On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 08:21:00AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Thursday 21 February 2019 03:59:37 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:45:50AM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > You can also help us by bouncing (as in mutt) spam to > > > report-listspam@lists.debian.org > > > > Thanks > > -- t > This _might_ be a good idea, if that address took forwards. My incoming > chain does not include the ability to do other than accept, then divert > to /var/mail/virii or /dev/null. But my one attempt to forward to that > address when debians poor spam/viri filters failed often enough to get > my attention several years ago, resulted in its being bounced back to me I do it all the time (perhaps twice a week). No problems so far. > Don't give me, or my current ISP a hard time because their spam filtering > is far better then debians. This only shows that you still have much to learn about spam :-) Filtering for an open list with roughly 600 subscribers is far more difficult than filtering for one person, since the breadth of topics and styles for non-spam is significantly higher. This is a real challenge for statistical filters. I think that, given the constraints, Debian list spam filters aren't bad. "The Debian Listmasters do their best to stop as many such emails as possible from reaching the lists. On a typical day, over 40,000 such messages are blocked." [1] > I get very little spam from them because they do active bouncing, > using barracuda I believe, *spit* A couple of times I had the "honor". Dunno whether it was a bad sysadmin or barracuda itself. Not a nice souvenir, mind you. [...] > But if all it generates is bounces, why bother? That just serves to prove > to me that debian has zero interest in containing UCE. Since I don't set > the rules, or write the checks for debian, that just how it is. See above. If you go to the below reference, you even get to propose SpamAssassin rules to the Debian list masters. I'm sure they can use some help. They're volunteers, after all. Saying they have "zero interest" (even if they not only do the heavy lifting of filtering out 40K spams /a day/, but also document what they are doing, for your and my reading convenience, all at no cost, on a volunteer basis) is offensive. > But redirecting the blame to me or my ISP because debians filtering is > poor [...] Repeat with me: - you don't bounce spam at all, because you're bouncing to the wrong address anyway, thus just enhancing the problem. (There is still a reason to bounce a (legitimate) mail, but NEVER-EVER when you think it's spam). - you don't reject to mailing lists: they'll conclude that you have delivery problems and unsubscribe you. This is common consensus, and for a reason. If your provider isn't doing that, they ain't pros and are just pissing in our common well. Sorry for being so clear, but I feel strongly about mail: it's the last means of communication left where I have the choice of client software, the other stuff being "antisocial networks", where some random web designer gets to decide what I see and how. I hope I die before this dystopia is upon us (I'm old, mind you). Cheers [1] https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads -- tomás
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature