qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Roman Neuhauser]

Hi there,

I just talked to the kind people from sunsite.dk, and they told me two
things will happen as soon as the person{,s} responsible for the list
ack this action:

    1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about, could cover
       -workers@ if needed) will be protected by qconfirm, which means
       that non-subscribers will be required to confirm their posts.

    2) the ezmlm config will be modified to stop removing Received:
       headers from incoming messages (my personal pet peeve :)

This means: the sunsite.dk admins are aware of the situation, and ready
to act, all we need is a simple "go for it" instead of to those endless,
and fruitless, discussions. So please Mr{,s}. Listowner, whoever you
are, contact staff@sunsite.dk, and tell them to go for it.

-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html

RE: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Borzenkov Andrey]

> 
> I just talked to the kind people from sunsite.dk, and they told me two
> things will happen as soon as the person{,s} responsible for the list
> ack this action:
> 
>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about, could cover
>        -workers@ if needed) will be protected by qconfirm, which means
>        that non-subscribers will be required to confirm their posts.
> 
>     2) the ezmlm config will be modified to stop removing Received:
>        headers from incoming messages (my personal pet peeve :)
> 
> This means: the sunsite.dk admins are aware of the situation, and ready
> to act, all we need is a simple "go for it" instead of to those endless,
> and fruitless, discussions. So please Mr{,s}. Listowner, whoever you
> are, contact staff@sunsite.dk, and tell them to go for it.
> 

Agreed with one question - currently I need to subscribe to one list only,
i.e. mail is forwarded zsh-announce -> zsh-users -> zsh-workers. As
subscriber to zsh-workers I definitely would not like to confirm posts to
zsh-users. If this can be done - please, switch to confirmation mode.

I would prefer if both lists were protected.

I am not sure is there is anybody officially in charge ... Geoff, Peter,
Bart?

-andrey

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Peter Stephenson]

Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> I just talked to the kind people from sunsite.dk, and they told me two
> things will happen as soon as the person{,s} responsible for the list
> ack this action:
> 
>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about, could cover
>        -workers@ if needed) will be protected by qconfirm, which means
>        that non-subscribers will be required to confirm their posts.
> 
>     2) the ezmlm config will be modified to stop removing Received:
>        headers from incoming messages (my personal pet peeve :)
> 
> This means: the sunsite.dk admins are aware of the situation, and ready
> to act, all we need is a simple "go for it" instead of to those endless,
> and fruitless, discussions. So please Mr{,s}. Listowner, whoever you
> are, contact staff@sunsite.dk, and tell them to go for it.

There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me, are there
any violent objections?

Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related stuff... do you
want to decide finally about this, Oliver?

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Oliver Kiddle]

On 21 Jan, you wrote:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > I just talked to the kind people from sunsite.dk, and they told me two
> > things will happen as soon as the person{,s} responsible for the list
> > ack this action:
> > 
> >     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about, could cover
> >        -workers@ if needed) will be protected by qconfirm, which means
> >        that non-subscribers will be required to confirm their posts.
> > 
> >     2) the ezmlm config will be modified to stop removing Received:
> >        headers from incoming messages (my personal pet peeve :)
> > 
> > This means: the sunsite.dk admins are aware of the situation, and ready
> > to act, all we need is a simple "go for it" instead of to those endless,
> > and fruitless, discussions. So please Mr{,s}. Listowner, whoever you
> > are, contact staff@sunsite.dk, and tell them to go for it.
> 
> There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me, are there
> any violent objections?
> 
> Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related stuff... do you
> want to decide finally about this, Oliver?

Karsten held off the qconfirm stuff in the past precisely because of
Andrej's concern with the zsh-users -> zsh-workers forwarding and I've
heard nothing to indicate that it has been solved. Mails since sometime
on Saturday have carried an X-MessageWall-Score header so it seems like
MessageWall is in place. I'd suggest we give that a chance before
further hassling of the people at sunsite.dk. Otherwise I can ask
Karsten about qconfirm.

Oliver

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Paul Lew]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> writes:

    Peter> There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me,
    Peter> are there any violent objections?

    Peter> Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related
    Peter> stuff... do you want to decide finally about this, Oliver?

How about require a zsh specific header like:

    X-zsh: ....

Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message.

Advantage:
    * no need for confirmation wait
    * reduce network traffic

DisAdvantage:
    * add this header when posting

RE: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Borzenkov Andrey]

> 
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> writes:
> 
>     Peter> There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me,
>     Peter> are there any violent objections?
> 
>     Peter> Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related
>     Peter> stuff... do you want to decide finally about this, Oliver?
> 
> How about require a zsh specific header like:
> 
>     X-zsh: ....
> 
> Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message.
> 
> Advantage:
>     * no need for confirmation wait
>     * reduce network traffic
> 
> DisAdvantage:
>     * add this header when posting

I personally say "no" unless you explain how to add custom headers to mail
sent to specific address only in Outlook.

Confirmation mode looks like the least evil (if current measures do not
work). I can put up with need to subscribe to both lists if it is absolutely
necessary.

-andrey

RE: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Paul Lew]

>>>>> "Andrey" == Borzenkov Andrey <Andrey.Borzenkov@siemens.com> writes:

    >> How about require a zsh specific header like:
    >> 
    >> X-zsh: ....
    >> 
    >> Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message.
    >> 
    >> Advantage:
    >> * no need for confirmation wait
    >> * reduce network traffic
    >> 
    >> DisAdvantage:
    >> * add this header when posting

    Andrey> I personally say "no" unless you explain how to add custom
    Andrey> headers to mail sent to specific address only in Outlook.

I was thinking the simple way, manually insert a line after Subject
line before you press send button.  However, I am not sure if one can
insert header lines with typical mailer.  I use emacs, in emacs, this
is just insert a line.

    Andrey> Confirmation mode looks like the least evil (if current
    Andrey> measures do not work). I can put up with need to subscribe
    Andrey> to both lists if it is absolutely necessary.

One problem with this method is the round trip time might just be
too long for some location and become a nuisance.

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Will Yardley]

Borzenkov Andrey wrote:
> "Peter" == Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> writes:

>>>  There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me, are
>>>  there any violent objections?

>>>  Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related stuff... do
>>>  you want to decide finally about this, Oliver?

>> How about require a zsh specific header like:

>>     X-zsh: ....
>> 
>> Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message.
>> 
>> Advantage:
>>     * no need for confirmation wait
>>     * reduce network traffic
>> 
>> DisAdvantage:
>>     * add this header when posting
 
> I personally say "no" unless you explain how to add custom headers to
> mail sent to specific address only in Outlook.

Well one suggestion would be "Don't use Lookout!". That said, I don't
think it's safe to assume that all list members can easily add custom
headers... With most console based mailers (which most people who post
to the list frequently seem to use).

I personally think that subscriber only posting (but allowing
non-members to post with confirmation) is the best way to go. 

I think that most of the time, I see more viruses / spam coming from
this list than actual list traffic... At the very least, I'll echo the
request to stop stripping Received lines. This makes it difficult /
impossible to report spam and viruses sent to the list, and also
probably reduces the effectiveness of some spam filters.

> Confirmation mode looks like the least evil (if current measures do
> not work). I can put up with need to subscribe to both lists if it is
> absolutely necessary.

I'm not sure exactly what needs to happen, but it seems like it would be
pretty trivial to configure the MLM to allow traffic from one list to
the other, if that's what needs to be done. I don't know EZMLM, but this
would be pretty simple in Mailman.

-- 
Will Yardley
input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Cosmo]

Paul Lew wrote:
>>>>>>"Andrey" == Borzenkov Andrey <Andrey.Borzenkov@siemens.com> writes:

>     Andrey> Confirmation mode looks like the least evil (if current
>     Andrey> measures do not work). I can put up with need to subscribe
>     Andrey> to both lists if it is absolutely necessary.
> 
> One problem with this method is the round trip time might just be
> too long for some location and become a nuisance.

And a constant stream of spam *isn't* a nuisance? If it were a nuisance for
someone they would be sending a few mails to the list, therefore they would
be interested in the list, therefore they are very likely to subscribe, even
just to participate in one thread.

My company mail system nukes anything with a virus but I still get a mangled
mail each time, along with all the other spam. I'm mostly on a dialup so a lot
of unwanted mail is much more annoying than confirming for each time I post (since
that's not very often).

No automatic filtering system is 100% accurate, confirmation for non-subscribers
would be my vote.




Cosmo

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Roman Neuhauser]

# Andrey.Borzenkov@siemens.com / 2003-01-22 09:28:35 +0300:
> > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> writes:
> > 
> >     Peter> There's no-one here but us chickens.  This sounds OK by me,
> >     Peter> are there any violent objections?
> > 
> >     Peter> Oliver tends to deal with a lot of the Sunsite-related
> >     Peter> stuff... do you want to decide finally about this, Oliver?
> > 
> > How about require a zsh specific header like:
> > 
> >     X-zsh: ....
> > 
> > Non X-zsh email will be bounced with a warning message.
> > 
> > Advantage:
> >     * no need for confirmation wait
> >     * reduce network traffic
> > 
> > DisAdvantage:
> >     * add this header when posting
> 
> I personally say "no" unless you explain how to add custom headers to mail
> sent to specific address only in Outlook.

    Just say "no" (to Outlook)!

    seriously though: how many people on the list use zsh on Windows?

    but this is all void: it's job of the server software to take care
    of the users -> workers forwarding, and posters should not be forced
    to do anything special about it.
 
-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Karsten Thygesen]

>>>>> "Roman" == Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@bellavista.cz> writes:

 Roman>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about,
 Roman> could cover -workers@ if needed) will be protected by
 Roman> qconfirm, which means that non-subscribers will be required to
 Roman> confirm their posts.

Is that really required based on traffic since saturday? Last
saturday, we installed Messagewall for all sunsite mails, so the
spam/vira level should have dropped to a pretty low level. So is the
request still valid? Have you seen a lot spam since saturday?

 Roman>     2) the ezmlm config will be modified to stop removing
 Roman> Received: headers from incoming messages (my personal pet
 Roman> peeve :)

Done!

Karsten

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Mads Martin Joergensen]

* Karsten Thygesen <karthy@karthy.net> [Jan 22. 2003 19:22]:
>  Roman>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about,
>  Roman> could cover -workers@ if needed) will be protected by
>  Roman> qconfirm, which means that non-subscribers will be required to
>  Roman> confirm their posts.
> 
> Is that really required based on traffic since saturday? Last
> saturday, we installed Messagewall for all sunsite mails, so the
> spam/vira level should have dropped to a pretty low level. So is the
> request still valid? Have you seen a lot spam since saturday?

For me the list have been normalized, the spam is almost completely
gone.

-- 
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                -- A. P. J.

RE: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Borzenkov Andrey]

> 
>  Roman>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about,
>  Roman> could cover -workers@ if needed) will be protected by
>  Roman> qconfirm, which means that non-subscribers will be required to
>  Roman> confirm their posts.
> 
> Is that really required based on traffic since saturday? Last
> saturday, we installed Messagewall for all sunsite mails, so the
> spam/vira level should have dropped to a pretty low level. So is the
> request still valid? Have you seen a lot spam since saturday?
> 

the spam volume has decreased but it is still there. Lists known to me that
do use confirmation do not have spam at all. Some other high-volume lists
(lkml as the very good example) have much better signal to noise ratio
comparing with zsh lists.

-andrey

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

['Roman Neuhauser']

# Andrey.Borzenkov@siemens.com / 2003-01-31 09:40:24 +0300:
> >  Roman>     1) zsh-users@ (that's what we specifically talked about,
> >  Roman> could cover -workers@ if needed) will be protected by
> >  Roman> qconfirm, which means that non-subscribers will be required to
> >  Roman> confirm their posts.
> > 
> > Is that really required based on traffic since saturday? Last
> > saturday, we installed Messagewall for all sunsite mails, so the
> > spam/vira level should have dropped to a pretty low level. So is the
> > request still valid? Have you seen a lot spam since saturday?
> 
> the spam volume has decreased but it is still there. Lists known to me that
> do use confirmation do not have spam at all. Some other high-volume lists
> (lkml as the very good example) have much better signal to noise ratio
> comparing with zsh lists.

    I think it is obvious now that MessageWall (or whatever it was that
    sunsite.dk people installed) doesn't do its work as it should. Can
    we please settle on qconfirm?

-- 
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.    see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html

Re: qconfirm in front of zsh-users@

[Cosmo]

'Roman Neuhauser' wrote:
> # Andrey.Borzenkov@siemens.com / 2003-01-31 09:40:24 +0300:
>>the spam volume has decreased but it is still there. Lists known to me that
>>do use confirmation do not have spam at all. Some other high-volume lists
>>(lkml as the very good example) have much better signal to noise ratio
>>comparing with zsh lists.
> 
> 
>     I think it is obvious now that MessageWall (or whatever it was that
>     sunsite.dk people installed) doesn't do its work as it should. Can
>     we please settle on qconfirm?

Yup, gets my vote.







Cosmo