Is it possible to stop SPAM?

Ruby
1

Hello!

Last month i get too much spam-messages in this list. Now it is
difficult to read it.

Is there any way to stop spam in this list?

2

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:35:04PM +0900, ??? ??? wrote:

Hello!

Last month i get too much spam-messages in this list. Now it is
difficult to read it.

Is there any way to stop spam in this list?

Spam is a global problem. If it were easy to stop, it would already be
gone. You are using gmail, however, which has pretty decent spam
filters.
Use them.

–Greg

3

On Apr 7, 8:37 am, Gregory S. [email protected]
wrote:

Spam is a global problem. If it were easy to stop, it would already be
gone. You are using gmail, however, which has pretty decent spam filters.
Use them.

I find the attitude of “filter it yourself” to be dismissive and
unhelpful. No, you can’t stop spam from being sent, but there do
exist tools to detect and filter spam, such as the one you pointed
out that gmail has. If a spam filter could be applied to the mailing
list so as to prevent the spam messages from being sent out to
everyone in the first place, then that would be preferable, as it
would remove the burden from each individual participant. IOW, having
everyone filter it themselves seems to violate the DRY principle. :wink:

Also, not everyone is using the mailing list. Some of us read and post
to the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup. Google G. (which I use) doesn’t
have a spam filter AFAIK, and neither do most news readers with which
I am familiar. (Killfiles aren’t quite the same thing; you have to
know in advance what you’re filtering.)

4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Karl von Laudermann wrote:
| On Apr 7, 8:37 am, Gregory S. [email protected]
| wrote:
|> Spam is a global problem. If it were easy to stop, it would already be
|> gone. You are using gmail, however, which has pretty decent spam filters.
|> Use them.
|
| I find the attitude of “filter it yourself” to be dismissive and
| unhelpful. No, you can’t stop spam from being sent, but there do
| exist tools to detect and filter spam, such as the one you pointed
| out that gmail has. If a spam filter could be applied to the mailing
| list so as to prevent the spam messages from being sent out to
| everyone in the first place, then that would be preferable, as it
| would remove the burden from each individual participant. IOW, having
| everyone filter it themselves seems to violate the DRY principle. :wink:

So, where should the filter work? The news <> mail gateway? How about
the Ruby Forum?

How do you deal with false positives? Does your classification of spam
fit with mine, or everybody elses?

Since spam, at its most basic level, means “unsolicited email” (in this
context), how do you create a filter that pleases everyone, and offends
no-one?

Truly effective filtering can only be done on the client side, since
there are simply too many variables to take into account.

| Also, not everyone is using the mailing list. Some of us read and post
| to the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup. Google G. (which I use) doesn’t
| have a spam filter AFAIK, and neither do most news readers with which
| I am familiar. (Killfiles aren’t quite the same thing; you have to
| know in advance what you’re filtering.)

Tough luck. You chose to use a specific interface, so you’ll have to
deal with the consequences.

However, Google G., as well as the mailing list are opt-in to
receive and send messages. And cutting off the Usenet group seems to be
a bit harsh.

And, in this day and age, somebody using a Usenet client that has no
spam filtering is in need of an upgrade due to security issues, too
(Spam on Usenet is a problem since… the Eternal September, or so? It
can be expected that a Usenet client uses some sort of spam filtering.
If somebody chooses not to, it is their problem, IMO.)

Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Use uniform input formats.
~ - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkf6IUcACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+19wCgpB49KPM3j+MQgFUdT+5w4QXT
TxcAn0nQNvfXxnusZxF8XQdUHPj2eDDz
=nw70
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5

I’m pretty sure the mailing list does have a spam filter. But of
course not all spam gets caught.

Also if I notice an obvious spam on the Google Group I remove it
manually.

There is only so much that can be done to prevent spam, short of
charging $ per post.

T.

6

Gregory S. [email protected] writes:

the moderator doesn’t read.
Actually, this would have a very positive effect. We could just cut
the cable between Korea and the rest of the world, and let Koreans
deal with their spammers. We’ll let them back on the Internet when
they’re done.

Actually, South Korea is only 4th most spamming country, 1st being USA.
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso
You know what to do now :wink:

7

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:

| Actually, South Korea is only 4th most spamming country, 1st being USA.
| The Spamhaus Project - The Top 10 Worst Countries
| You know what to do now :wink:

Get rid of French know-it-alls? :stuck_out_tongue:

Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Treat end of file conditions in a uniform manner.
~ - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkf6LKIACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/9iQCfWgIu6RkZshR2F09TZPH4L+Ai
FrMAoITj83aPkdnD0VSDAkyHmboAG3xL
=qqqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, é×ÁÎ å×ÔÕÈÏ×ÉÞ wrote:

Last month i get too much spam-messages in this list. Now it is
difficult to read it.

Spam on this list? What spam?

I haven’t seen any!

But then the fetchmail / procmail / spamprobe pipeline I use seems to
be very effective.

John C. Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : [email protected]
New Zealand

9

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:15:09PM +0900, Karl von Laudermann wrote:

list so as to prevent the spam messages from being sent out to
everyone in the first place, then that would be preferable, as it
would remove the burden from each individual participant. IOW, having
everyone filter it themselves seems to violate the DRY principle. :wink:

The problem with a global filter that is forced on everyone is false
positives. Either a human being (e.g. a moderator) needs to check for
false
positives from time to time, or the filter has to be sufficiently
permissive to make sure all errors are one-sided (i.e. only false
negatives). The moderators of this list are largely hands off, and have
better things to do with their time. That leaves a permissive filter…
which may already be in place! How would you know, since you don’t see
what
is filtered out?

Even if a global filter is in place and a moderator checks for false
positives, consider the situation where someone starts a really relevant
thread… in Korean. Looks like spam, so it gets filtered out. But wait,
it’s a false positive, it’s relevant… but the moderator can’t read
Korean
so it’s out. Of course, it really is worthless to everyone who doesn’t
read
Korean, but the poor Korean user doesn’t even see his/her posts to the
list
at all, and doesn’t know what’s going on. He/she doesn’t even get a
helpful
response from one of the few other people on the list who can read and
write Korean explaining that this is an English-only list and that there
is
probably a Korean one out there. Substitute for Korean any other
language
the moderator doesn’t read.

Another example: are job postings spam? To some people, yes. To others,
no.
The global filter better not filter them out. But if I don’t want to see
them, it’s up to me to do the filtering on my end.

Also, not everyone is using the mailing list. Some of us read and post
to the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup. Google G. (which I use) doesn’t
have a spam filter AFAIK, and neither do most news readers with which
I am familiar. (Killfiles aren’t quite the same thing; you have to
know in advance what you’re filtering.)

Just as your mail client should be capable of spam filtering, so should
your news reader. Thunderbird may not be an ideal news reader, but I
believe it supports spam filtering. Google G. allows you to report
messages as spam and applies a (fairly permissive, for reasons mentioned
above) filter.

The point is that there is a small subset of spam that can be 100%
identified as spam without resulting in false positives that cause
problems
for some segment of the readers, and for all you know that level of
filtering is already in place. Everyone has to filter at the edges
because
each person has a different idea of spam.

–Greg

10

There is only so much that can be done to prevent spam, short of
charging $ per post.
That would not only reduce spam(mers) but also legit users :wink:

Reminds me of captchas.
They were implemented to reduce bots posting, but in the end they
just annoy me… I wasted so many times with captchas that if
I fail on first try, I leave the site. (Mind you, I am talking
about captchas with graphics. Some are soooo difficult to solve
without making an error … soon we will have more bots solving
these tests than humans, as bots could reuse “problem
solving code” to solve that… BORG bot net :wink: )

11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marc H. wrote:
|> There is only so much that can be done to prevent spam, short of
|> charging $ per post.
| That would not only reduce spam(mers) but also legit users :wink:
|
| Reminds me of captchas.
| They were implemented to reduce bots posting, but in the end they
| just annoy me… I wasted so many times with captchas that if
| I fail on first try, I leave the site. (Mind you, I am talking
| about captchas with graphics. Some are soooo difficult to solve
| without making an error … soon we will have more bots solving
| these tests than humans, as bots could reuse “problem
| solving code” to solve that… BORG bot net :wink: )

There is talk about a sort of “reversed CAPTCHA”.

You provide your info, and log in / perform the action as normal, but
the CAPTCHA is hidden from you.

If it is filled out, you are a bot. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

~ It seems like once people grow up, they have no idea what’s cool.
– Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkf8xxYACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/HcgCfctpRptPWcTPUq8T1vAURLMH0
e4AAoJnU8JiMArvGW2TMxOdrYIa5XnCs
=IO9L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

12

On 9 apr 2008, at 09.20, Marc H. wrote:

There is only so much that can be done to prevent spam, short of
charging $ per post.
That would not only reduce spam(mers) but also legit users :wink:

Reminds me of captchas.
They were implemented to reduce bots posting, but in the end they
just annoy me… I wasted so many times with captchas that if
I fail on first try, I leave the site. (Mind you, I am talking
Captchas are very easy to handle. You just enters the distorted text
shown
into a field.

See the amazing new SF reel: Invasion of the man eating cucumbers from
outer space.
On congratulations for a fantastic parody, the producer replies :
“What parody?”

Tommy N.
[email protected]

13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tommy N. wrote:
| Captchas are very easy to handle. You just enters the distorted text
| shown
| into a field.

Except when the CAPTCHAs are widely distorted, or have been made so
difficult with grids and dots, that a human can’t decipher them.

Take a look at these examples:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001067.html

Phillip G.
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

~ Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?
– Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkf+ZLYACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+fygCfcxuw/uxsvQYpDSUK7pSn+PRI
DhkAn0rJ2otohdiDEBvNXpjDE4lYy0R5
=AnWr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----