On 25 Feb 2004 at 9:22, Dave Aronson wrote:
On Wed February 25 2004 05:50, gnulinux(_at_)pacinfo(_dot_)com wrote:
> spending way too much of my time culling spam from
> my real email even though i'm employing the latest
> spam filtering tools.
Having the latest tools means nothing, unless they are used right. Are
i'm using them correctly
> mailing lists could use the same recipe, no
> messages would be handed over to the listserv
> software unless it was signed by a whitelisted
Requiring digsigs on a list would help cut down on spammers forging list
members' addies to spam "only members can post" lists. Also, this is
one of the few lists where I'd think most people would be clueful
enough to do it.
However, would it be worth the bother? Unless there's some poor sod
if it wasn't clear, having list members sign messages
in order to post isn't my request. it was just a
comment about an additional possibility.
Here's an alternate angle for you to chew on. Try coming up with some
sort of mechanism that could easily be built into all MUAs, MTAs,
mailing list managers, anti-spam "solutions", and all other programs
designing a complex total solution isn't an approach
that works for me. in my experience small foolproof
steps in the direction of my vision have proven to be
much more fruitful.
> to the folks whose comments i'm replying to for
> not referencing their names (i didn't have the
You ask us to take the time to implement a new mechanism of dubious
the value in having the list processor sign all posts
is simple. guaranteed identification of the list
traffic for any recipient who decides to verify
Meanwhile, you won't take the time to mention ournames so that
we can at least go quickly to the part of your email that concerns us,
nor break it up into individual pieces so as to at least preserve the
subject lines. Talk about cooperating....
the posts i was replying to were part of lengthy
threads around the same issue. my intention was to
collect various concerns and reply to them to help
elucidate my perspective. it was more efficient than
trying to write commentary from scratch that covered
all the same points. i wasn't looking for specific
dialogue with particular posters. just wanted to use
the existing dialogue to create a summary of sorts.
if you look you should notice that i did create three
sections (for the three different threads i pulled
thread: ietf - proposal for built-in spam burden
& email privacy protection
thread: ietf - how not to filter spam
thread: tidbits - digital signatures in tidbits
the quotes under each section are taken from those
As for the lengthy conglomeration of your replies to other messages,
forget it, I for one am not slogging through that mess, even though I
see you replied to something I wrote.
sorry you found the structure of my post unhelpful. i
did attempt to make it easy to peruse. if it's not
too much trouble i do request that you browse through
the rest of my post. i am very much wanting dialogue
around the issue of having the list digitally signed
by the list processor.