Forum: Ruby SPAM from Usenet

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-05 23:33
(Received via mailing list)
It seems the gateway is passing a lot more spam these days.

Looking at my mail headers I see:

> Received: from Usenet via a Usenet to mail gateway located at
>     comp.lang.ruby.  This service provided as a courtesy
>     to the ruby-talk mailing list.  If this message is SPAM, its
>     ultimate origin is Usenet, not this gateway program.  All
>     subscribers to the ruby-talk mailing list agree to receive the
>     Usenet postings made to comp.lang.ruby via this gateway.  Please
>     see http://www.ruby-lang.org/ruby-talk-usenet-policy.html.

That URL is 404.
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-05 23:44
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

> It seems the gateway is passing a lot more spam these days.

Yeah, I'm leery to do any detection because I suspect it would become
a maintenance nightmare as posters ask, why was my message blocked?
So, if we want to go that route, we probably need to pass it to a
maintainer with more time to watch over it first.

If we all agree it's become more of a hinderance than it's worth, I
can certainly shut it down.

I'm also open to other options.

> That URL is 404.
Yeah, that notice has been there since the dawn of time.  The link has
never worked on my watch.  I've just never touched it due to not
knowing the history of it or what is suppose to be there.

James Edward Gray II
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 00:14
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 14:42, James Gray wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
>> It seems the gateway is passing a lot more spam these days.
>
> Yeah, I'm leery to do any detection because I suspect it would
> become a maintenance nightmare as posters ask, why was my message
> blocked?  So, if we want to go that route, we probably need to pass
> it to a maintainer with more time to watch over it first.
>
> If we all agree it's become more of a hinderance than it's worth, I
> can certainly shut it down.

For the record, I wasn't even considering suggesting this.

>>>   see http://www.ruby-lang.org/ruby-talk-usenet-policy.html.
>>
>> That URL is 404.
>
> Yeah, that notice has been there since the dawn of time.  The link
> has never worked on my watch.  I've just never touched it due to not
> knowing the history of it or what is suppose to be there.

Could you replace the URL with a contact address, even if it's just
"Please email ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org for gateway support"?
60b83bb4579cd684731a1709f85ee849?d=identicon&s=25 John W Higgins (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 00:21
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

>> time to watch over it first.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that notice has been there since the dawn of time.  The link has
>> never worked on my watch.  I've just never touched it due to not knowing the
>> history of it or what is suppose to be there.
>>
>
> Could you replace the URL with a contact address, even if it's just "Please
> email ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org for gateway support"?
>
>
I have to ask why would we want people sending more spam to the list to
complain about the spam we all just received? (This email being Exhibit
A.....)

John
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 00:53
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:17 PM, John W Higgins wrote:

>>> Yeah, I'm leery to do any detection because I suspect it would
>>>
>>>>> ultimate origin is Usenet, not this gateway program.  All
>>> never worked on my watch.  I've just never touched it due to not
> to
> complain about the spam we all just received? (This email being
> Exhibit
> A.....)

The gateway is a community resource.  If they can't come to us, the
community, for help, where should they go?

I think Eric's request seems totally reasonable.

If the spam we are getting here increases because users and emailing
us about problems, well that tells us something:  the gateway is
annoying people.  When that happens, we will need to agree on a
solution to that problem.  Right?

James Edward Gray II
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 00:57
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Eric Hodel<drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
>>
>> If we all agree it's become more of a hinderance than it's worth, I can
>> certainly shut it down.
>
> For the record, I wasn't even considering suggesting this.

Well I'll be the bad guy then.  I'd totally suggest that.

Personally, I'm about -> <- close to just sending all email from the
gateway into my trash folder.  This is the only list I subscribe to
(about 25) which allows non-members to post without any authentication
or moderator approval.   The result is I get much more spam via
ruby-talk then all my other lists combined.
45196398e9685000d195ec626d477f0e?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Sawyer (7rans)
on 2009-06-06 01:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, James Gray <ja...@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> If the spam we are getting here increases because users and emailing  
> us about problems, well that tells us something:  the gateway is  
> annoying people.  When that happens, we will need to agree on a  
> solution to that problem.  Right?

I wonder how many people are using Usenet to interface with this list?
If it is few, I wonder if they might be encouraged to use another
service to do so. I know of at least three other interfaces besides
the standard email method, namely Google Groups, Gmane and Ruby Forum.
Is there some advantage to using Usenet over these other methods?

I manage the Google Group and I try to delete all the SPAM I come
across, so anything that can reduce it is helpful to me.

T.
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 01:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Aaron Turner wrote:

>>> maintenance nightmare as posters ask, why was my message blocked?
>
> Well I'll be the bad guy then.  I'd totally suggest that.
>
> Personally, I'm about -> <- close to just sending all email from the
> gateway into my trash folder.  This is the only list I subscribe to
> (about 25) which allows non-members to post without any authentication
> or moderator approval.   The result is I get much more spam via
> ruby-talk then all my other lists combined.

The gateway has been around for many years.  It joins the two
communities as one.

I imagine that was more important in the past when there were a much
smaller number of people on both sides.  Still, I know some of our
Usenet friends very well by now and would really miss their posts.

Of course, this is obviously a tradeoff.  We get some spam due to the
gateway and it seems to be going up.  We obviously need to weight
these issues and decide what is important to us.

James Edward Gray II
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 01:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

>>>>  see http://www.ruby-lang.org/ruby-talk-usenet-policy.html.
>>>
>>> That URL is 404.
>>
>> Yeah, that notice has been there since the dawn of time.  The link
>> has never worked on my watch.  I've just never touched it due to
>> not knowing the history of it or what is suppose to be there.
>
> Could you replace the URL with a contact address, even if it's just
> "Please email ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org for gateway support"?

I've made this change as a stop-gap fix while we discuss.  See [ruby-
talk: 338535].

James Edward Gray II
282d4190e23301bbaa8a2343370a6c20?d=identicon&s=25 Joshua Collins (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 02:22
(Received via mailing list)
Yes, there is a bit of spam getting through, but it is not enough to
annoy
me. I just hit 'report spam' in my Gmail account and I do not get any
more
mail from that user.

If I happen to come home one day and I have 25 spam emails due to the
gateway, then I might unsubscribe and use google groups or some other
means
to interact with the community.

Until then, I will just use the spam tools my email provider has. There
are
many more emails I get that are quality than are spam ;-)

JC
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 03:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Joshua Collins wrote:

> Yes, there is a bit of spam getting through, but it is not enough to
> annoy me. I just hit 'report spam' in my Gmail account and I do not
> get any more mail from that user.

Please never do this!

Gateway messages come from a address I setup for the purpose.  You are
not reporting the spammer.  Instead you are reporting me.  Our host
has already threatened to shut the gateway down once due to these
complaints. If the complaint volume increases, we will be forcefully
terminated.

The headers of gated messages point out this detail:

> Received: from Usenet via a Usenet to mail gateway located at
>     comp.lang.ruby.  This service provided as a courtesy
>     to the ruby-talk mailing list.  If this message is SPAM, its
>     ultimate origin is Usenet, not this gateway program.  All
>     subscribers to the ruby-talk mailing list agree to receive the
>     Usenet postings made to comp.lang.ruby via this gateway.  Please
>     email ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org for gateway support.

Thanks.

James Edward Gray II
282d4190e23301bbaa8a2343370a6c20?d=identicon&s=25 Joshua Collins (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 05:40
(Received via mailing list)
Ah, I did not realize that James.

Knowing that, the spam is an issue with me.
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 07:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 18:49, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> host has already threatened to shut the gateway down once due to
> these complaints. If the complaint volume increases, we will be
> forcefully terminated.

Is it possible to include the usenet Received headers in gateway
messages? They don't seem to be there now. (maybe I'm mis-remembering
Usenet.) This might help my spam filter block these messages for me.
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 07:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Eric Hodel<drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
>> Gateway messages come from a address I setup for the purpose.  You are not
>> reporting the spammer.  Instead you are reporting me.  Our host has already
>> threatened to shut the gateway down once due to these complaints. If the
>> complaint volume increases, we will be forcefully terminated.
>
> Is it possible to include the usenet Received headers in gateway messages?
> They don't seem to be there now. (maybe I'm mis-remembering Usenet.) This
> might help my spam filter block these messages for me.

I think you can use the "Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby" header, but
unfortunately, I can't get gmail to filter on misc headers. :(
4feed660d3728526797edeb4f0467384?d=identicon&s=25 Bill Kelly (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 08:24
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Aaron Turner" <synfinatic@gmail.com>
>
> Personally, I'm about -> <- close to just sending all email from the
> gateway into my trash folder.  This is the only list I subscribe to
> (about 25) which allows non-members to post without any authentication
> or moderator approval.   The result is I get much more spam via
> ruby-talk then all my other lists combined.

Hmm.

This is starting to sound partly like a gmail problem.

I've used the same email address for 22 years, and I've
never made much attempt to shroud the address in any
online posting.  As one might expect, I receive a TON
of spam.

But, I proxy all my POP3 email boxes through a local
spam filter, POPFile.  ( http://getpopfile.org/ )

Last month, May 2009, I received 50,361 spam emails.
334 got past the filter. (10.77 per day)

Not perfect, but 11 per day is a lot better than 1625
per day.  I'm on about 30 different mailing lists,
several POP3 inboxes, etc.

The ruby-talk spam is a drop in the bucket.  I suggest
it's partly a gmail problem, because (apparently)
gmail doesn't allow any kind of local filtering (being
web-based.)

I.e. go back to POP3 as Al Gore intended!    ;D

. . .

As an aside, here's an idea for a ruby quiz.  Start
with a pre-existing Bayesian spam classifier and a
huge corpus of spam messages, and have quiz participants
augment the existing classifier by inventing new methods
of analyzing the kinds of messages that slip through
(such as ones that play HTML/CSS tricks to hide verbiage
intended to fool Bayesian filters, etc.)


Regards,

Bill
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 11:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 16:19 , James Gray wrote:

> The gateway has been around for many years.  It joins the two
> communities as one.
>
> I imagine that was more important in the past when there were a much
> smaller number of people on both sides.  Still, I know some of our
> Usenet friends very well by now and would really miss their posts.

I think it is an unfair assumption that we'll lose those people's
posts to the list if we drop the gateway. (most) People are adaptable.
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 13:36
(Received via mailing list)
On 06.06.2009 01:06, trans wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, James Gray <ja...@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
>> If the spam we are getting here increases because users and emailing
>> us about problems, well that tells us something:  the gateway is
>> annoying people.  When that happens, we will need to agree on a
>> solution to that problem.  Right?
>
> I wonder how many people are using Usenet to interface with this list?

+1

> If it is few, I wonder if they might be encouraged to use another
> service to do so. I know of at least three other interfaces besides
> the standard email method, namely Google Groups, Gmane and Ruby Forum.
> Is there some advantage to using Usenet over these other methods?

Yes, with NNTP you do not have to download all messages - just those
which you are interested in.  Also, my non web based news reader
presents threads much nicer than any web based mail client I am using.
And Google Groups does not have a nice interface IMHO (especially for
posting code with indentation).

Having said that I do participate via the email gateway when I don't
have my mail client with me or when there are access restrictions.  But
my preferred gateway to the community is usenet.

Btw, the amount of spam has increased but my NNTP provider as well as
GMail both do a pretty good job at filtering so I am not (yet) annoyed
by the volume.

Kind regards

  robert
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 13:45
(Received via mailing list)
On 06.06.2009 08:23, Bill Kelly wrote:

> This is starting to sound partly like a gmail problem.

I think rather not.

> I've used the same email address for 22 years, and I've
> never made much attempt to shroud the address in any
> online posting.  As one might expect, I receive a TON
> of spam.

Hehe, sounds as if someone is paying you as a honeypot provider. :-)

> The ruby-talk spam is a drop in the bucket.  I suggest
> it's partly a gmail problem, because (apparently)
> gmail doesn't allow any kind of local filtering (being
> web-based.)

Actually, IMHO this is wrong for two reasons: first, you can read GMail
via POP or IMAP.  Second, GMail's spam filtering is pretty good and I
believe your spam marks train the filter.  I believe at least in theory
a spam filter of a mail provider with web access can be much better than
a local filter because there is more training input.

> As an aside, here's an idea for a ruby quiz.  Start
> with a pre-existing Bayesian spam classifier and a
> huge corpus of spam messages, and have quiz participants
> augment the existing classifier by inventing new methods
> of analyzing the kinds of messages that slip through
> (such as ones that play HTML/CSS tricks to hide verbiage
> intended to fool Bayesian filters, etc.)

That sounds more like a competition than a quiz, doesn't it?  The winner
will be the software with least false positives and most identified ham.
:-)

Cheers

  robert
7ba164f40a50bc23dbb2aa825fb7bc16?d=identicon&s=25 Hadley Wickham (hadley)
on 2009-06-06 14:16
(Received via mailing list)
> Actually, IMHO this is wrong for two reasons: first, you can read GMail via
> POP or IMAP.  Second, GMail's spam filtering is pretty good and I believe
> your spam marks train the filter.  I believe at least in theory a spam
> filter of a mail provider with web access can be much better than a local
> filter because there is more training input.

Additionally you can use the number of people a message is sent to ...

Hadley
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 15:01
(Received via mailing list)
Le 6 juin 2009 à 11:05, Ryan Davis a écrit :

> posts to the list if we drop the gateway. (most) People are adaptable.
Well, for my part, I don't think I could follow and participate to the
list with a mail client (event if I'm very satisfied of my client).

Not that I post that much, mind you, but...  :)

Fred
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 15:02
(Received via mailing list)
Le 6 juin 2009 à 01:06, trans a écrit :

> On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, James Gray <ja...@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
>> If the spam we are getting here increases because users and emailing  
>> us about problems, well that tells us something:  the gateway is  
>> annoying people.  When that happens, we will need to agree on a  
>> solution to that problem.  Right?
>
> I wonder how many people are using Usenet to interface with this list?

I do - in fact, I'm managing the NNTP server the gatway is using.

> If it is few, I wonder if they might be encouraged to use another
> service to do so. I know of at least three other interfaces besides
> the standard email method, namely Google Groups, Gmane and Ruby Forum.

Ironically, AFAICT, Google Groups (the web-NNTP part) is the main source
of spam nowadays.

> Is there some advantage to using Usenet over these other methods?

In my opinion, a newsreader interface is vastly superior to any other
system when you want to follow high traffic lists (advanced thread
handling, scoring, kill files, archival and auto-expiry, etc, etc).

> I manage the Google Group and I try to delete all the SPAM I come
> across, so anything that can reduce it is helpful to me.

Well, if the community can come with a workable filter, I can certainly
integrate it to my filters server-side.

But I think there's a lot of legitimate traffic coming from Google
Groups too, so we'd have to be careful.

Fred
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 16:14
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:

>
> I think it is an unfair assumption that we'll lose those people's
> posts to the list if we drop the gateway. (most) People are adaptable.

Hmm, my experience has been that the email vs. Usenet discussion is a
religious issue on part with vi vs. emacs.  People just like what they
like and I think we're unlikely to alter that too much.

James Edward Gray II
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-06 16:18
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 12:24 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:

>>
>> Gateway messages come from a address I setup for the purpose.  You
>> are not reporting the spammer.  Instead you are reporting me.  Our
>> host has already threatened to shut the gateway down once due to
>> these complaints. If the complaint volume increases, we will be
>> forcefully terminated.
>
> Is it possible to include the usenet Received headers in gateway
> messages? They don't seem to be there now. (maybe I'm mis-
> remembering Usenet.) This might help my spam filter block these
> messages for me.

Yeah, it looks like the gateway filters them out for some pseudo-
Received headers it adds.  It has always done this and I've just never
touched that part.  I'm not sure if there's a reason for it, like
Usenet headers allowing different content.  I would need to look into
that to say for sure if it could be changed.

James Edward Gray II
45196398e9685000d195ec626d477f0e?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Sawyer (7rans)
on 2009-06-06 16:43
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 9:00 am, "F. Senault" <f...@lacave.net> wrote:

> > If it is few, I wonder if they might be encouraged to use another
> > service to do so. I know of at least three other interfaces besides
> > the standard email method, namely Google Groups, Gmane and Ruby Forum.
>
> Ironically, AFAICT, Google Groups (the web-NNTP part) is the main source
> of spam nowadays.

I hear that a lot, but every time I take a deeper look, I find the
post came from Usenet. Or is the "web-NNTP" part different then
http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google?hl=en ?

T.
45196398e9685000d195ec626d477f0e?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Sawyer (7rans)
on 2009-06-06 16:48
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 10:17 am, James Gray <ja...@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> Yeah, it looks like the gateway filters them out for some pseudo-
> Received headers it adds.  It has always done this and I've just never  
> touched that part.  I'm not sure if there's a reason for it, like  
> Usenet headers allowing different content.  I would need to look into  
> that to say for sure if it could be changed.

An interesting aspect of the Google Group is that in order to post to
the list via the group you still have to sign up as a member of the
actual ruby-talk mailing list (which means taking the time to turn off
email delivery). Yes it can be initially annoying, but it has the
advantage of making the Google Group much more immune to SPAM
delivery.

Can the Usenet gateway be setup in a similar fashion?

T.
87ef5d1e14b148eb596433bc17ffe690?d=identicon&s=25 lith (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 16:53
(Received via mailing list)
> I hear that a lot, but every time I take a deeper look, I find the
> post came from Usenet. Or is the "web-NNTP" part different 
thenhttp://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google?hl=en?

I think he refers to:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby
8f6f95c4bd64d5f10dfddfdcd03c19d6?d=identicon&s=25 Rick Denatale (rdenatale)
on 2009-06-06 17:02
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:47 AM, trans<transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting aspect of the Google Group is that in order to post to
> the list via the group you still have to sign up as a member of the
> actual ruby-talk mailing list (which means taking the time to turn off
> email delivery). Yes it can be initially annoying, but it has the
> advantage of making the Google Group much more immune to SPAM
> delivery.

I don't think so.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/about

The google group is really just a proxy to the usenet group
comp.lang.ruby it just slurps up everything posted there.

--
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
45196398e9685000d195ec626d477f0e?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Sawyer (7rans)
on 2009-06-06 17:23
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 10:52 am, lith <minil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hear that a lot, but every time I take a deeper look, I find the
> > post came from Usenet. Or is the "web-NNTP" part different 
thenhttp://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google?hl=en?
>
> I think he refers to:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby

Ah. I see.

That's just ironic. So we have:

  Ruby-Talk <--> Usenet comp.lang.ruby <--> Google Group
comp.lang.ruby

and

  Ruby-Talk <--> Google Group ruby-talk-google


T.
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 18:57
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 5, 2009, at 22:37, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Is it possible to include the usenet Received headers in gateway
>> messages?
>> They don't seem to be there now. (maybe I'm mis-remembering
>> Usenet.) This
>> might help my spam filter block these messages for me.
>
> I think you can use the "Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby" header, but
> unfortunately, I can't get gmail to filter on misc headers. :(

Specifically, I meant the SPAM messages. I want to read Luis', etc.
messages
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 19:10
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Bill Kelly<billk@cts.com> wrote:
>
> This is starting to sound partly like a gmail problem.

I'm not sure I follow.  How is it gmail's fault that it is possible
for spammers to use the ruby-talk list?  I just looked through the
first 500 messages in my spam folder and there wasn't a single spam
from any other list.  All the other lists who don't want to require
people to subscribe before posting force their posts to go through a
moderator queue.

What does suck about gmail is I can't match against arbitrary headers.

I see in the headers that we're using SpamAssassin... maybe the
solution is to review it's configuration and make sure it's properly
learning?
4feed660d3728526797edeb4f0467384?d=identicon&s=25 Bill Kelly (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 19:46
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Robert Klemme" <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
>
> Actually, IMHO this is wrong for two reasons: first, you can read GMail
> via POP or IMAP.

Oh.  Didn't know that, thanks.

>  Second, GMail's spam filtering is pretty good and I
> believe your spam marks train the filter.  I believe at least in theory
> a spam filter of a mail provider with web access can be much better than
> a local filter because there is more training input.

Haha, yes.  In theory.

But in practice why are gmailers complaining about spam
on ruby-talk?





:)

Regards,

Bill
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 19:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 10:42, Bill Kelly wrote:

> But in practice why are gmailers complaining about spam
> on ruby-talk?

I'm the originator of this thread and I don't use gmail.
4feed660d3728526797edeb4f0467384?d=identicon&s=25 Bill Kelly (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 19:57
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Aaron Turner" <synfinatic@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Bill Kelly<billk@cts.com> wrote:
> > This is starting to sound partly like a gmail problem.
>
> I'm not sure I follow.  How is it gmail's fault that it is possible
> for spammers to use the ruby-talk list?  I just looked through the
> first 500 messages in my spam folder and there wasn't a single spam
> from any other list.  All the other lists who don't want to require
> people to subscribe before posting force their posts to go through a
> moderator queue.

Sorry, I think I was in a snarky mood last night.

I'm hardly seeing any ruby-talk spam here.

(Thus it seemed plausible there was some room for
improvement in gmail's spam filtering.  However, in
retrospect, I think my suggestion was probably
unhelpful. :)


Regards,

Bill
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 20:13
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Bill Kelly<billk@cts.com> wrote:
>> mail provider with web access can be much better than a local filter because
>> there is more training input.
>
> Haha, yes.  In theory.
>
> But in practice why are gmailers complaining about spam
> on ruby-talk?

Not working for Google I can't but guess, but my belief is that it's
one or both of:

1) Gmail's spam filtering see's the spamassassin headers added by the
gateway and uses that to augment it's own ratings.  Since SpamAssassin
marks it clean, gmail thinks it is clean too.

2) Gmail believes that mail sent via a mailing list has a lower
likelihood of being spam since most lists nowadays are closed and
spammers generally don't bother subscribing and this skews the ratings
sufficiently that it isn't marked as spam.

As for training gmail, yes I do that.  I can't say it really helps.
I'd say 99% of the spam which reaches my inbox is via the ruby-talk
list even though ruby-talk spam is only 1-2% of the spam in my spam
folder.  Also, earlier in the thread were were told NOT to do that
because it generates problems for the list maintainer... I'm not sure
why that is true though.

For those who want to read via NNTP, couldn't they subscribe and turn
off delivery?  That way they can read via news and we'd still have a
way to authenticate their posts.  Also, I know the svn users list is
open, but they have a pool of mods who approve messages to keep spam
off the lists.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 23:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:06:30 -0500, trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote
in
<2dfa9bed-e635-4b13-ad21-74db12cc898e@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:

>On Jun 5, 6:52 pm, James Gray <ja...@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
>> If the spam we are getting here increases because users and emailing  
>> us about problems, well that tells us something:  the gateway is  
>> annoying people.  When that happens, we will need to agree on a  
>> solution to that problem.  Right?
>
>I wonder how many people are using Usenet to interface with this list?

I am.  I don't know how many others there are.

>If it is few, I wonder if they might be encouraged to use another
>service to do so. I know of at least three other interfaces besides
>the standard email method, namely Google Groups, Gmane and Ruby Forum.

No offense intended to anyone, but I don't consider email, Google
Groups or web fora to be a good interface for discussions like this.
Usenet, for all of its flaws, has a number of advantages.  I'd be very
disappointed to have to use one of the others.

>Is there some advantage to using Usenet over these other methods?

Quite a number, actually.

1. Since Usenet is distributed, it is not dependent on a single server
or organization, unlike web fora.

2. One can download only headers for browsing, then download bodies of
interesting messages or threads.

3. The standards of Usenet were designed for public discussions.
Threading, for example, is part of the standard and has a high level
of standard compliance among clients.  Email support for threading is
far more haphazard; even if I use a client with good support, someone
who doesn't can break threading unintentionally.

4. One has a choice of clients, unlike most web fora.

5. Any decent client supports killfiles, watch lists, and the like.
Some, but not all, of this functionality can be replicated with email
filters, but with a lot more effort.

>I manage the Google Group and I try to delete all the SPAM I come
>across, so anything that can reduce it is helpful to me.

On Usenet, there are some options:

1. Complain to the ISP of the offender.

2. Use killfiles to weed out identifiable spam.

3. Newsmasters can implement filtering for their servers.

4. Use a moderated group.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 23:21
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:12:12 -0500, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com>
wrote in
<1ca1c1410906061112v1aab8e37u3fbdfb6e1897c393@mail.gmail.com>:

>For those who want to read via NNTP, couldn't they subscribe and turn
>off delivery?  That way they can read via news and we'd still have a
>way to authenticate their posts.

If I understand your suggest correctly, you're saying that I should
read on Usenet, but reply via email?
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 23:25
(Received via mailing list)
"James Gray" <james@grayproductions.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8CE8FEE5-CFC1-46D9-AB0C-3D4167508A59@grayproductions.net...
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Joshua Collins wrote:
>
>> Yes, there is a bit of spam getting through, but it is not enough to
>> annoy me. I just hit 'report spam' in my Gmail account and I do not
>> get any more mail from that user.
>
> Please never do this!

What will happen if some mad person reads this and tries to spoil the
list?

My suggestion:
Mark spams by replies from some responsible persons which add
[SPAMTHREAD]
in topic.
Most newsreaders should be able to hide a thread marked this way.
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-06 23:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Charles Calvert<cbciv@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:12:12 -0500, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <1ca1c1410906061112v1aab8e37u3fbdfb6e1897c393@mail.gmail.com>:
>
>>For those who want to read via NNTP, couldn't they subscribe and turn
>>off delivery?  That way they can read via news and we'd still have a
>>way to authenticate their posts.
>
> If I understand your suggest correctly, you're saying that I should
> read on Usenet, but reply via email?

No.  If you look above, your post via NNTP came as sent by
"cbciv@yahoo.com"- I'm assuming your actual email address (if not,
should be easy to change to a valid one).  The list can thereby use
that to check to see if you're "subscribed".

In other words, your user experience wouldn't change one bit, other
then having to do a one-time subscription (with delivery turned off)
in order to post.
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 00:33
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Aaron Turner wrote:

> As for training gmail, yes I do that.  I can't say it really helps.
> I'd say 99% of the spam which reaches my inbox is via the ruby-talk
> list even though ruby-talk spam is only 1-2% of the spam in my spam
> folder.  Also, earlier in the thread were were told NOT to do that
> because it generates problems for the list maintainer... I'm not sure
> why that is true though.

I did not say don't train your filter.  I said, please don't report
(my) gateway email address to my host as a spammer.

James Edward Gray II
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 00:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Charles Calvert wrote:

>> I manage the Google Group and I try to delete all the SPAM I come
>> across, so anything that can reduce it is helpful to me.
>
> On Usenet, there are some options:
>
> 1. Complain to the ISP of the offender.

Yes and this is fine if Usenet folks complain about the message before
it was gated.  Again, please do not complain about a message on Ruby
Talk after it was gated as you are then complaining about my email
address.

James Edward Gray II
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 00:37
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:

> What will happen if some mad person reads this and tries to spoil
> the list?

The gateway will be shut down.  If my host shuts it down, that's
that.  There's nothing I can do.  I pleaded our case to get it this far.

I'm not worried about this though.  I believe we can discuss this
reasonably as we are now.

> My suggestion:
> Mark spams by replies from some responsible persons which add
> [SPAMTHREAD] in topic.
> Most newsreaders should be able to hide a thread marked this way.

I think we need to find a solution that doesn't involve adding to the
noise level.

James Edward Gray II
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 02:15
(Received via mailing list)
"James Gray" <james@grayproductions.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:85C88458-05FA-4801-94E3-F0FE4DB3511C@grayproductions.net...
> On Jun 6, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:
>
>> My suggestion:
>> Mark spams by replies from some responsible persons which add
>> [SPAMTHREAD] in topic.
>> Most newsreaders should be able to hide a thread marked this way.
>
> I think we need to find a solution that doesn't involve adding to the
> noise level.
>

I was aware that it would about double the number of unnecessary
messages.
But it would only bring more message headers.
I thought about a solution which could be handled by readers on NNTP and
on
the mailing list too.
I don't think it is possible to implement a solution without human
assistance. I also think it is not practicable to convert the NG to a
moderated one, because this would need positive acknowledgement of every
single message. Not only the amount of work would be huge, it would
bring
unnecessary delays.
So, every message must pass first. Because of the need of human
intervention, it would be only possible to remove the spam belatedly.
Because I think it is nearly impossible to remove a message from
ML/NG/GG
altogether, the only possibility is an additional mark. Either, this
mark is
brought in inband by using the same medium as the original message, or
by
using an different medium. But a different medium would need extension
of
the features of the newsreaders/mailreaders.

2ct.

(Maybe "Shoes" should be renamed as this subject possibly is magnetic to
all
these sellers of  Nike scrap...;)
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 03:35
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:34:39 -0500, James Gray
<james@grayproductions.net> wrote in
<0246F2F4-1A4F-4C93-98A4-7D72BD025950@grayproductions.net>:

>it was gated.  Again, please do not complain about a message on Ruby
>Talk after it was gated as you are then complaining about my email
>address.

Noted.

Thank you for your efforts in maintaining the gateway.  Spam issues
aside, I think that your work benefits everyone by creating a larger
community while allowing everyone to use their interface of choice.
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 03:36
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 15:34, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> before it was gated.  Again, please do not complain about a message
> on Ruby Talk after it was gated as you are then complaining about my
> email address.

Leaving the NNTP Received headers in will help us trace spam to its
origin.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 03:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:36:43 -0500, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com>
wrote in <1ca1c1410906061436tff3dd46wd9cc1f84886160e5@mail.gmail.com>:

>> read on Usenet, but reply via email?
>
>No.  If you look above, your post via NNTP came as sent by
>"cbciv@yahoo.com"- I'm assuming your actual email address (if not,
>should be easy to change to a valid one).  The list can thereby use
>that to check to see if you're "subscribed".
>
>In other words, your user experience wouldn't change one bit, other
>then having to do a one-time subscription (with delivery turned off)
>in order to post.

Huh.  That's an interesting suggestion.  I'd personally be okay with
making the effort to maintain a subscription from the same address
that I use to post in comp.lang.ruby if it would help the folks on the
mailing list get less spam.

One downside to your suggestion is that folks who find the newsgroup
and start posting would be seen only by those reading the newsfeed
until and unless they subscribed.  It's a small barrier, but a barrier
nonetheless.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 03:51
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:10:21 +0200, "Michael Bruschkewitz"
<brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@gmx.net> wrote in
<680c0$4a2b056d$5b0ec640$29901@news1.surfino.com>:

[snip]

>I thought about a solution which could be handled by readers on NNTP and on
>the mailing list too.
>I don't think it is possible to implement a solution without human
>assistance. I also think it is not practicable to convert the NG to a
>moderated one, because this would need positive acknowledgement of every
>single message. Not only the amount of work would be huge, it would bring
>unnecessary delays.

Not necessarily.  As a Usenet moderator, I can tell you that there are
a number of possible solutions.

1. First, one can take the whitelist approach, using a 'bot:

a. Whitelist anything coming from ruby-talk.

b. Whitelist posters with a history of posting on-topic.

Anything on the whitelist gets automatically approved by the 'bot.  If
a whitelisted poster goes rogue, you'll have to remove them from the
whitelist post facto, but that shouldn't happen often, if ever.
Whitelisting can even take paths into account, to deal with forgeries
from net.kooks.

Anything not on the whitelist gets queued for human moderation.  That
should be a fairly small percentage.

2. The moderation submission address can employ spam filters to help
deal with spam that gets sent via NNTP or directly to the address.
This will prevent most of the NNTP-originated spam from being passed
to ruby-talk.

3. PGPMoose could be used by the moderation 'bot to sign approved
messages.  Anything that isn't signed gets dropped by the gateway.

[snip rest]

This would take some work, but it is possible.
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 04:31
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

>>> 1. Complain to the ISP of the offender.
>>
>> Yes and this is fine if Usenet folks complain about the message
>> before it was gated.  Again, please do not complain about a message
>> on Ruby Talk after it was gated as you are then complaining about
>> my email address.
>
> Leaving the NNTP Received headers in will help us trace spam to its
> origin.

Fred, do you happen to know if I could legally do that?  Are they
speced the same?  I will look when I have a less crazy day, but was
just curious if you would know.

I wonder why they felt the need to fake them with the original gateway…

James Edward Gray II
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 04:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Charles Calvert wrote:

> a whitelisted poster goes rogue, you'll have to remove them from the
> whitelist post facto, but that shouldn't happen often, if ever.
> Whitelisting can even take paths into account, to deal with forgeries
> from net.kooks.

I'm kind of liking this approach.  It does add some maintenance I
realize, but it's flawless and I don't think it would be too bad.
Food for thought…

James Edward Gray II
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 09:40
(Received via mailing list)
Le 7 juin 2009 à 03:36, Charles Calvert a écrit :

> One downside to your suggestion is that folks who find the newsgroup
> and start posting would be seen only by those reading the newsfeed
> until and unless they subscribed.  It's a small barrier, but a barrier
> nonetheless.

It's far from a small barrier.  If the poster uses an invalid address,
he will never know he's supposed to subscribe.  Ditto if his email
server or spam filter eats the mailing-list warning message, of if he
doesn't understand it.

Not to forget that, even if he receives the warning, he'll have to
repost his message a second time, while some people on Usenet could
already respond to the first, adding to the confusion...

Fred
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 09:41
(Received via mailing list)
Le 6 juin 2009 à 17:22, trans a écrit :

> On Jun 6, 10:52 am, lith <minil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I hear that a lot, but every time I take a deeper look, I find the
>>> post came from Usenet. Or is the "web-NNTP" part different 
thenhttp://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google?hl=en?
>>
>> I think he refers to:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby

Exactly.

> Ah. I see.
>
> That's just ironic. So we have:
>
>   Ruby-Talk <--> Usenet comp.lang.ruby <--> Google Group
> comp.lang.ruby

Via Jame's gateway.

> and
>
>   Ruby-Talk <--> Google Group ruby-talk-google

Yep.

Fred
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 09:50
(Received via mailing list)
Le 7 juin 2009 à 04:31, James Gray a écrit :

> On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

>> Leaving the NNTP Received headers in will help us trace spam to its
>> origin.

Heh.  I answered to that in a previous message... which wasn't accepted
by the mailing-list software and correctly propagated...

So, I said that there's a path header instead, and a bunch of relevant
headers, notably for the web-news gateways (i.e. google groups) ; here's
a sample of the headers usenet-side for one of the last spams :

(I'll try pastie instead of pasting the raw headers...)

http://www.pastie.org/503343

I just broke down the long headers ; the path is always on one
(longà)line.

> Fred, do you happen to know if I could legally do that?  Are they
> speced the same?  I will look when I have a less crazy day, but was
> just curious if you would know.

The question is moot : you don't have the same headers on one side or
the other, meaning you could put the path in the mail messages and the
received's in the usenet messages (which wouldn't be the worse idea,
IMHO).

> I wonder why they felt the need to fake them with the original gateway?

> James Edward Gray II

Fred
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 09:55
(Received via mailing list)
Le 7 juin 2009 à 03:48, Charles Calvert a écrit :

> This would take some work, but it is possible.

With the sad state of most usenet servers world wide, a status change
will not be propagated correctly everywhere.

Fred
E0d864d9677f3c1482a20152b7cac0e2?d=identicon&s=25 Robert Klemme (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 11:56
(Received via mailing list)
On 06.06.2009 19:08, Aaron Turner wrote:

> What does suck about gmail is I can't match against arbitrary headers.

What header do you want to look for?  I managed to find your message via
the message id (but not with the header name included).  Maybe there is
a way to do the match even in absence of general header indexing at
GMail.

And if you read via POP or IMAP you can still do the filtering with your
preferred email client.  But I do agree, a general header indexing and
search would certainly be good.

Kind regards

  robert
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 18:12
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Robert
Klemme<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> search would certainly be good.
I'd like to match:
Received: from Usenet via a Usenet to mail gateway

Yes, my IMAP mail client can do that (hell, procmail could do that in
1995), but the gmail rules can't seem to do that.
4299e35bacef054df40583da2d51edea?d=identicon&s=25 James Gray (bbazzarrakk)
on 2009-06-07 18:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:50 AM, F. Senault wrote:

>
> So, I said that there's a path header instead, and a bunch of relevant
> headers, notably for the web-news gateways (i.e. google groups) ;
> here's
> a sample of the headers usenet-side for one of the last spams :
>
> (I'll try pastie instead of pasting the raw headers...)
>
> http://www.pastie.org/503343
>
> I just broke down the long headers ; the path is always on one (longà)
> line.

Thanks for the suggestions.

>> Fred, do you happen to know if I could legally do that?  Are they
>> speced the same?  I will look when I have a less crazy day, but was
>> just curious if you would know.
>
> The question is moot : you don't have the same headers on one side or
> the other, meaning you could put the path in the mail messages and the
> received's in the usenet messages (which wouldn't be the worse idea,
> IMHO).

OK, I can do that.

I need to rewrite the news_to_mail.rb side of the gateway first
though.  I've converted the mail_to_news.rb code to be tmail based
which makes it super easy to do stuff like move over a bunch of
headers.  However, the news_to_mail.rb side is still the old Regexp
based code I inherited.  If I update it first, this will be a lot
easier.

So, request received.  It's a little work though and my summer is
pretty insanely busy.  Please be patient with me if it takes me a bit
to get to it.

Thanks for all the suggestion everyone.

James Edward Gray II
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-07 19:06
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, F. Senault<fred@lacave.net> wrote:
> doesn't understand it.
>
> Not to forget that, even if he receives the warning, he'll have to
> repost his message a second time, while some people on Usenet could
> already respond to the first, adding to the confusion...

Frank,

First, let me say I appreciate the contributions that people who post
via NNTP.  I honestly don't want this to become an "us vs them"
situation where mailing list users like myself call for tearing down
the gateway.  At the same time, it's clear that the spam to the list
is coming via NNTP.   Perhaps people who are used to reading many
newsgroups have just become accustomed to the spam and/or have great
anti-spam tools, but many email users have found well run mailing
lists to be one of the few spam-free havens on the internet.
Honestly, if it wasn't for ruby's rapid development which makes lists
like this necessary for staying on top of what's new I probably would
of unsubscribed long ago in disgust.

Simply put, if you don't find my proposed solution workable, then
please provide a better one which has the impact of stopping the spam
(keeping the headers while nice, won't accomplish that).

Another option, is do what the svn-users list does- have moderators
approve messages from email addresses which are not subscribed.  Yes,
this means if you're not subscribed, then your post gets delayed.
However, if you have enough mods across different timezones then it's
usually an acceptable delay.  If not, you can always subscribe as I
mentioned above.  I'll take it one step further and offer up to be a
moderator for a minimum of 1 year.
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 00:05
(Received via mailing list)
"Charles Calvert" <cbciv@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:hh6m25hip5lcmntukmrole0emnl9i0aosh@4ax.com...
> Anything not on the whitelist gets queued for human moderation.  That
> should be a fairly small percentage.

Whitelisting bots would help, but...

There are much more of first time posters than spammers.
One of the strengths of Ruby is friendly support provided by community
to
noobs.
Although spam is annoying, it is not a big amount of work just to skip
those
messages. Clean up your mind and you will not even take notice of spam
as
inconvenience.
(Take spam messages as possibility to train your brain... :)
On the other side, delaying responses to noobs and employing moderators
would waste real resources.
It would be really a bad trade.

My approach was to waste as less resources as possible.

Regards,
Michael B.
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 01:11
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Michael
Bruschkewitz<brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@gmx.net> wrote:
> One of the strengths of Ruby is friendly support provided by community to
> noobs.
> Although spam is annoying, it is not a big amount of work just to skip those
> messages. Clean up your mind and you will not even take notice of spam as
> inconvenience.
> (Take spam messages as possibility to train your brain... :)
> On the other side, delaying responses to noobs and employing moderators
> would waste real resources.
> It would be really a bad trade.
>
> My approach was to waste as less resources as possible.

You're ignoring the mailing list- most mail clients can't delete an
entire thread based on a single message via rules.  I know Gmail and
Mail.app can't.  It also creates a situation ripe for abuse since now
anyone can delete entire threads.
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 09:51
(Received via mailing list)
"Aaron Turner" <synfinatic@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1ca1c1410906071610v24100474r72d993b900cdc020@mail.gmail.com...
>You're ignoring the mailing list- most mail clients can't delete an
>entire thread based on a single message via rules.  I know Gmail and
>Mail.app can't.  It also creates a situation ripe for abuse since now
>anyone can delete entire threads.

To be honest, I don't know much about mail clients today. Some years
ago, I
was eager to check out every mail client, but these were the times when
1
hour of internet access did cost 6 Deutschmark.
Because I don't want to fiddle about installing mail clients on every
machine I use - I now use just the default client for the current OS or
just
the first which comes across.
IMHO, Gravity would have had absolutely no problem setting up such a
rule
but probably would not be abel to handle mailing list. Forte Agent too.
So I
was expecting current mail clients would provide this for mailing lists
too.
At least ML-clients should provide the possibility to hide a message
based
on topic, so it would be easy for users of such clients to drop the
additional messages.

The abuse issue may be resolved easily, although I don't expect it would
occur frequently. I wrote "some responsible persons could mark the
thread" -
the thread-muting rule just needs to depend on sender _and_ topic, or
those
persons use a particular name for kill-posts, for example "Aaron
Spamkilla
Turner".
So spamkillers could be easily whitelisted.
How to do this could be an one-liner in the content of each
spamkiller-message.
Additional, an [THATS NOT SPAM] message could be added to deal with
wrong
spamkiller-messages, maybe somebody marks a thread by mistake.

I wouldn't expect spam problem to be resolved by some free-wheeling
ideas in
the night, so I dont expect my idea was perfect - it was just an idea.
If it
would be so easy to kill all spam w/o flaws, it would be already done
years
before.

Regards,
Michael B.
4feed660d3728526797edeb4f0467384?d=identicon&s=25 Bill Kelly (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 10:15
(Received via mailing list)
From: "Aaron Turner" <synfinatic@gmail.com>
>
> Another option, is do what the svn-users list does- have moderators
> approve messages from email addresses which are not subscribed.  Yes,
> this means if you're not subscribed, then your post gets delayed.
> However, if you have enough mods across different timezones then it's
> usually an acceptable delay.  If not, you can always subscribe as I
> mentioned above.  I'll take it one step further and offer up to be a
> moderator for a minimum of 1 year.

I suspect classification could be automated to the extent
that moderators should be called upon very infrequently.

If we trained a classifier (like maybe
http://classifier.rubyforge.org/ ) with ham and spam from
comp.lang.ruby, I suspect posts that registered a very
high score as ham could be passed along unchallenged by
the gateway.  (I'm presuming we aren't dealing with
spammers who are sophisticated enough in their targeting
of the newsgroup to actually append some pseudo ruby-
related content to their posts?)

So the gateway could continue to pass along high scoring
ham unchallenged, and only route posts to a moderator
queue if they didn't register as having obvious ruby-
related content.

(I suppose we could get slightly fancier and even auto
whitelist a poster's email address once a high scoring
ham post had been received from them by the gateway,
after which, being on the whitelist, their posts would
be given the benefit of the doubt.)

Anyway... seems like a problem that could be mostly
automated.  I suspect most of the work would be in
implementing the moderator queue mechanism.


Regards,

Bill
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 17:31
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:31:10 -0500, James Gray
<james@grayproductions.net> wrote in
<2EEBFD57-C251-482A-ACF1-E553860A0402@grayproductions.net>:

>On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

[snip]

>> Leaving the NNTP Received headers in will help us trace spam to its
>> origin.

I think that you're talking about the Path: header.  NNTP doesn't use
Received:; that's an SMTP header.

In addition to Path:, NNTP-Posting-Host: and NNTP-Posting-Date: would
also be useful.

>Fred, do you happen to know if I could legally do that?  Are they
>speced the same?  I will look when I have a less crazy day, but was
>just curious if you would know.

You'll probably have to convert them to X- headers to avoid problems
with picky SMTP servers, but they'll still be useful to humans who
want to complain to the originating host.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 18:11
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:05:05 -0500, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com>
wrote in
<1ca1c1410906071004v7acb4e42xe9d088d349c5457c@mail.gmail.com>:

[re: requiring comp.lang.ruby users to register with ruby-talk list to
have their posts gatewayed to the list.  I said it was a small
barrier, Frank Senault said it was a big one ...]

[snip]

>Simply put, if you don't find my proposed solution workable, then
>please provide a better one which has the impact of stopping the spam
>(keeping the headers while nice, won't accomplish that).

Aaron, how much spam are you seeing?  I'm seeing only a handful a day
on my news server.  I ask because if newsfeed that is used for the
gateway propagates a lot of spam, maybe we could find a cleaner
newsfeed instead.
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 18:16
(Received via mailing list)
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:51:08 +0200, "F. Senault" <fred@lacave.net>
wrote in <1wis1axrnyg0i$.dlg@laphroaig.lacave.local>:

>Le 7 juin 2009 à 03:48, Charles Calvert a écrit :
>
>> This would take some work, but it is possible.
>
>With the sad state of most usenet servers world wide, a status change
>will not be propagated correctly everywhere.

That's more of a problem in the alt hierarchy.  comp.lang.ruby is a
big-8 group, and changes are propagated much better in the big-8.  Not
perfectly, mind you, but pretty well.  Google is a notable exception.
3b1756d05466b4a78afd9aea7bb845c2?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Turner (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 18:52
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Charles Calvert<cbciv@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Simply put, if you don't find my proposed solution workable, then
>>please provide a better one which has the impact of stopping the spam
>>(keeping the headers while nice, won't accomplish that).
>
> Aaron, how much spam are you seeing?  I'm seeing only a handful a day
> on my news server.  I ask because if newsfeed that is used for the
> gateway propagates a lot of spam, maybe we could find a cleaner
> newsfeed instead.

As I said, not enough spam to get me to unsubscribe.  Used to be about
1 a day, now it seems to be like 3-5.  Am I making a bigger deal out
of this then it probably warrants at this time?  Probably.  Like many,
I just have a very low threshold for spam nowadays and I'm concerned
that the trend seems to be moving in the wrong direction.
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 22:05
(Received via mailing list)
Le Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:27:02 -0500, James Gray a écrit :

> So, request received.  It's a little work though and my summer is
> pretty insanely busy.  Please be patient with me if it takes me a bit
> to get to it.

Sure.  BTW, I think we could really use a sandbox environment for that
kind
of things.  Tell me when you have a bit of time to spare for that
project,
and I'll try to come with something.

Fred
B57c5af36f5c1f33243dd8b2dd9043b1?d=identicon&s=25 F. Senault (Guest)
on 2009-06-08 22:10
(Received via mailing list)
Le Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:11:54 -0400, Charles Calvert a écrit :

> That's more of a problem in the alt hierarchy.
I have some experience from the regional side of things (fr.*), and it's
pretty bleak.  We have a hell of a time to get the local ISPs to take
into
account the changes, even with signed messages using a 10 years old key.
:|

> comp.lang.ruby is a
> big-8 group, and changes are propagated much better in the big-8.  Not
> perfectly, mind you, but pretty well.  Google is a notable exception.

Mh.  Google alone is enough to be very carful in this situation, IMHO.

Fred
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-11 15:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:51:29 -0500, Aaron Turner <synfinatic@gmail.com>
wrote in
<1ca1c1410906080951q548e8b7di2accf2109bd3ae0d@mail.gmail.com>:

>>
>1 a day, now it seems to be like 3-5.  Am I making a bigger deal out
>of this then it probably warrants at this time?  Probably.  Like many,
>I just have a very low threshold for spam nowadays and I'm concerned
>that the trend seems to be moving in the wrong direction.

I've noticed an increase in spam from one or a few sources in
technical groups on Usenet recently.  After enough complaints, the
perpetrator should be shut down and go away.  Then another will
surface. <sigh>
Ba91caa4b1fd66471e4180151b379dd7?d=identicon&s=25 Jörg W Mittag (Guest)
on 2009-06-12 00:46
(Received via mailing list)
Charles Calvert wrote:
> I've noticed an increase in spam from one or a few sources in
> technical groups on Usenet recently.  After enough complaints, the
> perpetrator should be shut down and go away.  Then another will
> surface. <sigh>

One of the nice properties of NNTP (and one of the many things that
makes Usenet infinitely more useful than E-Mail for discussion groups)
is that you can delete articles. IOW: as long as you are not the first
person to download that article, you shouldn't actually see it.

However, I must admit that I never do this myself on comp.lang.ruby,
because I am simply not sure what the correct rules are in the US
Usenet. (I'm sort of familiar with the German language Usenet, i.e.
the de.!alt hierarchy, but the rules are very different there.)

jwm
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-12 09:16
(Received via mailing list)
"Jörg W Mittag" <JoergWMittag+Usenet@GoogleMail.Com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:szr1abyyk75g.dlg@jwmittag.my-fqdn.de...
> One of the nice properties of NNTP (and one of the many things that
> makes Usenet infinitely more useful than E-Mail for discussion groups)
> is that you can delete articles. IOW: as long as you are not the first
> person to download that article, you shouldn't actually see it.

Im pretty sure it is impossible to delete third party articles on the
servers.

It should be even impossible to cancel an own article once somebody has
answered to.

If things would be that easy, solution would be (most probably, in a
non-governmental environment) already there.

Michael Bruschkewitz
B2b20140efe14944692ab82a08f9b1c7?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Calvert (Guest)
on 2009-06-12 19:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:11:40 +0200, "Michael Bruschkewitz"
<brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@gmx.net> wrote in
<51c17$4a31ffad$5b0ec0a9$25951@news1.surfino.com>:

>
>"Jörg W Mittag" <JoergWMittag+Usenet@GoogleMail.Com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:szr1abyyk75g.dlg@jwmittag.my-fqdn.de...
>> One of the nice properties of NNTP (and one of the many things that
>> makes Usenet infinitely more useful than E-Mail for discussion groups)
>> is that you can delete articles. IOW: as long as you are not the first
>> person to download that article, you shouldn't actually see it.
>
>Im pretty sure it is impossible to delete third party articles on the
>servers.

You're correct.  If you delete a post in your news client, it is
simply deleted from the local cache of headers.  It still exists on
the server and others will still see it.

>It should be even impossible to cancel an own article once somebody has
>answered to.

This is not the case.  Any post can be canceled at any time, provided
that the server in question honors cancellations.  Most do not, due to
past abuse.
68a08995ddf9b3f8a0b562ed0baf63af?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Bruschkewitz (Guest)
on 2009-06-15 11:00
(Received via mailing list)
"Charles Calvert" <cbciv@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:p255351t28j187crun8u9ufs6gibtpff27@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:11:40 +0200, "Michael Bruschkewitz"
> <brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@gmx.net> wrote in
>>It should be even impossible to cancel an own article once somebody has
>>answered to.
>
> This is not the case.  Any post can be canceled at any time, provided
> that the server in question honors cancellations.  Most do not, due to
> past abuse.
>
Thanks for clarification.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.