Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3470 mails)

[Jon Clausen <dsl23212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 07:41:46PM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin1.listas@xxxxxxxxxx> [6 Sep 2003 11:52]:

> >Why, SuSE, why?  :-((((
> 
> As I'm part of the feedback team I can tell you exactly why: 
> 
> a) because it's a ratio of about 1 serious feedback mail per 100-200 spam
> 
> b) Many feedback mail lack basic information needed to work on it (like the
>    Version of SuSE Linux etc.). So the first mail to the customer has to
>    ask for that info.
>    Again this is much time spent for nothing.

This is just thinking out loud o.k?

First off, I rarely if ever contacted feedback@suse, but if I was ever going
to, I too, would *much* prefer email over a web form.

Now,  the recent thread on timestamped email addresses, and the way that the
domain-authority in Denmark (dk-hostmaster.dk) handles some parts of the
registration, gave me an idea.

What they do is *require* you to fill out this 'form' which is basically a
textfile that has all the 'fields' ready to fill in, and then mail it to
them in a plain/text/non-html email with $yadayada requirements about line
length and so on.

This is clearly to make all that mail machine readable. I don't know what
happens if you fail to live up to all that, but my guess is they /dev/null
the mail without so much as blinking.

So what I'm getting at is;

Would it not be possible/feasible to set up a similar kind of system for
feedback@suse, where the whole process goes more or less like this;

1: $USER sends a feedback 'request' to request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2: feedback.suse.com returns a 'form' (sort of) email with a unique
   timestamped/numbered "RequestID" (RID) reply-to: address
3: $USER receives the above mail, hits 'reply' and may now (guided by the
   'fields' such as "SuSE version:..." etc) fill in the 'form' at his
   leasure.
4: $USER hits 'send' and the mail now goes to
   12345XYzWhatEver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5: feedback.suse.com gets the mail, and recognizes that 12345XYzWhatEver is
   valid, and hands it off to whatever processing comes next. (e.g.
   spamassassin, procmail to check whether the the 'required' fields are
   filled in, etc...)
6: Mail finally arrives at someones mailbox to be taken care of.

Advantages would be to retain (well kind of anyway...) email based
communication, while *seriously* reducing the amount of spam that the
feedback team has to wade through.

The "challenge/response" scheme could be set up different ways, but
if it were set up so that f.x. a request *requiered* $USER to send an
*empty* message to request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, then 99% spam would die right
there.

This would allow the server to look at these conditions;
1: anything *but* 'request' or valid RID -> /dev/null

2: 'request' && non-empty? -> /dev/null

thus eliminating tons of junk very early in the process.

Additionally, having people fill in a 'form' of some sort could possibly
increase the value of the feedback, in that;

a: Presenting $USER with a number of fields (required, optional) will get
   $USER to put in stuff that he would not have thought of himself

b: The increased 'cumbersome'-ness of filling in such a form will keep
   people from just mailing junk, hence possibly increasing the signal/noise
   ratio.

c: Having people adhere to a pretty strict format, would allow for *very*
   hard "spamassassination":
	html? -> /dev/null
	Any 'required' fields missing? -> /dev/null
	"Viagra", "Mortgage", etc... -> /dev/null
	Line length > $LIMIT ? -> /dev/null

Disadvantages would be;

1: Having to come up with the system

2: CPU cycles.

3: ...errr, dunno... anyone?

> Web and email ran in parallel for a long time, but lately the amount of
> junk that came in via mail just got so much in comparison to the real
> feedback mails that we simply had to switch off the mail address.
> 
> > 2) Perhaps some other listers think like me and will complain as well -
> >    in the web form, of course.
> 
> Feel free to do so :) Chances are high that you'll (more or less) get the
> same answer as you do now.

O.K. tell me I'm rambling ;)

/Jon
-- 
Whatever rocks your boat!