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

Re: Spam in the lists out of control

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw scribbled:
> Hi Marek!
> You wrote:
> > Really? So there is not a single difference between spam and tmda
> > challenges? So your claim is that every message you do not want to receive
> > is spam, as I understand. 
> IMO any _unsolliced_, automatically generated message is spam, yes.
So, if I receive a mail that appears to be from you and answer asking
you to confirm you sent me the v*agra spam, then it won't be spam (to stress
that, I will type the inquiry mail manually)?

> In the case that your TMDA is trigged by a message that I sent, the TMDA
> challenge is not spam by this definiton.  (Although I would still ignore
> it and put the sender in my blacklist, but that's an unrelated issue.)
That's fine and that's what I'm saying all the time - you can ignore them.

> OTOH, I do consider such a message to be spam in the case that you send
> me a TMDA challenge while I didn't send you a message first.  It is
> _your_ responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen, not mine to
> filter your spam from my mail.
OK, so how do _I_ know a mail sent with your address that contains some spam
is NOT written by you? I have to ask _you_ - and by asking, I spam you,
since you didn't send the spam. Do I understand well? Whether or not my
question sent to you is automated or typed by me, it would be spam - since
you didn't write the message I received. Do I understand that correctly?

> > Well, then I would consider 70% of mails on the
> > debian lists spam, since I don't care about various flames that go on on the
> > lists, or "problems" with binary software licenses and other equally
> > irrelevant issues. 
> > And the fact that I subscribed to the debian lists does
> > not mean I _want_ to receive the messages listed above, just the same as the
> > fact I have an email address doesn't mean I want to get spam. 
> This is a bullshit argument.  You are perfectly free to unsubscribe from
> the lists (to which you chose to subscribe in the first place) if you
> don't like their content.  After you unsubscribe, you will get no more
> messages, no bandwidth is wated, no one is annoyed and you won't have to
> filter any messages.
Didn't I write something along those lines above? That it was my choice,
just as it was my choice to have an email address? I could as well say - you
are free to change your email address if you don't like to receive my tmda
challenges. It would be as idiotic as your statement above.

> > Both having
> > the email address and being subscribed to a mailing list is voluntary, and
> > neither means anybody's consent to receive unsolicited mail. So if we take
> > your definition of spam (as seems to be apparent from your assesment that
> > tmda challenges equal v*agra spam) then most of the mail traffic IS spam.
> Yes, indeed, most of the mail traffic is spam.  82% to be precise.
> But no, a mailinglist is not unsolicited mail (regardless of whether or
> not you like the content of the posts), TMDA challenges are, in case they
> are sent in reaction to a spam or virus.
Ok, so let me ask you again, to make it clear. If I _manually_ write a
question to ask you whether you sent a spam to me (to stress it again - it will
NOT be automatically generated by TMDA) and it will contain the same
question TMDA would send, would that be spam?

> > So, is the world still black and white? 
> Yes.  There are people who spam and there are those who don't.
Congratulations, I wish I had such a simple view of the world. I must assume
that my bank is a spammer, since their statements sent to me are treated as
spam by SpamAssassin. Indeed, "there are people who spam and those who

> > You say that I put the onus on the receiver. You're right to some extent.
> Ah, at least you admit that your TMDA challenges are annoying.
I _never_ said they weren't. If you could _please_ read what you answer to
more carefully. I've said that they might be annoying, that I understood
that and I proposed a solution to that problem - which was entirely ignored
by you as you went on ranting. Address my suggestion and we can discuss.

> > But, call me naive, I believe in people (sometimes) helping each other when
> > the intent is clear and not harmful for anybody. By that token, I would
> > expect that you (or anyone else) who feels offended by the tmda challenges
> > comes up and says "hey, dude, are the challenges necessary? 
> Ah, and how exactly are we supposed to reach you without going hrough
> the TMDA challenge thing?
Gosh, so you are saying that you're sending spam that's scored above 1.0 by
spamassassin? It is clear you didn't read what I wrote, so I will repeat it:
TMDA challenges are sent (in our setup) ONLY for mails whose score is
between 1.0 and 10.0. Anything scored below or above that is not challenged.
So, if you are NOT a spammer then your message won't be scored in that range
and you will NOT see any challenge. So, you can just send me a mail and
reach me in that surprising way.

> > Is there
> > anything you can do so that I don't receive them?". Then the party
> > generating the challenge would come back saying "sure, here is a set of
> > procmail/maildrop/spamassassin/whatever filters that will make them
> > disappear from your mailbox. Thanks".
> As with other types of spam, I prefer opt-in systems over opt-out. 
> Therefore I propose is to configure all MTA's to deny all TMDA
> challenges by default. Those who really want to accept those
> messages, can then simple enable this in their config files.
That's fine with me. And I've proposed a similar solution before. But,
again, you didn't care to read what I wrote, you prefer ranting.

> >  Instead, what we get is "Hey dude! Get
> > the fuck lost with your spam! I don't care about your problems, get away,
> > I've got my problems you prick! You're a spamming asshole, loser!" or
> > something in that spirit.
> Well, spammers tend to have these kinds of effect on people.
Just as people who see world only in B&W terms (I call them fanatics,
usually, whatever subject they are fanatical about).

> > Now, that's a true cooperation spirit.
> So spamming innocent people is "a true cooperation spirit" in your
> opinion?
No, cooperation spirit is meeting other people's problems and trying to
solve them. How come you're in Debian if you don't give a fuck about the
needs/problems of other people? How can you help produce good distribution
if you have the attitude like that? Some user comes to you and says
something you don't agree with, and I can already see you going on ranting
at him that he's wrong, that he should not pester you and should generally
leave you alone with your own (the only right and accepted) views.

Can you accept the point of view of others? Can you discuss with other
people without ranting? Can you?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: