🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19960103.124351.29178@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
Adrian Powell  <CIPS-L@unb.ca> wrote:
>>        1) We all agree that SPAM is bad in CIPS-L, and as owner of CIPS-L,
>>           we authorize you to nuke any off-topic posting you feel
>>           like.  If you wish to do this, I can provide you with the
>>           appropriate software.  This is known as retroactive moderation.
>>SG: It sounds good to me...can we agree to give Mike MacDonald that authority?
>>SG: BTW, Mike may not have all that much time for stuff like this.
>>SG: If not you Mike, can you 'bless' another volunteer?

>Once mail has gone out to the mailing list, I think that it has done
>it's damage.  Spams have to be stopped before they are sent out to
>the list, unlike newsgroups where one can "forge" Cancel requests and
>kill off any offending posts.  I vote against this option.

The main news->LISTSERV gateways down at American.edu have a n (2?)
hour delay built into their gateway specifically so that my (and others)
spam cancels are given a chance to catch up and nuke it.

The nice thing about this option, is that it's virtually zero effort,
and can be used at-will without setup.

>>        2) We moderate can.org.cips and cips-l.  You reject any off-topic
>>           junk.
>>SG: That'll work until our dedicated volunteer says "Oh blech, enough is
>>SG: is enough" and moves on. Continuity can be difficult to achieve
>>SG: It has to high a workload for the benefit involved.

>This would be an ideal solution, but I think that going with this
>at this stage would be overkill.  Option 4:

>>        4) We do (2), and you put filters into the injector that looks
>>           for known junk patterns (I have millions of them ;-).
>>
>>           This has the advantage of not slowing the group down - it's
>>           all automatic.

>would seem to be the best solution for the immediate term.  It would
>require little immediate involvement from a moderator, and it still
>leaves open the option of going with a more proactive approach at
>a later date.

This requires the following two bits:

	1) we moderate can.org.cips, so that the filter has a chance
	   to operate on Usenet-originated spam.  (usenet postings
	   are emailed to the gateway site, get filtered, and broadcast
	   on group)
	2) the list admin puts filtering tools in place, cuts over to
	   a LISTSERV, or something.

Perhaps the list owner could comment on (2).

I think it's probably fair to say that the majority of spam will originate
via postings to rec.org.cips.  Keep that in mind.