I don't think OP realizes that we *avoid* success at all costs. -deech On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:

The GUI list could definitely use this type of moderation.

Tom / amindfv

On Oct 23, 2011 9:54 PM, "Erik de Castro Lopo" wrote:

...

R J wrote:

...

hey Haskell this is nuts http://www.business10i.com hey Haskell this is nuts xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx

Maybe its time to moderate all newcomers to this list, at least until they post one non-spam message to the list.

If you need volunteers to do this moderation I'll stick my hand up.

Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Daniel Fischer wrote:

On Monday 24 October 2011, 03:54:09, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

R J wrote:

...

hey Haskell this is nuts http://www.business10i.com hey Haskell this is nuts xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx

Maybe its time to moderate all newcomers to this list, at least until they post one non-spam message to the list.

Just for the record, not a newcomer, and has non-spam messages, e.g.

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/077871.html http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/078054.html

That suggests a hijacked account. Such accounts could still be put under moderation. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

On 24 October 2011 10:57, Daniel Fischer wrote:

On Monday 24 October 2011, 03:54:09, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

R J wrote:

...

hey Haskell this is nuts http://www.business10i.com hey Haskell this is nuts xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx

Maybe its time to moderate all newcomers to this list, at least until they post one non-spam message to the list.

Just for the record, not a newcomer, and has non-spam messages, e.g.

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/077871.html http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/078054.html

There was a recent hotmail exploit, with people reporting their account sent spam, see eg: https://plus.google.com/117020778736538274606/posts/4yMP7iDshCf I'd be in favor of graylisting or unsubscribing anyone who uses hotmail. Conrad.

...

If you need volunteers to do this moderation I'll stick my hand up.

Erik

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Tom Murphy writes:

Blocking/unsubscribing people based on their email provider seems... sort of impolite or unwelcoming. A greylist could work.

Greylist, as in temporarily refuse a message, and wait for the sending mail server to retry? I don't see how it would work against hijacked hotmail accounts, they most likely use the real hotmail service - which would retry appropriately. My own experience indicates that spammers now often "correctly" retry deliveries, so greylisting is less effective than it used to be.

Given the relatively low volume of spam, my vote is for the original suggestion of first-message-moderated, with the ability to put an address back on moderation if their account is hacked.

+1 -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Daniel Fischer wrote:

...

Just for the record, not a newcomer, and has non-spam messages

Conrad Parker wrote:

There was a recent hotmail exploit, with people reporting their account sent spam...

No exploit is needed. It is trivial for an impostor to seem as if he is sending email from someone else's account, and spammers do that all the time. There is nothing special about Hotmail. There are some ways to detect that kind of fraud. One method is SPF, which is currently being pushed by Google and some other email providers: http://openspf.org/ Unfortunately, Mailman, or at least the version we are currently using on all of our servers, does not support this AFAIK. In fact, our domains do not even have SPF records themselves yet. So all mail from our mailing lists is flagged as suspicious by Google and many other providers. I hope that will be fixed soon. It's true, even when a system like SPF is in place, it is still possible to bypass it by breaking in to an email account and actually sending the spam from there. But we have not yet reached the point where such an exploit is even needed. For now, we are just relying on the classic method of using a server-side spam filter. This incident seems to have gotten past that. Thanks, Yitz