You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com> on 2014/10/27 21:45:17 UTC
Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
So...
How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
Do we have the technology? :)
Regards,
David.
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:56 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:33:04 +0100
> Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > > > > Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but
> > > > > they don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of
> > > > them) would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the
> > > > un-subscription for them, is flawed. ;)
> > >
> > > This assumption is unwarranted. I did not say that.
> >
> > You said that the unsubscribe-to-list posting user would not learn and
> > get lazy, when those posts get redirected to the owner rather than
> > hitting the list.
>
> Not exactly what I said.
In the part you snipped of my previous post, I asked you to explain what
you did mean, if not what I discussed in detail.
This response is not helpful, neither constructive.
> > Not learning: False. As I said, moderators would respond with
> > explanation and instructions. In particular learning about his mistake
> > and how to properly (and in future) unsubscribe, does make him learn.
> > Since we'd not just unsub him, the user will even have to proof that
> > he learned, by following procedures unsubscribing himself.
>
> False as evidenced by how the same people repeat the same thing on
> the same list and on other lists. Got it.
Show me an example of one subscriber repeating this mistake on this
list.
Show me an example of one subscriber repeating this mistake on this
list, after the proposed and discussed "redirect to owner" procedure is
in effect, which is meant to help with the issue.
You cannot possibly show the latter, since it is not yet in effect. So
there is no "evidence" as you just claimed. Moreover, there is
absolutely no basis to your "evidence" claim, that directly approaching
those subscribers by moderators would not make them learn.
You'll have a really hard time showing the first, too.
Got it. (Not a native English speaker, what's that supposed to mean in
the context of your quote? Equivalent of a foot-stomp?)
> > Getting lazy: People are lazy. But since there's absolutely nothing we
> > would simply do for them, there's no potential in the process to get
> > lazy over. They will have to read and understand how to do it. And
> > they will have to follow every step of the unsub procedure themselves.
>
> The long form of saying we're agreed. And one of the reasons to
> automate the process.
Fun research project for you in strong favor of automation: How many
such posts did this list get in the last month? Statistically irrelevant
spike. Last 6 months? Last year? Two years?
I am a moderator of this list. I do know that handling those bad unsub
requests manually would be barely noticeable compared to the general
moderation load. Which isn't high either.
> > > Did you read the rest of the message?
> >
> > Yes. And quite frankly, "catching unsub messages and bouncing them
> > with a note" as you mentioned is almost identical to the proposed
> > "redirect them to owner" to handle it. With the latter involving
> > moderators, having the advantage, that we can and will offer
> > additional help if need be.
>
> Having the listserver catch the messages and handle them is
> "almost identical" to redirecting them to the owner for manual
> handling? I could see that if list owners still managed lists
> manually. But there's this nifty new software that manages lists
> automatically, freeing the list owners from all that drudge work.
I am very sorry, but it appears you have absolutely no clue what nursing
mailing lists today means.
Yes, all subscription (and un-subscription) is handled automatically. No
owner intervention, not even notices. Automation.
What we mostly do face is posts by non-subscribers. Mostly spam (just
ignore), but also a non-negligible amount of valid posts by
non-subscribers, or list-replies by subscribers using a wrong address.
The latter outweighs by far the amount of non-subscribers.
Unsub posts to the list? About the same as non-subscriber posts. Very
limited. Almost negligible, if some rare samples won't trigger an
on-list shitstorm.
With the proposed process in place, I would have spent less lime
managing and resolving the last 12 months' bad unsub requests, than it
took me arguing with you about something that really does not concern
you.
> Your assumption is that I am telling you to do all this manually. You
> seemed to be ambivalent about this, not preferring to do it manually but
> seeming to prefer to do it manually.
No. I know from experience that doing this manually is the easiest,
least time consuming solution.
And with no word did I imply you are telling me to do all this manually.
Quite the contrary.
> My assumption was expecting it to occur to everyone that it might be
> done automatically. I really did not expect to have to write to
> ISO-9002 standards on a user list.
Exactly, *might*. Not the best solution in this case.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by jdebert <jd...@garlic.com>.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:33:04 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 11:19 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
> > Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
>
> > > > Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but
> > > > they don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
> > >
> > > Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of
> > > them) would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the
> > > un-subscription for them, is flawed. ;)
> >
> > This assumption is unwarranted. I did not say that.
>
> You said that the unsubscribe-to-list posting user would not learn and
> get lazy, when those posts get redirected to the owner rather than
> hitting the list.
Not exactly what I said.
>
> Not learning: False. As I said, moderators would respond with
> explanation and instructions. In particular learning about his mistake
> and how to properly (and in future) unsubscribe, does make him learn.
> Since we'd not just unsub him, the user will even have to proof that
> he learned, by following procedures unsubscribing himself.
False as evidenced by how the same people repeat the same thing on
the same list and on other lists. Got it.
>
> Getting lazy: People are lazy. But since there's absolutely nothing we
> would simply do for them, there's no potential in the process to get
> lazy over. They will have to read and understand how to do it. And
> they will have to follow every step of the unsub procedure themselves.
>
The long form of saying we're agreed. And one of the reasons to
automate the process.
>
> > Did you read the rest of the message?
>
> Yes. And quite frankly, "catching unsub messages and bouncing them
> with a note" as you mentioned is almost identical to the proposed
> "redirect them to owner" to handle it. With the latter involving
> moderators, having the advantage, that we can and will offer
> additional help if need be.
>
Having the listserver catch the messages and handle them is
"almost identical" to redirecting them to the owner for manual
handling? I could see that if list owners still managed lists
manually. But there's this nifty new software that manages lists
automatically, freeing the list owners from all that drudge work.
Your assumption is that I am telling you to do all this manually. You
seemed to be ambivalent about this, not preferring to do it manually but
seeming to prefer to do it manually.
My assumption was expecting it to occur to everyone that it might be
done automatically. I really did not expect to have to write to
ISO-9002 standards on a user list.
jd
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 11:19 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
> Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> > > Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
> > > don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
> >
> > Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of them)
> > would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the un-subscription
> > for them, is flawed. ;)
>
> This assumption is unwarranted. I did not say that.
You said that the unsubscribe-to-list posting user would not learn and
get lazy, when those posts get redirected to the owner rather than
hitting the list.
Not learning: False. As I said, moderators would respond with
explanation and instructions. In particular learning about his mistake
and how to properly (and in future) unsubscribe, does make him learn.
Since we'd not just unsub him, the user will even have to proof that he
learned, by following procedures unsubscribing himself.
Getting lazy: People are lazy. But since there's absolutely nothing we
would simply do for them, there's no potential in the process to get
lazy over. They will have to read and understand how to do it. And they
will have to follow every step of the unsub procedure themselves.
So if my assumption was really that unwarranted, please explain what
else you did mean with those two sentences.
> Did you read the rest of the message?
Yes. And quite frankly, "catching unsub messages and bouncing them with
a note" as you mentioned is almost identical to the proposed "redirect
them to owner" to handle it. With the latter involving moderators,
having the advantage, that we can and will offer additional help if need
be.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by jdebert <jd...@garlic.com>.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:27:14 +0100
Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> > Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
> > don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
>
> Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of them)
> would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the un-subscription
> for them, is flawed. ;)
This assumption is unwarranted. I did not say that. Did you read the
rest of the message?
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 19:44 -0700, jdebert wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:00:11 -0400
> "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:
> > I've emailed infra with the following request:
> >
> > ...we have been getting consistent unsubscribe messages posted to
> > the entire users list which begs the question if there is a way to
> > redirect those to the mailing list owner instead of just posting
> > them?
>
> Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
> don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
Your assumption, the list moderators (aka owner, me being one of them)
would simply and silently obey and dutifully do the un-subscription for
them, is flawed. ;)
Just as with regular moderation, we'd respond with a template explaining
things, offering instructions -- and additional information on a
case-by-case basis.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by jdebert <jd...@garlic.com>.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:00:11 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 4:48 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > On 10/27/2014 4:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> >> So...
> >>
> >> How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
> >> whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
> >>
> >> Do we have the technology? :)
> > Heh... Apparently more needed than I hoped. I'll have to ask the
> > foundation if they can implement something to achieve this.
> I've emailed infra with the following request:
>
> ...we have been getting consistent unsubscribe messages posted to
> the entire users list which begs the question if there is a way to
> redirect those to the mailing list owner instead of just posting
> them?
>
Redirecting them makes people lazy. Better than annoying but they
don't learn anything except to repeat their mistakes.
Someone ran a list that caught unsubscribe messages from list members
and bounced them with a note added to use the unsubscribe address. No
one annoyed except the lazy unsubscriber. Don't recall who it was and
never found out how.
jd
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/27/2014 5:37 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> header __KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1 Subject =~ /unsubscribe/i
> Ouch. Would you please /^anchor$/ that beast? Unless you actually intend
> this sub-thread to be swept off the list, too. ;)
I was trying to stay broad but see your point.
Regards,
KAM
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 17:00 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 4:48 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > On 10/27/2014 4:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > > How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
> > > whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
> > Heh... Apparently more needed than I hoped. I'll have to ask the
> > foundation if they can implement something to achieve this.
> I've emailed infra with the following request:
Might help, but not worth much effort if infra cannot set it up easily.
While we've seen a few recently, usual and overall frequency is *much*
lower.
> header __KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1 Subject =~ /unsubscribe/i
Ouch. Would you please /^anchor$/ that beast? Unless you actually intend
this sub-thread to be swept off the list, too. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On October 27, 2014 10:00:11 PM "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:
> header __KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1 Subject =~ /unsubscribe/i
Unancored subject will keep list trafic low
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/27/2014 4:48 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 4:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> So...
>>
>> How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
>> whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
>>
>> Do we have the technology? :)
> Heh... Apparently more needed than I hoped. I'll have to ask the
> foundation if they can implement something to achieve this.
I've emailed infra with the following request:
...we have been getting consistent unsubscribe messages posted to
the entire users list which begs the question if there is a way to
redirect those to the mailing list owner instead of just posting them?
There are a lot of ways to do this just wondering if this is
possible. Barring that, perhaps we just block them as spam using a
meta rule such as this untested rule:
header __KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1 Subject =~ /unsubscribe/i
header __KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB2 To =~
/(?:users|dev|ruleqa|private)\@spamassassin\.apache\.org/i
meta KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB (__KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB1 +
__KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB2 >= 2)
describe KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB Block Unsub Requests to SA Mailing Lists
score KAM_SA_BLOCK_UNSUB 25.0
regards,
KAM
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/27/2014 4:45 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> So...
>
> How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
> whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
>
> Do we have the technology? :)
Heh... Apparently more needed than I hoped. I'll have to ask the
foundation if they can implement something to achieve this.
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
On October 27, 2014 9:45:17 PM "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> Do we have the technology? :)
Or make rule score on unsubscribe with a score of 5, is it not what qpsmpd
scanner check for ? :)
But only hits if its sent to maillist, then owners have more time to keep
asf stable :)
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by "David F. Skoll" <df...@roaringpenguin.com>.
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:52:31 -0700
jdow <jd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Do the pertinent "we" have more important things to do? I suspect
> yes. I'd expect that the proper denizens for this list are not all
> that naive.
I dunno. This happens a couple of times a month and spawns threads
5-10 messages long each time. I think it's worth spending 10 minutes
to block.
Regards,
David.
Re: Is this really the SpamAssassin list? (was Re: unsubscribe)
Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.
Do the pertinent "we" have more important things to do? I suspect yes. I'd
expect that the proper denizens for this list are not all that naive.
{^_^}
On 2014-10-27 13:45, David F. Skoll wrote:
> So...
>
> How hard would it be to have the mailing list quarantine a message
> whose subject consists solely of the word "unsubscribe" ?
>
> Do we have the technology? :)
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>