Wow, wtf is with all the spam on this mailing list? I'm surprised Novell permits this to happen...in fact the majority of the posts to this list seem to be spam :-o...looks like it's time to look for an alternate support avenue for Suse...hopefully Novell will eventually get their acts together in respects to at least this mailing list...going to unsubscribe now...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2006-03-20 at 17:19 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
Wow, wtf is with all the spam on this mailing list? I'm surprised Novell permits this to happen...in fact the majority of the posts to this list seem to be spam :-o...looks like it's time to look for an alternate support avenue for Suse...hopefully Novell will eventually get their acts together in respects to at least this mailing list...going to unsubscribe now...
There is no spam at all in this list. It is a problem with your machine only. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEH2HPtTMYHG2NR9URAtqGAJ4rnXSRz+7FcnwnC1BBz27wP9rPKQCdHNbu m0jt/WzEkUOKLjP6XWE1JPw= =xeZN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carlos, On Monday 20 March 2006 18:15, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Monday 2006-03-20 at 17:19 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
Wow, wtf is with all the spam on this mailing list? I'm surprised Novell permits this to happen...in fact the majority of the posts to this list seem to be spam :-o...looks like it's time to look for an alternate support avenue for Suse...hopefully Novell will eventually get their acts together in respects to at least this mailing list...going to unsubscribe now...
There is no spam at all in this list. It is a problem with your machine only.
Perhaps Mr. Hex Star is using a definition of "spam" significantly distinct from the one I stick to, which is UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email). It's true that there is as close to zero UCE on this list as one can imagine (I'm trying to think of an exception, but I can't, and I've been here for a few years, now). On the other hand, I've noticed a lot of people expanding or altering the definition of "spam" such that it encompasses off-topic mail, random digressions and diversions and pretty much anything that individual doesn't want to have to deal with. I don't think much good is served by such undiscriminating use of the term, however. It's also possible that HS is referring to the archives, where for some strange reason all the spam that doesn't make it here is recorded for posterity. On the other hand, judging from the tone, it seems HS might be either a troll or someone disgruntled for some other reason. Or perhaps he's confused about the nature of this list, thinking that it is moderated or an official support forum. But we know it's just a big happy (and squabbling) family. Right, guys?
Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Randall Schulz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2006-03-20 at 18:49 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Perhaps Mr. Hex Star is using a definition of "spam" significantly distinct from the one I stick to, which is UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email).
Could be... :-?
It's also possible that HS is referring to the archives, where for some strange reason all the spam that doesn't make it here is recorded for posterity.
Yes, that's true, and it is a disgrace that SuSE/Novell doesn't put somebody to clean up the archive. :-/ But it is not mailed, it is not "on list".
But we know it's just a big happy (and squabbling) family. Right, guys?
:-) - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEH8IztTMYHG2NR9URAsL5AJ9x+CJZLkk/TwM0hRVDrYsJo0B2BgCfasas uVmLnuN5aC/vqedpyalYYCQ= =KbmF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm in agreement with you guys. We do not get any SPAM on this list. The generally held idea of SPAM is that it is indeed unwanted e-mail of a commercial nature. We do have OT mail but not really a great deal of that. It may seem like it at times but I don't think it is all that significant. I do not recall seeing any posts from this person complaining about none existant SPAM. Perhaps he/she is indeed a troll. -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== Xmas may be over but, PLEASE DON'T drink and drive you'll make it to the next one that way. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:49:12 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
It's also possible that HS is referring to the archives, where for some strange reason all the spam that doesn't make it here is recorded for posterity.
It's rather injection of spam in mail archives which is possible with ezmlm. One of the reasons why we switch to mlmmj. Philipp
On 23-Mar-06 Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:49:12 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
It's also possible that HS is referring to the archives, where for some strange reason all the spam that doesn't make it here is recorded for posterity.
It's rather injection of spam in mail archives which is possible with ezmlm. One of the reasons why we switch to mlmmj.
Philipp
Can you explain this in more detail? Does it mean that with ezmlm
it is possible to mail "directly to the archive", bypassing the
list itself?
Not sure that I understand what you mean.
Thanks, and best wishes,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:25:23 Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
Can you explain this in more detail? Does it mean that with ezmlm it is possible to mail "directly to the archive", bypassing the list itself?
I can't, that's what Henne, our listmaster said. If you want to know more, you'll have to ask listmaster@suse.com. Philipp
On 21-Mar-06 Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Monday 2006-03-20 at 17:19 -0800, Hex Star wrote:
Wow, wtf is with all the spam on this mailing list? I'm surprised Novell permits this to happen...in fact the majority of the posts to this list seem to be spam :-o ...looks like it's time to look for an alternate support avenue for Suse...hopefully Novell will eventually get their acts together in respects to at least this mailing list...going to unsubscribe now...
There is no spam at all in this list. It is a problem with your machine only.
Correction (partial): While I think I do not receive true spam
sent to me by the suse-linux-e server, if you look through the
list archives at (e.g.)
http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Mar/date.html
you will see that approximately 60 per cent of the archived
mailings are true spam! (So, out of the 2613 mailings in the
archive as of this morning, more than 1500 would be spam).
Since I don't often have occasion to consult the archives,
this is not usually important. But when I do want to trace
earlier postings it is very irritating indeed.
If SuSE can acoid distributing received spam to the subscribers,
why can't they avoid putting it in the archives?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding)
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 10:17 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
There is no spam at all in this list. It is a problem with your machine only.
Correction (partial): While I think I do not receive true spam sent to me by the suse-linux-e server, if you look through the list archives at (e.g.)
http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Mar/date.html
you will see that approximately 60 per cent of the archived mailings are true spam! (So, out of the 2613 mailings in the archive as of this morning, more than 1500 would be spam).
Since I don't often have occasion to consult the archives, this is not usually important. But when I do want to trace earlier postings it is very irritating indeed.
If SuSE can acoid distributing received spam to the subscribers, why can't they avoid putting it in the archives?
I complained about this very thing a few months ago so apparently there is no cure for the problem. If we tell people to "search the archives" which is part of the list sig then the archives should be devoid of any spam messages. It can't be that hard to write a script to clean up the archives. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
On 3/21/06 7:17 AM, "Ken Schneider"
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 10:17 +0000, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
There is no spam at all in this list. It is a problem with your machine only.
Correction (partial): While I think I do not receive true spam sent to me by the suse-linux-e server, if you look through the list archives at (e.g.)
http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Mar/date.html
you will see that approximately 60 per cent of the archived mailings are true spam! (So, out of the 2613 mailings in the archive as of this morning, more than 1500 would be spam).
Since I don't often have occasion to consult the archives, this is not usually important. But when I do want to trace earlier postings it is very irritating indeed.
If SuSE can acoid distributing received spam to the subscribers, why can't they avoid putting it in the archives?
I complained about this very thing a few months ago so apparently there is no cure for the problem. If we tell people to "search the archives" which is part of the list sig then the archives should be devoid of any spam messages. It can't be that hard to write a script to clean up the archives.
I'm on a few other lists and they don't have the spam problems this list does. How can they not have spam in the archives and this list does? I can't believe it's that difficult to do... This almost makes the archives useless and speaks volumes on the product. -- Thanks, George ``Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!'', ``The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,'' 1948.
I'm on a few other lists and they don't have the spam problems this list does. How can they not have spam in the archives and this list does? I can't believe it's that difficult to do...
This almost makes the archives useless and speaks volumes on the product.
I have to second that. If I search the archives in a "browse" mode where I scan the topic tree looking for a Subject line that might help out with something I'm struggling to solve, I'm drowned in the useless spam crap. No one wants it, and amazingly enough... the spam never reaches the end readers yet it's archived. Thats just so borked. My backup alternative is that I archive the sanitized mail list in my GMail archive, but that only covers the last 6 months or so since I started doing that. At least for recent stuff I can search my GMail for stuff... harder to broswe in some respects, but at least it's clear of that never to be suficiently damned/cursed spam. There has to be a solution to this... C.
Alan Dowley wrote:
There has to be a solution to this...
There is.. get the US government to ban it, instead of authorising it, then it will 'almost' stop over night.
A stranger is just a friend you don't know... yet
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it may be that the OP was referring to receiving lots of spam sent directly to him. I use this email address only for this list, and other Suse lists such as OT and KDE etc., nothing else. The only way for this email address to have gotten on some spammers address books was to get it off these lists. These vermin continually barrage me with unwanted and unsolicited emails. From the time I got Spamassassin working on my new Suse 10 server on Feb 2nd, I've received 897 mails marked as spam. Thats an average of 19 a day. This does not include the few spams that slipped by my spamd settings. Since I do have those marked as spam filtering to a Spam folder this is not a huge problem., but it does use up resources. I guess this goes with the territory, so to speak, but it is annoying. I'm glad my kids don't see this stuff. If this is the problem the OP was raising, un-subrcribing from this list won't help him, its too late. Jim F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2006-03-21 at 18:13 -0600, Jim Flanagan wrote:
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it may be that the OP was referring to receiving lots of spam sent directly to him. I use this email address only for
That's true. But with a very simple rule you can make sure that the list folder do not get any of those, as they were not sent from the list server. It is unfortunate. One of the "culprits" is that the SuSE mail list web archive contains the real email address of the sender; this changed Nov 24 2003 for the SLE list, but not for the rest. Another "culprit", are those posters that maintain the real address of the OP on the answers. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEIJvptTMYHG2NR9URAr0FAKCIOReURWMxJ7W5fWP3EHZkFtfj6gCfR2Uo UoAGZ6GDToLnu1CfSDZyt4c= =H82Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 01:35 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Tuesday 2006-03-21 at 18:13 -0600, Jim Flanagan wrote:
Maybe I'm missing the point, but it may be that the OP was referring to receiving lots of spam sent directly to him. I use this email address only for
That's true. But with a very simple rule you can make sure that the list folder do not get any of those, as they were not sent from the list server.
It is unfortunate.
One of the "culprits" is that the SuSE mail list web archive contains the real email address of the sender; this changed Nov 24 2003 for the SLE list, but not for the rest.
Another "culprit", are those posters that maintain the real address of the OP on the answers.
Not really the fault of the poster but poor design of the email client the poster is using. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 00:42, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 01:35 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
One of the "culprits" is that the SuSE mail list web archive contains the real email address of the sender; this changed Nov 24 2003 for the SLE list, but not for the rest.
Another "culprit", are those posters that maintain the real address of the OP on the answers.
Not really the fault of the poster but poor design of the email client the poster is using.
I know Ken has consigned me to /dev/null for commenting on Patrick Shanahan's inclusion of the Original Posters's email address in his answers - actually, I am not noticing the difference or shrivelling up. Ken, it is no good totally excusing the respondent. It is actually a 2 part issue. One is the OP's email client and its configuration, and the other is the respondent's email client. When it comes to culpability, if the OP chooses to configure an email address rather than a name, we can assume he is happy with the resultant spam. But for the respondent to configure the OP's address to appear in the reply boilerplate [ie "On Wednesday 22 March 2006 00:42, Ken Schneider wrote:"] is just plain unforgivable. It's worse when the person who does it is doing it in a complaint about a test message, or a top post or a thread hijack, because these are relatively trivial compared to the spam unleashed onto the OP. rgds Vince Littler
keep the gov off of this. It should never be their job. The cost would be too high. A little false security is all they could offer anyway, and in the process they would just step all over our individual freedoms. I don't want to start a whole new off topic war here, but just look at what "the gov" is already doing for you... On Tuesday 21 March 2006 03:11, Alan Dowley wrote:
There has to be a solution to this...
There is.. get the US government to ban it, instead of authorising it, then it will 'almost' stop over night.
A stranger is just a friend you don't know... yet
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 07:17:34AM -0500, Ken Schneider wrote:
I complained about this very thing a few months ago so apparently there is no cure for the problem. If we tell people to "search the archives" which is part of the list sig then the archives should be devoid of any spam messages. [...]
I'd suggest we just point people to a better archive: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e As far as I can see, it doesn't archive the spam and the search function is excellent. Cheerio, Thomas
Ken Schneider wrote:
I complained about this very thing a few months ago so apparently there is no cure for the problem. If we tell people to "search the archives" which is part of the list sig then the archives should be devoid of any spam messages. It can't be that hard to write a script to clean up the archives.
I know that cleaning up the SUSE archives would be a Good Idea(tm). But, as long as that don't happen, Gmane's archive are a good substitution. http://search.gmane.org/ Now, if only SUSE would allow posting via Gmane... Joachim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod@acm.org Roedermark, Germany
participants (15)
-
Alan Dowley -
Carlos E. R. -
Clayton -
Hex Star -
Jim Flanagan -
Joachim Schrod -
kanenas＠hawaii.rr.com -
Ken Schneider -
Kevanf1 -
Philipp Thomas -
Randall R Schulz -
suse_gasjr4wd＠mac.com -
T. Ribbrock -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Vince Littler