From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/44109 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Spam spam spam spam spam Date: 31 Mar 2002 17:00:37 -0500 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017612145 5268 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2002 22:02:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rnP6-0001Mr-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 00:02:24 +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 16rnOb-0006hT-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:01:53 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:02:00 -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 QAA25286 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:01:49 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 26752 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2002 22:01:38 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 26747 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 22:01:37 -0000 Original-Received: from h0060978d8c91.ne.client2.attbi.com (HELO peorth.gweep.net) (uhnfih@24.218.202.161) by gnus.org with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 22:01:37 -0000 Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost) by peorth.gweep.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2VM0cC04063; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:00:38 -0500 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 46 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44109 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44109 * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen on Sat, 30 Mar 2002 | My objection to TDMA is basically this -- it requires that the sender | deals with the problem. If somebody sends me a mail, I don't want | them to have to respond to some automatic message before being allowed | to actually communicate with me. It seems unneighborly. And spam | hasn't annoyed me to that point. Yet. Ditto. I use a combination of things. It has worked quite well without inconveniencing legitimate senders. First line of defense is spamcop. Yes, it is a pay service, but it isn't expensive and it -works-, and it makes it easy to send complaints to the right people or simply ignore the spam. All non-list mail I receive gets routed through spamcop via procmail with a rule that looks like this: ,----- | :0 | * !^X-SpamCop-REPORTSPAM.* | * !^X-SpamCop-Checked:.* | * !^Return-Path: | ! samurairat@spamcop.net `----- Only reason I do that is because I get a lot of list mail and running it all through spamcopy would be slow, not neighborly, and would probably block a lot of otherwise legitimate stuff. Second line is DCC invoked on every message via fetchmail, formail, and dccproc: ,----- | mda "/usr/bin/formail -b | /usr/local/bin/dccproc >>/var/spool/mail/ratinox" `----- And Gnus traps spam based on the X-DCC-*-Metrics headers that dccproc generates. Very little spam manages to get through all of that. -- Rat \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration. That and five bucks will get you a small coffee at Starbucks.