Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists

Aren´t old XXattendees MLs suspended/default moderated ? i would have
thought so. At least it's what we do with old lacnicXX-attendees

-Carlos

On 4/15/16 3:52 PM, ietf@johnlevine.com wrote:
>> Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is
>> appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution.
> There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent,
> but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter.  There are a few
> that are competent and have very low error rates.  They, not
> surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses.  When I say everyone, I mean
> it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam
> filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the
> alternatives.
>
> In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists
> still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend
> to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get
> their accounts p3ned than average users.  So I agree that we might as
> well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to
> twiddle things beyond that.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> PS:
>
>>>    We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance
>>> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic
>>> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass.
> I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of
> systems with malicious participants.  It's not unrelated to the
> observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you
> as a member.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 89attendees mailing list
> 89attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/89attendees

Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message