Paul Howarth wrote:
I'd hope that the guidelines are well peer-reviewed so that problematic suggestions such as (2) can be weeded out before they're cast in stone. Whatever anti-spam measures Red Hat have in place for this list already seem to work *very well*, given the almost entire lack of spam on this list (the "computer for sale" message earlier today was one of the very very few that got through, and that wasn't a classic mail-to-all-and- sundry spam either), and I don't see any urgent need to change that.
Paul,
The guidelines are "peer-reviewed", or whatever comes closer to this: suggestions only get there after discussed here, and *if* there is some sort of consensus about it.
Point (1) has been seconded by you, I assume. Point (2) had two negative answers so far. Let's wait to see how this develops...
I believe (1) should be harmless for an English language list such as fedora-list, although there might be a case where a far-eastern poster with a substantial .sig containing "big" characters could trigger base64 encoding of a predominantly English language message. As has been noted before, I think there's so little spam on this list that the need for extra measures is just not there.
This was sparked by my subscription being suspended for too many bounces. I've asked for an explanation from the list manager but this far there's been no responses.
Since my logwatch report showed some FC mail being bounced because it infringes on _my_ antispam, my best guess is that that caused the suspension.
I've thought for a while that mailman is a little fragile, I think is says "n bounces is too many" where n is a small number chosen without regard for the amount of mail, including the notification that the account has been suspended, does not bounce.
It's perfectly possible for a user's account to be suspended with neither the user nor the users' mail admin having any idea as to why. What if a spammer uses this email address for his spam? (it's happened with one of my other addresses).
_I_ am going to continue with my current antispam rules, they have been quite effective in reducing the amount of spam I receive.
I _may_ exclude RH from some of the rules depending on the outcome here. Probably, at the same time I will prevent people from sending me off-list replies:-)
--
Cheers John
-- spambait 1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
