Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, R. Kelley Cook wrote:
> A fair amount of UCE/SPAM comes through the GCC lists, since anyone
> needs to be allowed to post to it.  You already solved some of it, by
> adding a filter that the sender must not be in ORBS.
> 
> I think much more of it could be eliminated by only allowing email with
> the list name present in either To: or CC: 

I agree that this would be nice.

Jason, do you see any specific problem with enforcing this? Bcc:s
shouldn't be an issue in our case, I guess.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < Pine.BSF.4.21.0002010235200.76959-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at >
you write:
  > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, R. Kelley Cook wrote:
  > > A fair amount of UCE/SPAM comes through the GCC lists, since anyone
  > > needs to be allowed to post to it.  You already solved some of it, by
  > > adding a filter that the sender must not be in ORBS.
  > > 
  > > I think much more of it could be eliminated by only allowing email with
  > > the list name present in either To: or CC: 
  > 
  > I agree that this would be nice.
  > 
  > Jason, do you see any specific problem with enforcing this? Bcc:s
  > shouldn't be an issue in our case, I guess.
I've mentioned this several times.  ezmlm-reject has to be hacked to allow
multiple injection points before we can turn this anti-spam feature back on.

jeff

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Jason Molenda]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:44:51PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

> I've mentioned this several times.  ezmlm-reject has to be hacked to allow
> multiple injection points before we can turn this anti-spam feature back on.

Or just stop accepting mail @egcs.cygnus.com.  The gcc 2.95 releases
all use the new names.  I'm sure some people will try to send mail to
the old addresses and get bounces -- if they bring up the web page to
find out why (egcs.cygnus.com will still get you the right web page),
they'll notice the new list address and resend.


Jason

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 20000131180514.A25482@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:44:51PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > 
  > > I've mentioned this several times.  ezmlm-reject has to be hacked to allo
  > w
  > > multiple injection points before we can turn this anti-spam feature back 
  > on.
  > 
  > Or just stop accepting mail @egcs.cygnus.com.  The gcc 2.95 releases
  > all use the new names.  I'm sure some people will try to send mail to
  > the old addresses and get bounces -- if they bring up the web page to
  > find out why (egcs.cygnus.com will still get you the right web page),
  > they'll notice the new list address and resend.
But we still have to accept mail via the FSF relays and a significant amount
of the spam comes from them.

jeff

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Curtis R. Anderson]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, R. Kelley Cook wrote:
> > A fair amount of UCE/SPAM comes through the GCC lists, since anyone
> > needs to be allowed to post to it.  You already solved some of it, by
> > adding a filter that the sender must not be in ORBS.
> >
> > I think much more of it could be eliminated by only allowing email with
> > the list name present in either To: or CC:
> 
> I agree that this would be nice.
> 
> Jason, do you see any specific problem with enforcing this? Bcc:s
> shouldn't be an issue in our case, I guess.

Doing it this way has the added side effect of allowing us to use
procmail to filter the messages through this list.
-- 
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX
Geek geezer with a minimal web page at http://gleepy.homepage.com/ .
I vacuum my cat regularly.             ICQ: 50137888
mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com        UTM: PS 7036 7315, zone 17

Re: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Jason Molenda]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:09:24AM -0500, Curtis R. Anderson wrote:

> Doing it this way has the added side effect of allowing us to use
> procmail to filter the messages through this list.


You can already filter messages to any of these lists.  Fixed headers that
you can rely on include the Sender: header, as well as all of the RFC2369
headers (List-Subscribe, List-Unsubscribe, List-Post, List-Archive, etc.)

There is a proposed standard for a new header, List-Id, which I may
start generating within the next few weeks if I have a chance.  This is
yet another unique identifier that can be used to reliabily distinguish
mailing list messages.  It isn't yet a finished RFC, but it has gone
through enough revision that it will probably change little before it
is finalized.


Jason
Free the Software!

procmail FAQ fodder. was: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Robert Lipe]

The "how can I procmail these lists" Q is becoming FA.  I can't get to
the FOM or wwwdocs to commit or propose a precise patch, but here's
starting text.  I borrowed heavily from Jason Molenda's work.

Q: How can I use procmail or similar tools to process the GCC mailing lists?

A: Fixed headers that you can rely on include the Sender: header, as well 
   as all of the RFC2369 headers (List-Subscribe, List-Unsubscribe, 
   List-Post, List-Archive, etc.)
  
   As a procmail example, this rule will divert all mail from all the GCC
   lists into a single folder named "gcc.folder"

	:0:
	* ^Sender:gcc.*-owner.*
	egcs.folder

   [ Just drop this paragraph if you don't like it. I consider the question
   answered without it. ] 
   There is a proposed standard for a new header, List-Id, which the GCC 
   lists may start generating in February, 2000. It is yet another unique 
   identifier that can be used to reliabily distinguish mailing list 
   messages.  

Re: procmail FAQ fodder. was: Suggestion for the GCC lists

[Mark Mitchell]

     As a procmail example, this rule will divert all mail from all the GCC
     lists into a single folder named "gcc.folder"

	  :0:
	  * ^Sender:gcc.*-owner.*
	  egcs.folder

I doubt it.  Unless procmail knows that `egcs' has been renamed to
`gcc'. :-) :-)

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

PATCH: lists.html (was: procmail FAQ fodder)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

[ Followup-To: gcc-patches ]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Robert Lipe wrote:
> The "how can I procmail these lists" Q is becoming FA.  I can't get to
> the FOM or wwwdocs to commit or propose a precise patch, but here's
> starting text.  I borrowed heavily from Jason Molenda's work.

I believe this is better suited for our lists.html, as I consider the FAQ
a kind of ``last resort'', if we don't have a more appropriate place where
to publish some information.

Based in your input -- Thanks! -- I installed the patch below.

Gerald

Index: lists.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/lists.html,v
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -c -3 -p -r1.38 lists.html
*** lists.html	2000/02/01 00:44:53	1.38
--- lists.html	2000/02/02 16:56:48
*************** who has said "I can't get off this list!
*** 132,137 ****
--- 132,153 ----
  with enough prodding, that sending mail to the address listed in
  <tt>List-Unsubscribe:</tt> does the trick.
  
+ <h2>Filtering</h2>
+ 
+ <p>If you want to use procmail or similar tools to process the GCC
+ mailing lists, you can filter using the Sender: header, as well as all
+ of the RFC2369 headers (List-Subscribe, List-Unsubscribe, List-Post,
+ List-Archive, etc.).</p>
+ 
+ <p>For example, the following procmail rule will sort all mail from
+ our lists into a single folder named INLIST.gcc:
+ 
+ <blockquote><code>
+ :0<br>
+ * ^Sender: gcc(-announce|-bugs|-patches)?-owner@gcc.gnu.org<br>
+ INLIST.gcc<br>
+ </code></blockquote>
+ 
  <h2>Help</h2>
  
  <p>For further information on using the lists, send a blank mail to

Suggestion for the GCC lists

[R. Kelley Cook]

A fair amount of UCE/SPAM comes through the GCC lists, since anyone
needs to be allowed to post to it.  You already solved some of it, by
adding a filter that the sender must not be in ORBS.

I think much more of it could be eliminated by only allowing email with
the list name present in either To: or CC: to be exploded to the
subscribers of the list.  A quick cursory check of at the UCE on the
gcc archive shows that, like usual, most of it is addressed To a fake
address and BCC'd to the gcc lists.

 -- Kelley Cook