Subject: Re: AD's

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:52:01 +0000

At 08:28 AM 1/19/99 -0700, Michael T Kibbe wrote:
>since when were these discussion groups open field day for advertisements?

They're not open for such a field day. Now, the guy probably thinks he's
complying with the California law that says "you're allowed to SPAM
somebody if you put 'ADV:' in your subject line, because a recipient can
put a filter in to block your SPAM." Unfortunately, he didn't put "ADV:",
he put "AD:", and we have people we call ADs, so I can't put a filter on
the IETF list that says "delete anything with the letters 'AD:'".

Translation: he's a jerk for spamming the list, he's trying to be a good
little jerk by attempting to comply with the law, but he proved himself
either an uninformed jerk or a stupid jerk, in the he missed compliance by
one character, and he spammed a whole bunch of lists the same uninformed or
stupid way.

Recall that I can't use a filter of the form "drop all traffic that doesn't
originate with a list member" because the IETF list has a lot of local
exploders - most list recipients are not subscribers to the main list.

Your recommendation? 

I have a recommendation about the law. First, everybody who lives in
California should file a lawsuit against this idiot citing the law and
citing the SPAM. Second, everybody who lives in California should vote in a
manner consistent with what he thinks about a law that reads "it's OK to
SPAM people..."

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:30:20 +0000 (GMT)

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Fred Baker wrote:
> They're not open for such a field day.

The evidence of the spam suggests otherwise; trespass is technically
possible.

> exploders - most list recipients are not subscribers to the main list.

most list recipients are not posters to the main list, either.

> Your recommendation? 

Either:

a. forget about local exploders and require everyone to subscribe to
   the main list. You can then implement the entirely sensible filter
   above. Problem solved.

b. implement a simple filter under majordomo that looks for a key
   phrase in the body of an email and does not forward anything not
   containing that phrase. Pick a short phrase like
   'IETF secret decoder ring'
   or somesuch.
   That would certainly cut down on thoughtless cc's. Posters are a
   minority compared to overall list membership, so the quiet majority
   will not be inconvenienced by this requirement.

c. set up another address for submissions to this mailing list, which
   then pass through to [email-masked]. Drop all traffic that doesn't
   pass through this other address. Change the submission address
   whenever spam becomes a problem.

d. drop all traffic that doesn't originate with a list member. Provide
   a second address for members on exploders to post through via
   forwards, that is itself a list member. Change this address if/when
   necessary. Discourage people from subscribing local exploders
   in an attempt to move towards a position where a. is reached.

Of course, since implementing any of these requires a change, however
slight, to current practice, nothing will happen bar me shortly
receiving a helpful List of Good Reasons Why Nothing Can Be Done.

I'd be willing to settle for an 'ietf+censored' MHonArc webarchive I
can check once every so often and forgetting entirely about getting
this list as email. After all, it's not as if I have to be a
subscriber if I want to say anything... 

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:30:20 +0000 (GMT)

Either:

L.

---

From: "A. Wik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:05:29 +0000

>    in an attempt to move towards a position where a. is reached.

e. drop obviously forged messages

---

From: "A. Wik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:05:29 +0000

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:55:08 -0500

> e. drop obviously forged messages

Unfortunately, specifying "obviously forged" in a programmatic
way is a lot harder than it looks.  The biggest problem is that
"obviously" is in the mind of the beholder.  It's easy to write
a filter for the *really* blatantly obvious junk - but I've noticed
that those filters are tripping less and less, and I have to keep
adding more sophisticated filtering.

Consider it evolution in action... ;(

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:55:08 -0500

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)

>    the main list. You can then implement the entirely sensible filter

As has been pointed out before, it is a simple matter of requiring
all posters to be subscribed to the main list with the possiblity
of subscribing without content distribution. So users of exploders
have the simple requirement that they register with the main list
before they post. No loss of the network friendliness of exploders
and content filters.

Dave Morris

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)

Dave Morris

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:41:57 -0500

> before they post. No loss of the network friendliness of exploders

This presupposes that you're using list management software that
understands the concept of being subscribed to a list but not actually
receiving mail from it.  LSoft's Listserv software understands this,
but I don't know if Majordomo or other similar packages do.

It's always "a simple matter" until you find out that your 
software doesn't support it, and that migrating/modifying/etc
is prohibitively difficult.  I'm currently working on one
project where it turned out to be easier to just decomission
the whole mainframe than update the software to stop spamming....

				Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:41:57 -0500

Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:01:02 +0100

At 13:23 19/01/99 -0800, David W. Morris wrote:
>As has been pointed out before

Quite.  One of the most insipid characteristics of SPAM is the amount of
bandwidth consumed by the subsequent discussion of how nasty spammers are.

This discussion about moderating / filtering the IETF list seems to come up
with increasing regularity. Lets get back to the topic for which this list
is intended. Please.

John

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:01:02 +0100

John

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)

> with increasing regularity. Lets get back to the topic for which this list

Perhaps if the powers that control the software chosen to run this list
and administer that software would follow just some of the many useful
suggestions, we'd have less spam and less discussion of that spam.

These suggestions were made well before the 'upgrade' to using majordomo 
to run the list ... one would hope that the leadership of the IETF would
have made sure that appropriate requirements were made on choice of
software.

Since this list is the only forum for discussing the operation of the
list, you'll just have to put up withe SPAM echos along with the
rest of putting up with your suggestions.

Dave Morris

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)

Dave Morris

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:53:28 +0100

>rest of putting up with your suggestions.

There's a separate mailing list set up (by me) for discussing methods
for moderating or otherwise "taming" the IETF list.

Archives: http://www.alvestrand.no/archives/ietf-moderation
To subscribe: mailto:[email-masked]?body=subscribe

I advise reading the archives before posting; the list has been quiet
for a while, but there was some worthwhile discussion near the beginning.

                           Harald A

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:53:28 +0100

Harald A