spam

[Rex Clark]

the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had

[Steve Fábián]

Rex Clark wrote:
| the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had

... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it, no matter
how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I subscribe to have much
less spam.
--
Steve

[logic]

From: JP Software Forums
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Open Forum-t-568] spam

>
> Rex Clark wrote:
> | the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had
>
> ... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it, no
> matter how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I subscribe to
> have much less spam.


.. It's illegal to *receive* spam? Boy, I'd be in trouble in those parts of
the world; I get dozens of spam e-mails a day!

.. or is it that the receipt of spam makes the initial dispatch of the spam
a crime?

Jonathan Gilbert

[rconn]

Rex Clark wrote:

> the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had


Not really; the old sparklist was moderated so you usually didn't see
it. (And it was getting progressively worse there too.)

The current forums are currently getting a little over 5,000 spam emails
a day, of which one or two make it through the filters.

99.9% of the spam is coming from gmail accounts; I think I'm going to
have to ban them altogether and require people to use real (non-free)
email accounts.

Rex Conn
JP Software

[rconn]

Steve Fábián wrote:

> Rex Clark wrote:
> | the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had
>
> ... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it, no
> matter
> how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I subscribe to have much
> less spam.


Which is because most of them are moderated forums. I could do that
here, but certain users go ballistic if their posts are delayed 10
minutes, much less several hours ... :-)

Note that you'll only see the (relatively rare) spams if you have
instant email notification enabled.

Rex Conn
JP Software

[drrob1]

I recall that that there was that teacher in an American school that was
prosecuted for having porn-spam on her computer.





> >
> > ... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it,
> no
> > matter how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I
> subscribe to
> > have much less spam.
> .. It's illegal to *receive* spam? Boy, I'd be in trouble in those
> parts of
> the world; I get dozens of spam e-mails a day!
>
> .. or is it that the receipt of spam makes the initial dispatch of the
> spam
> a crime?
>
> Jonathan Gilbert

[Jim Cook]

Sent from Cookie's iPhone

On Oct 17, 2008, at 15:12, "JP Software Forums" <neil@jpsoft.com> wrote:


> Rex Clark wrote:
>
> > the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist
> ever had
>
>
> Not really; the old sparklist was moderated so you usually didn't see
> it. (And it was getting progressively worse there too.)
>
> The current forums are currently getting a little over 5,000 spam
> emails
> a day, of which one or two make it through the filters.
>
> 99.9% of the spam is coming from gmail accounts; I think I'm going to
> have to ban them altogether and require people to use real (non-


I sure hope you have some method to allow trusted accounts. I use
gmail exclusively and do not have a pay account. I understand your
problem but would hate to be banned from the groups.

[Steve Fábián]

rconn wrote:
| Steve Fábián wrote:
|
| > Rex Clark wrote:
||| the spam has gotten worse. more so than the old sparklist ever had
||
|| ... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it, no
|| matter
|| how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I subscribe to
|| have much less spam.
|
|
| Which is because most of them are moderated forums. I could do that
| here, but certain users go ballistic if their posts are delayed 10
| minutes, much less several hours ... :-)

The 8 NGs I receive, such as comp.os.msdos.4dos, are not moderated. My posts
in these NGs usually show up within a few seconds (the next time my
newsreader harvests). SPAM is much rarer than in the new JPsoft NGs.

| Note that you'll only see the (relatively rare) spams if you have
| instant email notification enabled.

which is the only way to have my own local copies of the JPsoft NG postings.
--
Steve

[drrob1]

I am puzzled by this. All ISP's provide an email account as part of
their package, making it essentially free. Why would someone NOT use
this included email (pop3) account?


> > 99.9% of the spam is coming from gmail accounts; I think I'm going
> to
> > have to ban them altogether and require people to use real (non-
> I sure hope you have some method to allow trusted accounts. I use
> gmail exclusively and do not have a pay account. I understand your
> problem but would hate to be banned from the groups.

[Steve Fábián]

| > >
||| ... and in some areas of the world the mere receipt of some of it,
|| no
||| matter how unsolicited, is a crime. The "usenet" type NGs I
|| subscribe to
||| have much less spam.
|| .. It's illegal to *receive* spam? Boy, I'd be in trouble in those
|| parts of
|| the world; I get dozens of spam e-mails a day!
||
|| .. or is it that the receipt of spam makes the initial dispatch of
|| the spam
|| a crime?
|
|
drrob1 wrote:
| I recall that that there was that teacher in an American school that
| was prosecuted for having porn-spam on her computer.

If you only access your e-mail by browser, your are (probably) OK, but if
your mail server or news server automatically / semiautomatically downloads
all mail and news messages, and somebody you never heard of sends you or
posts to one of your downloaded NGs unsolicited child pornography, you may
technically be in violation of the law. If you send email criticizing a
country's government to somebody in that country, and that country has a law
against "slandering or libeling the Government" (e.g., Turkey), you cause
the recipient to be in violation of the law...
--
Steve

[DMcCunney]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM, JP Software Forums <neil@jpsoft.com> wrote:

> I am puzzled by this. All ISP's provide an email account as part of
> their package, making it essentially free. Why would someone NOT use
> this included email (pop3) account?


Because a web account like GMail offers various advantages.

There's effectively no size limit on your mail store. (I'm at 7+GB
and counting.) I found out the hard way that Outlook behaves *very*
strangely if the mailbox.pst file exceeds 2GB...

GMail's mail store can be thought of as a database, with Labels as
index keys. You can apply more than one Label to a message, allowing
it to appear in more than one "folder"

GMail's "Conversations" are *made* for mailing lists like this.

I can check my mail from wherever I happen to be.

I can have GMail check up to four additional accounts, and mail to
those accounts appears in my GMail store. Optionally, replies made to
mail from those accounts can appear to come from those accounts.

I *prefer* GMail's web interface.

I have an ISP pop account. For practical purposes, I never use it
these days. GMail is superior for what I do.
______
Dennis

[Steve Fábián]

RConn wrote:
| 99.9% of the spam is coming from gmail accounts; I think
| I'm going to
| have to ban them altogether and require people to use real (non-free
accounts).

Sent from Cookie's iPhone:
| I sure hope you have some method to allow trusted accounts. I use
| gmail exclusively and do not have a pay account. I understand your
| problem but would hate to be banned from the groups.

drrob1 wrote:
| I am puzzled by this. All ISP's provide an email account as part of
| their package, making it essentially free. Why would someone NOT use
| this included email (pop3) account?

Because you may have multiple ISPs, with different usernames, based on where
you are at the moment: office, home, on the road, etc. A single free mail
server, such as hotmail, gmail, and many others, allows you to use just a
single email address to which your mail can be sent, and from which all your
outgoing mail can originate. You may be contemplating a change of ISPs, and
don't want to lose mail during the transition. Those who are in the IT
service business, especially, are often working on somebody else's computer,
but have their "stick" ready to send and receive e-mail. Or the poster above
("Cookie"), using a cellular phone.

OTOH, trusted accounts can be spoofed. Only the use of a mail server which
requires encryption for logging in provides a modicum of safety.

Rex, when you referred to restricting "gmail" above, did you mean all free
mail servers, or just gmail specifically?
--
Steve

[drrob1]

It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
posted message to appear

how about we take a vote?

I can live w/ either choice.

[Jim Cook]

> It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
> 1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
> 2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
> posted message to appear


First, I think there are other options. If nothing else, I know some
systems have a "trial period" wherein a new member's posts are
moderated for a while until they've established trust.

Before casting this either-or vote, I think asking for other
suggestions / solutions would be of value. There are some very clever
people on this list who have experience that could contribute greatly.

Do the people responsible for the list code recognize the problems,
and are they working on other solutions besides the clearly imperfect
"what are the letters in the box" method now employed?


In essence, I do not have a pay-for email account. I believe that at
home, there is one that comes with my Comcast ISP, but I have never
used it, nor do I even have the password.

At work, these are not especially appropriate email to be exchanging
on my company's account.

I use gmail because it's a web based email, and I do not have only one
computer that I use for email.

If gmail accounts are prohibited, I will be prohibited.

Unfortunately, it seems the new lists are better for the
administrators, and the old ones were better for the users.

--
2008 Fridays: 4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10, 12/12 and 5/9, 9/5, 7/11, 11/7.
Next year they're Saturday.
Measure wealth by the things you have for which you would not take money.

[Steve Fábián]

Jim Cook wrote:

| drrob1 wrote:
|
|| It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list
|| spam-free.
|| 1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
|| 2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day
|| for a posted message to appear


| First, I think there are other options. If nothing else, I know some
| systems have a "trial period" wherein a new member's posts are
| moderated for a while until they've established trust.
|
| Before casting this either-or vote, I think asking for other
| suggestions / solutions would be of value. There are some very clever
| people on this list who have experience that could contribute greatly.
|
| Do the people responsible for the list code recognize the problems,
| and are they working on other solutions besides the clearly imperfect
| "what are the letters in the box" method now employed?

I agree with Jim.

| In essence, I do not have a pay-for email account. I believe that at
| home, there is one that comes with my Comcast ISP, but I have never
| used it, nor do I even have the password.

As another comast customer, I can tell you that you are paying for up to
five comcast email accounts. You need to contact Comcast to set up the
primary user name and original password, thereafter you can add more user
names and change password at will. Both username and password are required
to receive and send mail, but they are AFAIK they are not encrypted when
sent by your mail / new client.

| At work, these are not especially appropriate email to be exchanging
| on my company's account.
|
| I use gmail because it's a web based email, and I do not have only one
| computer that I use for email.

Comcast email is accessible as web based mail. You can access your Comcast
email account even when you are connected to the internet by a different
ISP, either as webmail via a browser, or download to your currently utilized
computer's mail client. If you set the mail client properly, your messages
remain on the Comcast server for a very long time, either until you exceed
your dedicated multigigabyte mail storage), or until you delete them
explicitly. It is easy to download the message to multiple computers and
multiple mail clients.

All I wrote about accessing the Comcast email server also applied to the
Verizon email server when I last used it 2 years ago. The mail retention
time and available mail storage were different.

I recommend you set up your comcast email account, and try to use gmail to
access it. It may even work!

| If gmail accounts are prohibited, I will be prohibited.

I would not like your access denied. OTOH,

| Unfortunately, it seems the new lists are better for the
| administrators, and the old ones were better for the users.

I am not so sure this is true, but it is somewhat irrelevant. AFAIK the
forum server has the ability to deny posting rights to new users until they
have been approved by an administrator. This control could be used more
stringently than it is done presently. In particular, when posting by email
to _ANY_ newsgroup, both username and password should be required. I believe
password is not currently required in most of the groups. Furthermore, only
encrypted usernames and passwords should be accepted.
--
Steve

[GlennBo51]

It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
posted message to appear

how about we take a vote?

I can live w/ either choice.

As I communicate through several ISPs I can't use just one "PAY" email. Therefore I use GMail. Most if not all BROADBAND (CABLE OR DSL) ISPs only allow you to user there email servers to send through their own network. It is not like Dialup. Moderated would be fine but I don't believe it should be a day for it to appear. A trial period would be fine as well.

[Steve Fábián]

GlennBo51 wrote:
| As I communicate through several ISPs I can't use just one "PAY"
| email. Therefore I use GMail. Most if not all BROADBAND (CABLE OR
| DSL) ISPs only allow you to user there email servers to send through
| their own network. It is not like Dialup.

On comast cable I used to access my Bell Atlantic / Verizon e-mail account
without a hitch for several years, by Netscape, Thunderbird and Outlook
Express. I was able to access my comcast account from non-comcast wideband
server, using OE. I did not find any attempt to block e-mail access. OTOH, I
was denied access to the Verizon "usenet" server via comcast cable. I
believe the basic principle is: as a comcast customer, I have the right to
access any mail- or news-server; but the Verizon news server is only for
Verizon customers, access from a different ISP is denied. If I am a Verizon
email customer, I am entitled to access my email from any ISP.

| Moderated would be fine
| but I don't believe it should be a day for it to appear. A trial
| period would be fine as well.

Moderation is not a viable option without a person dedicated to customer
service, or as a more viable alternative to allow several trusted JPsoft
customers to act as moderators. I can think of at least 5 who could, and
most likely would be willing to, act in such a role.
--
Steve

[DMcCunney]

The problem with moderation is that someone has to *do* it. Right
now, that someone appears to be Rex. Unless he's willing to delegate
admin powers to selected forum members, he'd need to spend a fair bit
of time moderating the forums, when you would probably *prefer* he'd
be writing code for new releases.

I'm an admin on another board, and spam control is a time consuming
PITA. Essentially, I go in once or twice a day and blow out the
validation queue, then delete new members that signed up since I last
looked. (The board is low traffic, and new members are 99% likely to
be spammers.) I've also been making extensive uses of IP and email
address filters. If the new member ID looks like it may just not be a
spammer, I set the ID to require moderator approval on posts. I think
GMail accounts are used for about half of what I kill.

Meanwhile, I don't see a reason why you can't use GMail even if Rex
bans it. Rex is thinking about banning GMail IDs to *sign up* for the
Forums. If you have Internet access at all, you have an ISP account,
and you should have an email account as part of that. You sign up for
the forums using the ISP account. Then you set your GMail account to
collect mail from your ISP account, and you set up GMail to send
replies to forum posts *from* the ISP account. See
https://mail.google.com/mail/#settings/accounts for details.

I also suspect that existing accounts will be "grandfathered" -- if
you currently use a GMail account, you should be able to continue to
use it - but Rex will need to confirm/deny that.
______
Dennis

[Rex Clark]

In the old days it was realname only, Those names can be positivley
identified by ISP.
As with ISP email accounts the password for your email will be the same as
your login password.
dialup/broadband/cable what ever.

[rconn]

Jim Cook wrote:

>
> Quote:
> > It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
> > 1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
> > 2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
> > posted message to appear
>
> First, I think there are other options. If nothing else, I know some
> systems have a "trial period" wherein a new member's posts are
> moderated for a while until they've established trust.


I've been doing that for the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately, if
you have instant email notification set the message gets sent before the
moderation. (If you look at the web interface you'll see that none of
those spam messages appear.)

Rex Conn
JP Software

[Jim Cook]

>> > It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
>> > 1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
>> > 2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
>> > posted message to appear
>>
>> First, I think there are other options. If nothing else, I know some
>> systems have a "trial period" wherein a new member's posts are
>> moderated for a while until they've established trust.
>
>
> I've been doing that for the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately, if
> you have instant email notification set the message gets sent before the
> moderation. (If you look at the web interface you'll see that none of
> those spam messages appear.)
[/quote]

Well, first I'm surprised that the "moderated" posts are passed
through unmolested, but that's a side issue. What do the board
designers think "moderated" is for, anyway?

If the occasional spam is my price for instant email, it's not too
much to ask for me. I'd obviously prefer that the board itself would
not pass through messages that were supposed to be moderated.

--
2008 Fridays: 4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10, 12/12 and 5/9, 9/5, 7/11, 11/7.
Next year they're Saturday.
Measure wealth by the things you have for which you would not take money.

[Jim Cook]

> Forums. If you have Internet access at all, you have an ISP account,
> and you should have an email account as part of that. You sign up for


Not true. Libraries provide internet access, my iPhone's WiFi locates
hotspots all over the city, my company provides me internet access,
and none of those come with an ISP that gives me a private email
account.

If required to use a pay-for ISP's account, that would mean that of
all the groups (RSS and email-like lists) I am part of, JPSoft's would
be the only one that would require me to create an entirely new email
identity.

--
2008 Fridays: 4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10, 12/12 and 5/9, 9/5, 7/11, 11/7.
Next year they're Saturday.
Measure wealth by the things you have for which you would not take money.

[Steve Fábián]

Jim Cook wrote:
| Rex Conn wrote:
|| Unfortunately, if
|| you have instant email notification set the message gets sent before
|| the moderation.
|
| Well, first I'm surprised that the "moderated" posts are passed
| through unmolested, but that's a side issue. What do the board
| designers think "moderated" is for, anyway?

I agree with Jim. "Moderated" posts should be hidden from everyone but the
moderator, else the board is not truly moderated.

| If the occasional spam is my price for instant email, it's not too
| much to ask for me. I'd obviously prefer that the board itself would
| not pass through messages that were supposed to be moderated.

I agree again. I'd rather manually delete spam than wait for all postings to
be validated.
--
Steve

[rconn]

Jim Cook wrote:

>
> Quote:
> > It looks like we have 2 choices as to how to make this list spam-free.
> > 1) Block free email accounts, esp gmail.
> > 2) switch to a moderated format, in which it may take up to a day for a
> > posted message to appear


I have installed a couple of add-on packages for vBulletin to try to
block the spammers. So far things seem to be working -- we were getting
the spambots generating several hundred new registrations per day and
sending nearly 4,000 messages. Today we had no successful new
registrations or messages from the spammers. Hopefully this will keep
them at bay for a little while!

Rex Conn
JP Software

[Steve Fábián]

rconn wrote:
| I have installed a couple of add-on packages for vBulletin to try to
| block the spammers. So far things seem to be working -- we were
| getting the spambots generating several hundred new registrations per
| day and sending nearly 4,000 messages. Today we had no successful new
| registrations or messages from the spammers. Hopefully this will keep
| them at bay for a little while!

Thanks!
--
Steve