spammers harvesting emaill address from this list

[dgmm]

On Friday 24 August 2007, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2007 22:37:53 +0100 dgmm <freebsd01 at dgmm.net>
>
> wrote:
> >> Basically, what you (and others as well) are suggesting is that the list
> >> maintainers do double the work so that you don't have to bother with
> >> spam filtering.
> >
> > How does this equate to double the work for the list maintainers?  I've
> > never  operated a mailing list so I don't understand what work is
> > involved in  operating one or how that workload might be increased if
> > some people post  with one name while having the automated system mail
> > out to a different,  subscribed address
>
> Most modern mailing list software tests addresses periodically,
> automatically to make sure they are accepting mail.  Some have suggested
> "solving" the spam problem by using throwaway addresses to send email to
> the list **even if the address doesn't work**.  Now the maintainers have to
> maintain a separate list of exemptions and configure separate options so
> that those throwaway addresses aren't dropped from the list automatically
> after the requisite number of bounces.  And endure the endless bounce
> notifications from hundreds of thoughtless people.

You're looking at it the from the wrong perspective.  From what you say above, 
so long as the posting address is valid and accepts mail either "correctly" 
or dumps it to /dev/nul then if I choose use two separate email addresses the 
only people affected are those who try to reply directly to said posting 
address, ie, on the whole, spammers.

> >> Seems rather self-centered to me.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> You have a problem.  You want someone else to help you solve it by creating
> more work for them so that you'll have less work to do.

No, actually I don't have a problem.  I was making a suggestion which might be 
useful to the original poster.  Even it it was my problem, I don't see how 
doing as I've outlined above would create more work for anyone.

> >> This is the internet.  Spam is endemic.
> >
> > So rather than look for multiple methods to reduce the amount of incoming
> > to  *my* address I should just accept it all and filter it locally?
>
> Absolutely.  It isn't the responsibility of the rest of the world to solve
> your problem.

"splendid isolation".  I wonder where FreeBSD would be today if all the 
developers and users took that attitude.

> > That seems rather irresponsible to me,  ANy method which can help stop it
> > source appeaers on the face of it to be a better solution.
>
> Of course it does, because it requires no work on your part.  It's always
> "better" if you can get someone else to expend energy on your behalf while
> you sit back and reap the benefits.  That's why unthinking people love
> socialism.

Or maybe it how unthinking people think socialism works.  What you just 
described is exactly how capitalism works.

> >> Short of encasing your computer in
> >> concrete, there's no way to avoid getting spam **even if you never post
> >> to a mailing list**.  Either learn to deal with it or stop subscribing
> >> to lists.
> >
> > I'm sure that attitude will appear welcoming to new users.
>
> Gee, I'm sorry I hurt someone's feelings by suggesting they take
> responsibility for their own problems.  Let me get down on my knees and beg
> forgiveness.

Not at all.  Your perspective is interesting.  As is that of others who have 
posted to this thread.

> I subscribe to more than 50 lists.  You have no idea what a pleasure it is
> to read, over and over again, about other people's problems with spam.
> It's useless chatter that solves nothing and makes the list less valuable.
> (And yes, you do enough of it, and I'll /dev/null your address and never
> hear from you again.)  If people took a few minutes to figure out how to
> rid themselves of the spam, they'd accomplish more than all the endless
> discussions about how to solve an unsolveable problem.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this.  it's way OT for here now 
so I won't be making any more posts on this subject.


-- 
Dave