|
Grex > Oldcoop > #376: The problems with Grex, e-mail and spam | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 480 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 480:
| 
Dec 11 20:19 UTC 2006 |
But you still scan the subject of everything, don't you? That's all I do.
I suppose your system just prevents your inbox from filling - or, does it?
I don't expect a perfect system is possible, but so much spam is so obviously
in *classes* of spam, and getting rid of those immediately would be a great
help. Users that want to could keep tweaking a separate filter for themselves.
|
keesan
|
|
response 185 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:25 UTC 2006 |
My system sends 90% of spam to /dev/null and most of the rest to a spam
folder. I scan really quickly, just what went to /dev/null and came in less
than 2 copies. Nothing to move or delete or save afterward, it is already
gone. This week I got one false positive, since I filter on anything
that looks like a webpage and the sender designed it to look like a webpage
but will consider next time sending out holiday greetings as a text message
with the link to a website.
|
keesan
|
|
response 186 of 480:
|
Dec 11 20:44 UTC 2006 |
I just revised my simple filter and added lots of explanations. See
procmail.simple for instructions how to set up a spam filter using spamc.
Copy one line to .forward and the rest of the file to .procmailrc after
editing out my name and putting in your own. All your mail will be forwarded
to procmail, which runs your filter, sends any whitelisted mail directly to
the inbox, assigns spam points to the rest, dumps anything with 3 points,
sticks anything with 2 points in a spam folder, and puts the rest in inbox.
It keeps a logfile in the mail directory of where mail came from, subject
line, and where it ended up, which you can read and delete every few days.
You should also read the spam folder and delete it once in a while. Adding
additional filters catches more spam but sometimes also gets real mail.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 187 of 480:
|
Dec 11 21:20 UTC 2006 |
Actually, there are already some system-wide spam filters in effect. Marcus
designed some, and they return an email to the sending system. To track what
filter rule was applied, Marcus put in a cryptic quotation.
I ran across these a few years ago when I was a list admin for a list on a
different system. Some of the mail from that list bounced back from my Grex
address. As admin, I saw the bounced email and made inquiries, but no one
knew what the cryptic quotations actually referred to.
|
tod
|
|
response 188 of 480:
|
Dec 11 21:24 UTC 2006 |
Its a countdown sequence for the alien invasions.
"Haven't you ever wanted to be part of something special?"
|
spooked
|
|
response 189 of 480:
|
Dec 11 21:41 UTC 2006 |
I very much doubt Marcus' quotations/basic spam analysis have been ported
across from SunOS/Sendmail to our current system featuring procmail.
The DEFAULT way to cut spam for Grex (OR SHOULD BE!) is at our mail server
on Grex, BEFORE it reaches user's mailboxes. I have been reading a
technical book dedicated to combatting spam and believe I have the technical
capability to hugely reduce the current epidemic problem of spam facing
Grex user's currently.
The question remains, and the options simple. Does Grex want to move
forward (in anything other than microsteps)? If that is a yes, than staff
should IMMEDIATELY reinstate Dan and myself to staff.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 190 of 480:
|
Dec 11 23:49 UTC 2006 |
re #189: procmail is a local delivery agent. the program which fills
the sendmail niche in our current configuration is exim.
re #187: that sounds typically Marcus. I'm sure if pressed for an
explanation of why he chose cryptic quotations rather than informative
error messages he'd've given a compelling-sounding explanation about
how readable error messages would have helped the spammers when the
reality is that long after he lost interest in the project other
people were reduced to trying to figure out his cryptic and non-standard
configuration choices.
re #189 (again):
> I have been reading a technical book dedicated to combatting spam
> and believe I have the technical capability to hugely reduce the
> current epidemic problem of spam facing Grex user's currently.
I'm all ears. Perhaps you could write a brief summary to tell us
how you would approach the problem, what resources would be required,
what e-mail would be affected, and what the potential downsides of
your approach would be (in your opinion.) If the approach looks
promising I'm betting that the board will support it, but running it
by the user community for comments would be a great first step.
|
spooked
|
|
response 191 of 480:
|
Dec 12 00:18 UTC 2006 |
Yes, 'exim' is our current MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) component - thus my
strong doubts the customisations to 'sendmail' that Marcus made on our last
machine would have been ported over to this machine with a new MTA.
'procmail' is a Mail Delivery Agent (MDA) component (sitting between the
MTA and user mailbox software, aka Mail User Agent (MUA) component, albeit
a very powerful one. Customisations to 'exim' and server-interface
'procmail' components is the way to go.
I would require staff re-instatement before I committed my services any
further. It appears as though they do not value my input and technical
capabilities, however.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 192 of 480:
|
Dec 12 01:55 UTC 2006 |
I was under the impression that you resigned from staff. Its not
surprising if nobody has reinstated you if no request has been
made and you haven't previously indicated a willingness to rescind
your resignation.
I'm not trying to be difficult, though, but if you were evaluating
someone else's proposal, would the "I have a secret plan to reduce spam.
Make me staff and I'll tell you what it is.." be one that you found
persuasive?
|
spooked
|
|
response 193 of 480:
|
Dec 12 02:11 UTC 2006 |
I have requested to be reinstated to staff about 2 weeks ago...
|
keesan
|
|
response 194 of 480:
|
Dec 12 03:17 UTC 2006 |
Perhaps next time you or Cross get disgruntled you could just take a leave
of absence from staff instead of resigning? I sympathize with your reasons
from resigning but wish you would stay unresigned.
|
cross
|
|
response 195 of 480:
|
Dec 12 04:14 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #177; Well, when you don't bother to listen to anyone outside of
your little inner circle then yes, you really do suck.
Regarding #187; Those changes weren't ported to the current platform.
Regarding #192; I've posted a number of suggestions for improving grex's email
situation. I've offered to help. I haven't heard anything back. *Shrug*
|
cross
|
|
response 196 of 480:
|
Dec 12 04:55 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #194; I think people should protest grex staff's practices. If that
means resigning, then so be it.
|
spooked
|
|
response 197 of 480:
|
Dec 12 04:56 UTC 2006 |
re:194: Leave of absence: Oh yes, like Grex staff when any decision is
required or real work needs to be done. Nah, I'd rather do the work or
knick off.
The solution/s (as there are many) to dramatically reducing spam (and
I'm talking 95%+) are not rocket science (by any means!), and there are
mighty fine people on Grex offering to help deliver those solution/s. I'm
sure significantly less talented people have solved this problem many,
many, many times before --- but have one big advantage, access and
delight from the sysadmins.
If I was a Grex member, I would not be happy. Hell, I am just a Grex user
and I am NOT happy with staff apathy and non-leadership by example here.
|
spooked
|
|
response 198 of 480:
|
Dec 12 05:00 UTC 2006 |
Dan slipped-in... but, funnily enough, his thoughts echoed mine entirely.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 199 of 480:
|
Dec 12 06:44 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it the Board that appoints (and dis-appoints) staff? Have you gone to
a board meeting to make your case?
|
spooked
|
|
response 200 of 480:
|
Dec 12 06:52 UTC 2006 |
I am in Australia.
Somehow after all the years I served on Grex's staff, I don't think I have
to justify my capabilities/sincerity/diligence etc to anyone.
This is more about the poor culture and attitude of a select few on Grex's
staff than my quals.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 201 of 480:
|
Dec 12 07:07 UTC 2006 |
Have you, then, determined the board's position on this? You deserve a clear
position from them.
|
spooked
|
|
response 202 of 480:
|
Dec 12 07:28 UTC 2006 |
I suspect the board, if diligent, should be reading this discussion.
PLEASE speak up.
|
cross
|
|
response 203 of 480:
|
Dec 12 14:23 UTC 2006 |
The board has stated in the October minutes that they won't do anything with
respect to staff without input from staff, which has not been forthcoming.
|
keesan
|
|
response 204 of 480:
|
Dec 12 14:44 UTC 2006 |
Is there a staff meeting scheduled in the near future? Are there regular
scheduled staff meetings? An official policy for how to appoint staff?
|
cross
|
|
response 205 of 480:
|
Dec 12 15:26 UTC 2006 |
I'm sure you can find all of that information by careful reading of what has
already been posted, Sindi. I really have no idea.
|
keesan
|
|
response 206 of 480:
|
Dec 12 15:32 UTC 2006 |
A former staff member knows nothing about when staff meets? Has there EVER
been a policy?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 207 of 480:
|
Dec 12 15:50 UTC 2006 |
The policy is in the bylaws, available as Item 2 in Coop. But that just says
the Board does all the staff appointing (and dis-appointing by inference).
In any case, if the Board wants to hear from Staff on this, let us hear from
Staff. Staff: do you have any problem with spooked being (re)appointed to
Staff by the Board and, if so, what is it?
|
cross
|
|
response 208 of 480:
|
Dec 12 16:11 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #206; I've never participated in a staff meeting. The last time
I tried to participate in a board meeting, I was told there was no room for
me to dial in.
Regarding #207; Just Mic?
|