[e2e] latest spate of cruft postings to e2e

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>

> ...
> 	1- automated anti-spam filters
> 	2- manual filters to enforce list policy
>
> Occasionally we get false positives on #2; those are tagged with a 
> "review" header, which is what Mailman says is so "suspicious".

You could handle messages from non-subscribers the same as messages
tagged with "suspicious" headers.  You could do as I and others do
when you receive a Mailman notice about a submission from a
non-subscriber.  Many of us examine the message and pass it, discard
it, or reject it.  Because of the filters upstream of the inputs
to the mailing lists I watch, I don't need to do that more than
about twice a month.  It's far more common that a subscriber tries
to post HTML, which I've configured as "suspicious."


      ......

] From: Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>

] ...
] Every address that you whitelist is a source that you are trusting will 
] uphold your individual threshhold of what consitutes spam.

Ok, I hear you.  Just now
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/thread.html
lists 14 messages.  I think the following 7 are spam:
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003797.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003800.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003801.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003802.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003803.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003804.html
http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2003-November/003805.html

By your (in)actions, you disagree.  As you say, my "trust [that you
will] my individual threshhold of what consitutes spam" is misplaced.

My personal filters reject 200-300 spam/day with a false positive rate
of less than 0.01% (legitimate rejected/total legitimate) and a false
negative rate of less than 0.1% (spam not rejected/total spam).  This
mailing list accounts for much of that 0.1% spam that reaches my
mailbox.  I am not counting as spam the endless, academic (in the
pejorative sense of the word), hair splitting of the history of the
phrase "end to end" or the calls for papers.  If I did, this mailing
list would be the source of most of the spam that reaches my mailbox.


Vernon Schryver    vjs at rhyolite.com

P.S. Please don't be offended that for reasons that seem obvious,
I am removing the whitelist entries for this mailing list from the
sample "whitecommon" file shipped with the DCC source.  Since people
rarely update their /var/dcc/whitecommon files from the distributed
source, this is likely to have no effect on current end2end subscribers
who are also use DCC clients.  There are perhaps 10,000,000 DCC users.


P.P.S. I think I've been a subsriber to this list for a decade and
perhaps longer.  Goodbye.