From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/45919 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josh Huber Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: new spam functionality added Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:10:38 -0400 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87znw7lci9.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> References: <87y9brejam.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <873ctztyth.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> <87bs8nsh7g.fsf@mail.paradoxical.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028157064 26144 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2002 23:11:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17a2cO-0006nQ-00 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:11:00 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 17a2cX-0001HO-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:11:09 -0500 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA10001 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:11:22 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (qmail 21178 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 23:10:40 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 21168 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 23:10:40 -0000 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org (80.91.224.244) by gnus.org with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 23:10:40 -0000 Original-Received: from news by quimby.gnus.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17a2tw-0003c6-00 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:29:08 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Path: not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnus.ding Original-Lines: 73 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: paradoxical.net Original-X-Trace: quimby.gnus.org 1028158148 13817 66.92.73.76 (31 Jul 2002 23:29:08 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby.gnus.org Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2002 23:29:08 GMT Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter, i686-pc-linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:A+RzzIsRB6GRkDcZxiGXvE4vSl8= Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:45919 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:45919 Scott A Crosby writes: > TMDA is an end-user system, there will be misconfigurations of it, > and bad reimplementations.. Hell, I got a vacation message from a > message to this mailing list only an hour ago... After 20 years, > you'd think they'd not be writing broken vacation programs anymore. I agree, but you can hardly blame TMDA for bad re-implementations, right? (btw, I got the same vacation message!) > Sure.. I could configure TMDA to not act like an idiot. (well, > mostly, I'd still screw up a little and harass some mail admins), > but I'm not a typical user. I see where you're coming from here. Something like TDMA does require some effort and know-how to configure and use. It will be interesting to see what really happens over the next few years with junk email. For the moment, I think *I'm* using TMDA in a responsible manner, if I feel like it's too much burden on others I'll stop using it. > ''If X uses his common sense, this won't happen.'' > > And what if X isn't aware of all the subtle issues? Which is what > you'd expect from most people and implementations out there. Well, okay. I really see what you're saying here. I think a tool like TMDA is pretty powerful and used incorrectly it could be an incredible pain in the ass to everyone. (see for example all the poorly designed virus sanners spamming mailing lists out there) > Or, this is interesting: > > ''headers 'X-Delivery-Agent:.*TMDA' ok'' > > to auto-allow-TMDA messages through. So, start putting that on all > of your email. Personally, I don't think this is a good solution and wouldn't recommend using this kind of a rule with TMDA, but it is available. > I don't know.... if 6% of my outgoing email required confirmation, > I'd be pretty annoyed. Autoreplying to one or two TMDA's a day costs > me a lot more time than skimming my spam folder for accidental false > positives. I agree, 6% is a lot. Of course, not too much information is there wrt this figure. the 6% may include requesting confirmations from spam as well. > I should apologize.. I've just been reading too much about people > lauding TMDA as being great. However, I think its a fundamentally > bad idea; a perfect example of tragedy of the commons. You keep saying that, but I'm not so sure I agree. Personally, I'm going to wait and see. The tragedy of the commons seems to rely on the fact that there are limited resources, and once these resources are used, they are no longer available. I don't think this is the case with bandwidth. I really do see what you're saying, honestly :) I guess I'm willing to wait and see if it will work, rather then just writing it off as terrible without even trying it. As I've said before, it's worked for me quite well so far but I have yet to see how well it will scale. Perhaps we should stop spamming the list with this discussion since it has very little to do with the development of Gnus :) (btw, please respect my Mail-Copies-To header) ttyl, -- Josh Huber