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

Dick Franks <rwfranks@gmail.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70EA612E0DB; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrTYIuFBSoeF; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD55B12E123; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x236.google.com with SMTP id bg3so71550202obb.1; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ibnTvl10asQ94XwXFIREg4h8y0xdeFsNiFEjCM55oys=; b=MRqp2YPs0oBT2Spypedq0/cBCCBxLzitiGy1Z8RlzBwnDYKdE3jTx9LvsY5qQDo2/8 7xoLr7gK/MCdE0JzYa1zbeaMM38K1UJzUkzMFPGPkAPat0isxM1Sk3EA76QbtYyQ8dNb JuE7/8HHJD/fF2XVFDmzcqb+dBO7iFRsYPedeo/8SfJ+wNNnlrR+mSZIw6AF8AL1h2u7 eZrPQDQo6QjAXdYON73kCcXyAuq/RD85HPZ6JzdRLoDxniFwna84YTgetHF+v3r+bBjm Z4h+iMNlobi44UcXx1tpobndKEDqHxD1qgstdwFiQOjfZ22SVwtKtJf5hBVsZrmzz7/Z PdcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ibnTvl10asQ94XwXFIREg4h8y0xdeFsNiFEjCM55oys=; b=iAF+hXsjMtqFZS90qTR1qDAgB1I3SqNKAHElt0V7h4xijqHuo/N1NbxZt5YsyoL7Dl ZjFEcgMp84yv1hPVal08wXuJQqgUCcDl7p2uTFjrdugjKjyNjc28iisfq3XdxKo1Ggod 8gA70m34BVzBz2cI2TWlfjt3aPfvEb4vuwGu9UjSbMrT2qXk86bvTa7uQ1jt75+hl4CZ dcDAMTk1BBbOm/kOGPMRpwQE65CZ4TuC4u4o6RuWdw6CVym1EMgppVixqgXLrSLQ65/f lUsLJW8ZMD5JrTG02S8qydVWhcWnGyecZxds+tcnt+cBkORJa4CwV52Rt34hsD+5spCS wuLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWnrPejPXS9gniO5n0magrkYssWfml+kDgkLS7avYQYfumAcORuGAW6BFtVZCw9anwiSrR4m8GGikGbpg==
X-Received: by 10.182.98.167 with SMTP id ej7mr12429275obb.46.1460759006197; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.114.136 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1604151118350.13335@egate.xpasc.com> <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:22:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri6NSrsTw=LV_eErvjPQgW5QW_0EM0xJCsff_p9Eh2vk3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message
To: ietf@johnlevine.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e41ecaac38e05308d7517"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/A6QxkE-1P8uyy-7Ysthag25VgnQ>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 89attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 22:23:28 -0000

On 15 April 2016 at 19:52, <ietf@johnlevine.com> wrote:
[snip]

> 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.
>

So what needs to be done to make it happen?