Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: zsh-workers/37266 has a malicious attachment
- X-seq: zsh-workers 37272
- From: ZyX <kp-pav@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zsh Hackers' List <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: zsh-workers/37266 has a malicious attachment
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:33:19 +0300
- Cc: Geoff Wing <mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1449002000; bh=SqUyLBJYgxSKX30f0qRATQLTzLlPMNJcVZvcGKIP2uU=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Date; b=unhUY3ngAAc3oZuQ8CWp+ypKy6vsknB6TQzw/NLhxkKKOn7ZqAHUKEIWN/ITEIl0m vVg/N+fuyTseOPKUos5rxOziByx9lnpEvZsk4IDWv5+hcm7qs+wCTBrEJe5WEQOqol RXoHAJ89auhfr+MsjvZOaoN2ng3aw+KUobnyNmaE=
- In-reply-to: <151201101131.ZM32158@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <email@example.com> <151201101131.ZM32158@torch.brasslantern.com>
01.12.2015, 21:12, "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Dec 1, 12:24pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } ...probably obvious enough to everyone here, but as it got flagged up by
> } our email system I thought it was worth reporting more widely.
> } Subject line is "Your e-ticket #0000228935".
> The number of spam/malicious messages making it to the list has been
> slowly creeping up the last several months. We may have to consider
> closing zsh-workers to non-subscribers.
> Curiously zsh-users doesn't seem to have the same problem (yet), so if
> we can close -workers while still allowing the cross-posting, we won't
> lose much.
> Or maybe non-member posts could require approval, as with -announce.
vim* lists uses google groups and moderation for new members and I almost never see spam there. Most likely though this is the result of the following combination:
1. Google anti-spam algorythms.
2. Requirement to have Google account to become a member (not necessary Google mail though).
3. Denied non-member posting.
4. Presence of pre-moderation for all members that write posts for the first time.
Fourth should be the most effective. I mean, has the least number of false negatives and positives (“positive” is “spam” marker), though only as long as you do not consider denying non-member posts as adding false positives.
> Barton E. Schaefer
Messages sorted by: