Subject:
|
Re: Are you missing news-by-mail digests/forwards?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:42:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Geoffrey Hyde <gDOThyde@bigpondDO^avoidspam^TnetDOTau>
|
Viewed:
|
6929 times
|
| |
|
|
"Gereon "Jerry" Stein" <jerry@lugnet.com> wrote in message
news:J1DsE0.G5t@lugnet.com...
> 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 ;-)
Unfortunately, you're causing IBs to become blacklisted for something you
ultimately have responsibility for. One of your options would include going
to whomever sets the standards and ask them if you can overcome this problem
this way or that. I'm not sure where it was on the internet, but one person
loudly complained there's no such thing as a standard, I do know this much
however, it has got so out of control that people started using their own
standards, and that means you might have several standards to comply with,
all of which are mutually exclusive.
> > 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 you should use an outdated ruleset if it does not fit the circumstances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 from outdated (otherwise people wouldn't be using it as much anymore).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.
It doesn't matter if a ruleset is outdated or not, if it is getting too old,
it needs to be UPdated. And I would say your situation with the mail
bounces I occasionally get would merit having this done. If you have to
bypass standards to ensure people will get mails sent to where they have to,
you need to make sure those who set the standards are aware of the problems
they're causing.
> > 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).
LUGNET isn't a mail client! LUGNET is a news archive and retrieval service!
How many other places are out there on the internet that store and retrieve
news posts in exactly the same way LUGNET does, and with a similar usge
profile?
> > 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.
It wouldn't take much for a spammer to figure out how to flood subscription
information and cause real problems, what with all the automated virus and
malicious script automation processes there are out there today. What
LUGNET has set by standards that were set in years past will eventually come
back to haunt it, as it moves into the future.
> > 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 think you really need to consider where LUGNET stands, if it is in the
minority in how it handles things, it should change to reflect best
practices in situations not covered by standards.
> 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.
I thank you for that. However, please bear in mind that the internet has
continued to evolve and spammers in particular seem to be at the forefront
of this wave. Keeping up with the spammers and keeping them out may very
well mean standards which suited the internet 2+ years ago no longer suit
today's internet.
> Please allow a while for us to sort this out, but we will do something
> about it.
I certainly hope so! Although the primary thing is that you should make
sure everything comes back to you, and not to IBs. If IBs keep getting hit,
you keep causing problems for others. Standards or not, the best practice
is to stop making IBs a target.
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Are you missing news-by-mail digests/forwards?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
