Subject:
|
Re: Are you missing news-by-mail digests/forwards?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:18:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> Actually since you're handling the mailing lists, why not consider changing
> things so that they better suit the current situation. What I mean is this:
> LUGNET becomes Sender, From, and Reply to, but people wishing to respond to
> a poster directly via private email have a link at the top, after the
> message headers end, and where the message body begins, that has a mailto:
> or other email address, which represents that of the original poster.
In theory, that would be a way of handling things. In practice, this would
overthrow the way mailing lists (not only LUGNET but in general) have handled
header setting and reply behavior. I would not want to copy a well-known
software firm in that a standard is only a standard if we can redefine it at
will ;-)
> What this would mean is that LUGNET therefore has complete control over
> where bounces go, and this is as it should be, I don't really understand why
> you should use an outdated ruleset if it does not fit the circumstances of
> today's internet.
See it the other way around: Today's internet has decided not to care about a
couple of very important basics. My impression is that the given ruleset is far
from outdated (otherwise people wouldn't be using it as much anymore).
Mailinglists are on a retreat since flatrates for internet access have become
available and online posting / forums are so popular. However the behavior of
the continuing mailing lists is still as it always was and - if you ask the
majority of the users - should be.
> What do you think, is it doable like that, or do you see some issue with
> that? If someone wants to reply to a post, intending for it to go to the
> newsgroup, there should be two things:
>
> 1. A reply link, where the poster crafts his reply to the newsgroup in a
> fromat where LUGNET can decode what newsgroup it came from in the first
> place.
That link is represented by the reply-to address. An additional link would thus
only make sense if we refrain from setting the reply-to address (which every
standard mail client should honor).
> 2. A question in the reply link, where the poster confirms that they are a
> real human being and not a machine, basically, a way to avoid or at the very
> least minimize the possibility that a bot would try to forge-post through
> some compromised computer or by way of devious actions from the
> forge-posters that infest the net out there today.
That part is being handled by our news authentication service. If posts come
from bots or autoresponders, those will never be authenticated and thus never
visible to other users. It's that simple.
> Being that the internet is so big, the best way to do 2 above is to use a
> graphic image where the human recipient has to correctly input what is shown
> the graphic image. It might mean people will need to get used to answering
> an extra question, but LUGNET should have it's posters in mind first and
> foremost.
Totally agreed, and having the posters in mind the best way is positively to
"keep it simple". Inserting a graphic image in the mail is the first step to
starting HTML mails, which many users refuse to accept due to the large amount
of spam that comes in HTML format. Since only users who validated their address
in a specified way can post via email and subscribe to newsgroups via email,
posting for them is as easy as replying to a mail - this is as it should be. The
authentication process is just as simple. Agreed, your approach of using the web
interface (which saves you from having to authenticate every post) is probably
the one involving the least steps, but a lot of users still don't want (or don't
have the opportunity) to surf our web pages daily but rather use their mail
client.
I fully understand that you are not happy with the situation. René and I are
currently looking into ways of improving the existing services, and we will
certainly consider your suggestions (and all other suggestions we receive). I
strongly vote for adhering to standards, but my next most important interest is
to keep all potential abuse down. This is probably not going to be easy, but if
we didn't want to deal with it, we wouldn't have taken responsibility for
LUGNET.
Please allow a while for us to sort this out, but we will do something about it.
Regards,
Jerry
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are you missing news-by-mail digests/forwards?
|
| "Gereon "Jerry" Stein" <jerry@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:J1DsE0.G5t@lugnet.com... (...) Unfortunately, you're causing IBs to become blacklisted for something you ultimately have responsibility for. One of your options would include going to (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jun-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are you missing news-by-mail digests/forwards?
|
| "Gereon "Jerry" Stein" <jerry@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:J1Bv8v.I56@lugnet.com... (...) Actually since you're handling the mailing lists, why not consider changing things so that they better suit the current situation. What I mean is this: (...) (18 years ago, 23-Jun-06, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
