and I don't
>want to be subscribed to a mailing list I can't post to.
>
>
Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, you can ask the list
admin to add your posting address to the list of permitted
non-subscriber posters. Mailman does provide that feature.

Thanks

Bruce

Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> The downside is that some poor sod will have to fight the awful
> Mailman moderation UI to actually delete the spams (and weed out the
> odd real posting from a non-subscriber).

Indeed. So speaking with my spi-admin hat on: unless we see someone
volunteer to do that we will not make the list moderated.

Wichert.

--
Wichert Akkerman <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 05:04:21PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The downside is that some poor sod will have to fight the awful
> > Mailman moderation UI to actually delete the spams (and weed out the
> > odd real posting from a non-subscriber).
>
> Indeed. So speaking with my spi-admin hat on: unless we see someone
> volunteer to do that we will not make the list moderated.

Understood.

Otherwise, it looks like we have a consensus, and can throw the switch once
this criterion is satisfied.

So, do we have any suckers^Wvolunteers?

--
G. Branden Robinson, Deputy Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
branden(at)deadbeast(dot)net
http://www.spi-inc.org/

Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> So, do we have any suckers^Wvolunteers?

As expected, we don't seem to have any.

Wichert.

--
Wichert Akkerman <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.