[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: META: Can we please restrict the list?



Shaleh wrote:
  >The problem is that they ARE subscribed.  I firmly believe that aol.com
  >has no point on this mailing list.  All I ever see from that domain is
  >trash.

I presume that spam messages result in the automatic unsubscription
of the address responsible?

At the moment, a subscription request results in an automated response
that requires the subscriber to confirm the subscription with a code
contained in the response.  This is presumably to frustrate those idiots
who maliciously subscribe other people.  It does nothing to stop
spammers.

How about changing the automatic response, in the case of the aol domain,
to ask the subscriber to send a message saying why he wants to be on the
list.  This should not contain any reference to the web-site, so that someone
who is trawling lists will not know what the mailing list is about.  It
should say something like:

    "You have asked to be subscribed to the debian-xxx mailing list.
     This list has been troubled with spam messages from users in your
     domain, and so we are asking you to explain why you want to be
     subscribed to this list.

     If you respond to this message and are accepted as a subscriber,
     you must undertake not to post any messages unrelated to the
     mailing list's purpose.  Please indicate in your response that
     you agree to this."

If the response does not indicate an understanding of what the list is for, 
the subscription request should be refused.  Since this will need a human
to do the checking of responses, I will volunteer for that, if this idea
is accepted.
-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver

PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: