Le 13/12/2010 15:33, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit :
Michelle Konzack wrote:
300-500 INVITE spams per day from more than 400 socialnetworks
worldwide is realy annoying or better, I would call it
terrorism.
On 12.12.10 22:03, Per Jessen wrote:
Just reject them all?
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Do those invitations contain headers by whose they could be
detected and that would prevent them to be passed to mailing lists?
On 13.12.10 09:55, Per Jessen wrote:
Yep. The mailing list operator could just reject everything coming
from/via "mem...@linkedin.com" (that is my most recent invitation
came from). Of course, the real issue is probably lists that don't
require subscription.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
No. Such mails should contain something that would not be re-sent to
any kind of mailing lists, such a Precedence: or similar headers, so
the list operator should not be required to do anything.
On 13.12.10 11:50, Per Jessen wrote:
AFAICT, there is no resending involved here. linkedin (and others) is
given a long list of addresses to which to send inviattions. Linkedin
can't determine that an address is a list-address, so isn't it only the
list manager that can reject such invitations?
there are ways to avoid redistribution of mail messages, as there are ways
to avoid receiving bounces and OOO-messaged on them.
If linkedin sends that many messages, it can insert headers that would avoid
this behaviour.
like what? please give details instead of generic medicine.
which headers would prevent resending by debian lists?
linkedin send messages to individual addresses. the fact that debian
lists are open isn't _their_ problem.
List admins can and should prevent resending of unwelcome messages (spam) to
lists.
Nah. list admins do what they want. they decide the list policy and
handling spam is part of the policy.
debian lists are _open_. read it again: _open_. this is a philosophy.
can you hear it saying "despite the spam, despite the vigilantes,
despite anything: we'll stay open"?
whatever you say, debian lists are still usable. despite the junk that
slips. and really, I see more "junk" on the SA list than on debian lists
(on debian lists, with a threaded view, I can easily skip mail that I
know I don't care for. on SA, subject lines are hardly useful).
But no list admins can know all kinds of invitations and bulk/automated
messages to fill their filters with.
I think that anyone sending invites and similar messages should make every
possible effort to avoid his messages being broadcaster over the internet
etc.
and he does that how? how can I know that j...@example.com is a mailing
list?
- there is no registry of mailing list addresses
- there is no standard that dictates mailing list adresses
- it is a fact that mailing list email and individual email uses the
same protocol and infrastructure
