Date:         Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:47:52 +0100
Reply-To:     Alastair Nicol <calaban.madness@BLUEYONDER.CO.UK>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Alastair Nicol <calaban.madness@BLUEYONDER.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: SPAM forcing unsubscription - proposed solution for Digests
In-Reply-To:  <18b.17e3f399.2bba0480@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

there are numerious mailing listing packages out there which do attempt
to stop spam.

its a difficult nut to crack, but not impossible.

stopping all HTML formatted email would make a big dent in the "porn"
spam. Most (all?) email clients support sending plain text emails.

its also very easy to scan incoming email and strip iframes/image
links/jscript tags.

Its also very easy to match incoming email against known spam. This is a
service we have purchased at work (very cheap). I'm also aware of an
open source project to provide a database of signatures for all current
spam, I dont know the current status (it only started up a couple of
months ago)

LISTSERV could implement these simple changes on their servers and
everyone would be a lot happier.

so either
1. hassle listserv to sort out spam/porn issues.
2. move sas-l to another host.

my 2p

Al

Philip Gallagher wrote:

>w.r.t. Steve Albert's problem with pornographic spam in SAS-L Digests
>evoking IT demands to unsubscribe:
>
>Considering Digests alone, there is a possible solution, that is, moderators.
>Since there are usually only four to seven digests per day, perhaps it would
>not be an insufferable burden for a brave soul(s) to volunteer to "moderate"
>the Digests.  No more than deleting obvious spam, followed by forwarding
>to the Digest list.  (I don't know the mechanism by which the LISTSERV
>could implement this, but I don't know anything about the internal workings
>of LISTSERVs anyway, but I know a clever programmer must be able to
>devise a way for the LISTSERV to permit posting only by the moderator
>to the Digest list.  At least I hope there is an easy way.)
>With a halfways decent editor (NOT AOL!) it should not usually take more
>than two minutes per digest, and maybe even less.  Hence, hopefully not
>more than 15 minutes per day.
>
>Downsides:
>1.  The time of the brave moderator.
>2.  Additional delay before we see the digests.  As it is, a whole string of
>answers have often appeared somewhere down the line before we digest
>readers ever see the first question.  Still, if it would get thousands(?) of
>Highly Esteemed IT Gurus off our backs, well, ...
>
>Phil Gallagher
>Nantucket
>
>Error above:  the text above should have read "Maximally Highly Esteemed
>IT Gurus", at least as long as they rule our world.  :-)
>
>