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

Re: Spaming filter



On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:43:29PM +0100, SysV wrote:
> 
> >> >> Why don't we have an spaming filter on the lists?
> >> >> to filter all the comercial out of the lists
> >> >Actually, IIRC, the admins are using some kind of spam filter on the
> >> >list already. The trick is not to "throw the baby out with the
> >> >bathwater" (discard legitimate messages with the spam), so it's
> >> >inevitable that some will get through.
> >> Well, ignoring mail from people who are not on the list could be a start
> >True, but what about the people who have a question, but don't want to
> >subscribe because they don't want the traffic? Should we really force
> >everyone to undergo the subscription and unsubscription process if they
> >have one small question?
> That depends on the list I think.
> 

Again I'd have to agree with you. For debian-laptop, blocking
non-subscribers would probably be okay, since there isn't a lot of
traffic. Ditto for the security an announce lists, since people usually
subscribe to receive, not to send (unless I'm mistaken, it's the
maintainers who usually post to these lists.) However, this would
probably not be a solution for debian-user, which gets significantly
more traffic.

It's too bad PGP isn't more widespread; it would probably help to refuse
all unsigned messages (but then again, that'll probably just prompt the
spammers to start signing their garbage.)

It's a very sticky issue, but as far as I can tell, the list admins have
been doing a great job at it so far (just think of the crap we'd
probably be seeing otherwise.)

-- 
Mike Alborn <malborn@odoitau.dyn.dhs.org>
# pgp keyid: C36DC30B
# http://odoitau.dyn.dhs.org

"How to make a million dollars:  First, get a million dollars."
-- Steve Martin

Attachment: pgpURQtyHKwkA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: