Celejar wrote:
> I'm not trying to flame, but people have repeatedly pointed out that
> most of the OT stuff is in threads marked 'OT', so filtering on that
> could be helpful (although it obviously won't save your bandwidth).
YMMV, but about the same can be said about the (relatively small) numbe
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:19:57 +0100
Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> If I define spam as "mail that wastes my bandwidth and time without
> being related to the list's topic" then by far the worst are the
> way-off-topic threads on d-u sent in by valid users. I guess they
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Joe Emenaker wrote:
to deliver mail. Hosts that *aren't* on the list have their initial
connections dropped. If they connect again to try to deliver a little later,
then they're allowed to send and they're added to the whitelist.
They're not dropped, they're given a _vali
Ian Greenhoe wrote:
> [I am *trying* not to stir up a bee's nest here, since I know that this
> is a topic on which many people have very strong opinions.]
>
> I emphatically agree that something needs to be done about the volumes
> of spam we are getting.
If I define spam as "mail that wastes m
Ian Greenhoe wrote:
> Actually, if those aren't the originator of the mail, then there is
> little point of letting it through.
... and there is *no* point in spamming *them* via the list ... (just
because they have fallen victim to a forged sender address)
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 3/20/07 4:05 PM, "Ian Greenhoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Non-subscribers who have not successfully posted before:
>
> First, the message is put in a temporary queue.
>
> Second, an auto-generated message is sent to the "From:" address and
> the "Reply-To:" address.
Ugh! at least a thir
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 08:08 +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> ... neither of which are the originator of the message. Thanks for making
> the problem worse. Please don't do this.
Actually, if those aren't the originator of the mail, then there is
little point of letting it through.
I am not going to res
Hi,
First, sorry for my poor english...
Le 13592ième jour après Epoch,
Ian Greenhoe écrivait:
> I emphatically agree that something needs to be done about the volumes
> of spam we are getting.
I'm not sure the signal/noise ratio is so bad.
[...about grey-listing...]
> Second, an auto-genera
Ian Greenhoe wrote:
I think that grey listing is probably the best solution. I've stated
this opinion in the past, and have not changed it.
Grey listing is a combination of white listing and black listing:
Well, not exactly. That last sentence makes it sound like grey-listing
is merely using
Ian Greenhoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Non-subscribers who have not successfully posted before:
>
> First, the message is put in a temporary queue.
>
> Second, an auto-generated message is sent to the "From:" address and
> the "Reply-To:" address.
... neither of which are the originator
[I am *trying* not to stir up a bee's nest here, since I know that this
is a topic on which many people have very strong opinions.]
I emphatically agree that something needs to be done about the volumes
of spam we are getting.
With that said this is not a moderated list and non-subscribers can
po
I think the moderator must take care of these subscribes and do not
allow spam to get inside the list.
Although there are plenty of things I can do on my side to reduce spam
like subscribe for no-mail and read mails through web etc., still, a
constant vigilance on the subscribers will help reduce
Title: FREE Ezine from ArcaMax, Inc.
More from ArcaMax.com!
Funnies
|
Puzzle Games
|
Quizzes
|
Unsubscribe
Celebrate America's 400th Anniversary
www.ArcaMa
13 matches
Mail list logo
