Re: LYNX-DEV lynx-dev list status/problems

[uid no body]

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Al Gilman wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> IMMEDIATE:
> 
> So long as this is the case, you can at least use the spambait@
> address to post from and possibly reduce your exposure to spammers.

This should help for now.

> CONTINUING:
> 
> Filter rules: 
> 
> Any spam that I get these days has invoked my edress in a Bcc:
> header.  It doesn't appear in either To: or Cc: headers.  This is
> my idea of the first filter we should apply to messages which
> arrive at SigNet for delivery to lynx-dev.  This is a rule that
> messages are suspect unless they contain either "lynx-dev" or
> "address@hidden" in their To: or Cc: header value.  I am hopeful that
> that kind of rule can be done either in standard MajorDomo
> configuration media or via Perl patched into MajorDomo that
> SigNet will tolerate (and MajorDomo will want to incorporate).

I think you should be able to invoke procmail first and then majordomo,
and procmail should be easier to create a recipe for.  Suspect messages
can then go to a bouncer.

For my processing, I actually run procmail twice, first to filter out
known spamsites (among other things) into an incoming folder, then I
formail that folder splitting it by topic (e.g. lynx-dev goes into my
lynx-dev folder).

> Edress exposure at the archive:
> 
> Any sweep that comes across my FAQ gets into the message pages of
> the archive, and could crawl from there to the indices and all
> messages.  Putting a form at the front door doesn't mean that
> there aren't back doors.

Many also key off the date, so a 3-month-old post flagged as such is less
likely to cause problems (note how alta vista has start and end dates).

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;