From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/40036 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Jason R. Mastaler" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: thoughts on spam Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 13:04:58 -0700 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87y9m9fs6b.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> <87elo1exsd.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> <20011102160930.CC3D1BD52@squeaker.lickey.com> <87wv192jzh.fsf_-_@mclinux.com> <861yjgbygz.fsf@duchess.twilley.org> <20011102235444.E9C73BD48@squeaker.lickey.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035175649 31108 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:47:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:47:29 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 24467 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 20:06:55 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 20:06:55 -0000 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 160q05-0006nu-00; Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:05:41 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:05:22 -0600 (CST) 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 OAA13879 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:05:02 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 24432 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2001 20:05:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 24427 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 20:05:03 -0000 Original-Received: from localhost (HELO nightshade.la.mastaler.com) (jason@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 20:05:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 620 invoked by uid 666); 5 Nov 2001 20:04:59 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Copies-To: never X-Face: "Whz7py/hGVg+:}u&Q$/5z>j)gy%qNRX{j]0xGF&?Z"^b3`[6dY'^jSDlZDHh$m1~YX6U3J 1gOce%&je3)lVMOa/P,=9Kj:lmZb6]1hMmam*SW$GrVPa>b05y9/svb[uX.i><]^; iE1^(p_*=eLQJ6g$[aOX9I#`DCP\^O=RR:7|95hZ In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "04 Nov 2001 03:40:49 -0500") Original-Lines: 49 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial Intelligence, i386-unknown-freebsd4.4) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA v0.41/Python 2.1.1 (freebsd4) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:40036 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:40036 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > TDMA and puts the onus on the sender. I think this is bad because > for every "power user" like me there are hundreds if not thousands > who are utterly confused when they get a warning, "unable to > deliver, will try again in N hours" and want to know if their mail > was delivered. These people Just Don't Get It, and they -never- > will. These are the people who will generate false positives > against TDMA. I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the average e-mail user. Confirming a message through TMDA requires less effort than subscribing to a mailing list, and some of the least technical people imaginable (my landlord, my aunt, etc.) were not confused by the process. Also, e-mail awareness/competence will continue to increase as time goes on making this less and less of an issue. > They will be confused by TDMA's "do this to get on my whitelist" > response because it is not the nothingness they expect, and most of > them will simply ignore it and never send you anything again. In practice, this isn't the case. TMDA allows you to save a copy of the confirmed message before storing it for confirmation, so you can check for these cases if you want, but I've found it isn't necessary. > And then there are those like me. If I am in a pissy mood and I get > something like that from TDMA, I could very well say "fuck that," delete > it, and killfile you so that I never have to deal with a fundamentally > brain-damaged mail system. So be it. If you are too lazy to reply to a one-time confirmation message, it tells me your message probably isn't worth reading. And the confirmation is for a good cause, it doesn't indicate a "brain-damaged mail system". > The RISK here is that you will never know that this has happened. Again, this isn't true. You can save the message before confirming as I mentioned, scan the pending queue periodically, etc. > Their new heuristic system works because they have -the- largest > database of spam and spammers in the world from which to derive > them, and that database is constantly being updated. Updated yes, but after the fact. This strategy is old-hat and simply doesn't work well enough for my tastes. Use what makes you most comfortable. Enough said.