Mailing list address harvested for spamming
Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else.
I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different.
Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this?
-- Dave
switch(concern_for) { case others_in_list: return "cool, no idea"; break; case yourself: return "filter from field to dovecot list address"; break; default: return "Wait for the reply of others..."; }
On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:39 PM <dovecot-e51@deemzed.uk> wrote:
Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else.
I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different.
Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this?
-- Dave
Quoting dovecot-e51@deemzed.uk:
Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else.
I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different.
Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this?
It's practically impossible to "police" all of those who sign up for a mailing list that they do so for honest or constructive intentions. In addition, copies of this mailing list are archived by various online search engines and indexors, from content maintained or published by the list operators.
You're already using unique mail addresses, which is a sensible strategy, and one I use myself. In fact, I use a scheme whereby I don't need to change or update any back-end settings to deal with a multitude of unique and ad-hoc specified addresses for every vendor/supplier and interaction point I deal with.
In short, if you use a public mailing list, expect that the address you use for it will be discovered and abused by the nefarious marketeers of the High Bit Seas.
Cordially, =Malcky=
On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote:
Quoting dovecot-e51@deemzed.uk:
Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else.
I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different.
Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this?
It's practically impossible to "police" all of those who sign up for a mailing list that they do so for honest or constructive intentions. In addition, copies of this mailing list are archived by various online search engines and indexors, from content maintained or published by the list operators.
You're already using unique mail addresses, which is a sensible strategy, and one I use myself. In fact, I use a scheme whereby I don't need to change or update any back-end settings to deal with a multitude of unique and ad-hoc specified addresses for every vendor/supplier and interaction point I deal with.
In short, if you use a public mailing list, expect that the address you use for it will be discovered and abused by the nefarious marketeers of the High Bit Seas.
Cordially, =Malcky=
Since he uses a unique address, it is trivial to write a rule to ensure msgs come from dovecot.org and discard everything else, I do that on LKML, works a treat. This address alone is a mailing list only address, direct messages go to junk folder, which I visually scan occasionally, and if I dont within 7 days, tuff, they're deleted automatically.
Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list.
(Yeah I know its also shortcomings of certain mailers and mailing services (has gmail even fixed that yet) where hitting reply or reply all should go to list. Its also dumb when list admins dont set reply-to list, the entire point of relying to a list, is, well, to the list)
-- Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privilegedinformation, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents
Links:
[1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list.
Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this.
Also, some lists set the "reply to" with the sender rather than the list.
Further, some user agents have a separate "reply" for replying to list instead of original sender but human error results in wrong being clicked. That's happened to me - causing me to accidentally reply to wrong address.
On 02/12/2018 10:16, Michael A. Peters wrote:
On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list.
Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this.
I could have sworn I said that, oh yes, I see I did
Also, some lists set the "reply to" with the sender rather than the list.
Also covered (poorly configured)
Further, some user agents have a separate "reply" for replying to list instead of original sender but human error results in wrong being clicked. That's happened to me - causing me to accidentally reply to wrong address.
-- Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privilegedinformation, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents
Links:
[1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
On 12/01/2018 04:22 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2018 10:16, Michael A. Peters wrote:
On 12/01/2018 04:09 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list.
Sometimes it is the MUA that is poorly designed that causes this. I could have sworn I said that, oh yes, I see I did
Also, some lists set the "reply to" with the sender rather than the list. Also covered (poorly configured)
Further, some user agents have a separate "reply" for replying to list instead of original sender but human error results in wrong being clicked. That's happened to me - causing me to accidentally reply to wrong address.
My apologies, I honestly did not see it but I just looked and it is there. Maybe the bracket in parenthesis resulted in my mind mentally skipping it or something.
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 10:09:02AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2018 05:31, M. Balridge wrote:
Quoting dovecot-e51@deemzed.uk:
Not to stir the pot, but I notice my email address has recently been harvested from this list for spamming purposes. This email address is unique and not used for anything else.
I'd distinguish this from spam sent to the mailing list itself, which is obviously different.
Is there anything further that could be done to prevent this?
It's practically impossible to "police" all of those who sign up for a mailing list that they do so for honest or constructive intentions. In addition, copies of this mailing list are archived by various online search engines and indexors, from content maintained or published by the list operators.
You're already using unique mail addresses, which is a sensible strategy, and one I use myself. In fact, I use a scheme whereby I don't need to change or update any back-end settings to deal with a multitude of unique and ad-hoc specified addresses for every vendor/supplier and interaction point I deal with.
In short, if you use a public mailing list, expect that the address you use for it will be discovered and abused by the nefarious marketeers of the High Bit Seas.
Cordially, =Malcky=
Since he uses a unique address, it is trivial to write a rule to ensure msgs come from dovecot.org and discard everything else, I do that on LKML, works a treat. This address alone is a mailing list only address, direct messages go to junk folder, which I visually scan occasionally, and if I dont within 7 days, tuff, they're deleted automatically.
Which is why it annoys me that some people on mailing lists feel the need to reply directly, rather than through mailing list.
(Yeah I know its also shortcomings of certain mailers and mailing services (has gmail even fixed that yet) where hitting reply or reply all should go to list. Its also dumb when list admins dont set reply-to list, the entire point of relying to a list, is, well, to the list)
There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea.
Reply-to is intended for the sender to explain that replies shouldn't be sent to the obvious sending address, but to another address. This is essential if, say, the sender is temporarily away from home and s using a friend's email service.
It is unfortunate that there are user-agents that do not provide the reply-to-list' option. And that there are mailing list programs that do not provide the proper list-headers to indicate the mailing list address.
The proper response to such cases is to complain to the email software providers.
-- hendrik
-- Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privilegedinformation, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents
Links:
[1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
On 12/01/2018 05:00 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea.
Reply-to is intended for the sender to explain that replies shouldn't be sent to the obvious sending address, but to another address. This is essential if, say, the sender is temporarily away from home and s using a friend's email service.
It is unfortunate that there are user-agents that do not provide the reply-to-list' option. And that there are mailing list programs that do not provide the proper list-headers to indicate the mailing list address.
The problem though is that then muscle memory with keyboard shortcuts result in reply going to the user instead of list.
Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take into account the vastly different way different types of minds work.
Just as an example, I have a deaf friend who hates bottom posting because the way captions always work is equivalent to top posting - new content pops up above the old content, so the flow she expects is opposite but netiquette nazis scream at her when she top posts.
- Michael A. Peters:
Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take into account the vastly different way different types of minds work.
Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to make the effort to adapt to existing conventions instead of expecting conventions (and thereby other people) to change.
-Ralph
On 12/01/2018 05:49 PM, Ralph Seichter wrote:
- Michael A. Peters:
Netiquette posts are just someone's opinion, and they often don't take into account the vastly different way different types of minds work.
Mailing list netiquette has been around for decades, for good reasons. If Joe User's mind "works differently", Joe needs to make the effort to adapt to existing conventions instead of expecting conventions (and thereby other people) to change.
-Ralph
That is the opinion of some.
But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.
If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not match common usage and is the problem.
I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, not should most people need to.
- Michael A. Peters:
I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.
You'd lose that wager. This list, like many others, has a "List-Post" header embedded in every single message posted. People need to use smart MUAs (or the proper key combination) to reply to the list.
As part of my job, I process literally hundreds of mailing list messages on a nearly daily basis, and never found it taxing or confusing. Existing conventions make it easier for me to handle this load, and I have zero patience for people who refuse to use the right tools for the job.
-Ralph
On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: [...]
But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.
Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong?
If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not match common usage and is the problem. The netiquette is more than just a piece of "documentation of most of
- all folks on the mailing list.
Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one knows how private that should be. Obviously, it's absolutely not private because it goes to - at least the people think how it should work".
Please bring serious an factual problems with the netiquette as such and not just "with some MUA it's not possible" (because it's possible with really *every* MUA - with some it's just a little more work than with others) or "most people ignore it because ...
I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, not should most people need to.
... they are clueless".
In consequence, the clueless people should define how things should work?
Well, there are better solutions than that IMHO.
It's quite the opposite: People should have a *basic* knowledge of the tools they use - for email e.g. the To:-header has no technical meaning.
Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place ....
MfG, Bernd
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On 02/12/2018 03:05, Michael A. Peters wrote: [...]
But - I would wager that over 95% of the time when someone hits the reply button on a list post, their intent is to reply to the list.
Even if it's 99%: What is the lesser risk if someone get's it wrong?
If netiquette is why that sometimes fails, then netiquette does not match common usage and is the problem. The netiquette is more than just a piece of "documentation of most of
- all folks on the mailing list.
Apart from the situation that people send mails over the mailing list with "for X.Y." in the subject and no one knows how private that should be. Obviously, it's absolutely not private because it goes to - at least the people think how it should work".
Please bring serious an factual problems with the netiquette as such and not just "with some MUA it's not possible" (because it's possible with really *every* MUA - with some it's just a little more work than with others) or "most people ignore it because ...
I would wager that most people are clueless to how mail headers work, not should most people need to.
... they are clueless".
In consequence, the clueless people should define how things should work?
Well, there are better solutions than that IMHO.
It's quite the opposite: People should have a *basic* knowledge of the tools they use - for email e.g. the To:-header has no technical meaning.
Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place ....
MfG, Bernd
that is pretty unrealistic and I don't agree with it anyway.
Email should be intitive
-- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
-- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
On 12/1/18 10:13 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
Email should be intitive intuitive
-- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
On 02/12/2018 04:13, Ruben Safir wrote: [...]
Email should be intitive
(It was for me clear from the context that you meant "intuitive";-)
Yes, email (as any other tool) should be intuitive and as easy to use as a hammer (and even hammers can be misused - it' just that we grow up and learn how to use a hammer). But with increasing complexity of a tool, this is gets harder an harder to achieve. And the main "problem" with user-interfaces as such is that a "good user interface" depends on the user (the users knowledge, etc.) so an intuitive user-interface for one user may be totally non-intuitive/strange/ hard to use/inconvenient/too limiting/.... for another user (and vice versa).
And the solution is actually trivial: a MUA just needs always a "reply to sender" and "reply to all" button and when the MUA detects ML headers, a "reply to list" button. It's than as intuitive as it can get.
But some widely used MUAs don't do this out of the box and next to no one blames the MUAs for this but try to push their user interface problem somewhere else (as in "the ML manager must work around my problem and support exactly my use case - I don't care about all others").
MfG, Bernd
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
On 02/12/2018 11:00, Hendrik Boom wrote:
There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea.
Lots of posts around about this, all self serving :)
There may of course be an RFC floating around, but I admit to never having bothered to look, because good netizens reply to list, lists are public, they are for the masses - the membership - the subscriber base, never seen the point in replying privately to a list post, since the answer deprives the list membership of, the answer, so you avoid getting 1500 people ask the same damn question.
-- Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privilegedinformation, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents
Links:
[1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
On 12/2/18 5:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Lots of posts around about this, all self serving :) There may of course be an RFC floating around, but I admit to never having bothered to look, because good netizens reply to list, lists are public, they are for the masses - the membership - the subscriber base, never seen the point in replying privately to a list post, since the answer deprives the list membership of, the answer, so you avoid getting 1500 people ask the same damn question.
Reply-to-all is a requirement for public mailing lists that do not require posters to be members. Like everything at kernel.org. Failing to reply-to-all will exclude non-members, and will get you deserved abuse on such lists.
Other lists have other policies and/or conventions. What's so hard about following the conventions of the lists you participate on? Especially if requested by the list owner?
Phil
Hi!
On 02/12/2018 23:58, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2018 11:00, Hendrik Boom wrote:
There's an extensive email etiquette post somewhere on the net explaining why setting 'reply-to' to the list is a bad idea.
Lots of posts around about this, all self serving :)
There may of course be an RFC floating around, but I admit to never having bothered to look, because good netizens reply to list, lists are
Good netizens also check and edit the To: and Cc: lines.
public, they are for the masses - the membership - the subscriber base, never seen the point in replying privately to a list post, since the
Lots of people actually ignore private questions in such public "environments" - simply because of the said reasons (and to make the time more useful).
answer deprives the list membership of, the answer, so you avoid getting 1500 people ask the same damn question.
Especially since search engines make it much more easier to find questions/problems and answers/solutions in mailing list archives.
MfG, Bernd
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
On 02/12/2018 01:09, Noel Butler wrote: [...]
all should go to list. Its also dumb when list admins dont set reply-to
It's quite the opposite.
list, the entire point of relying to a list, is, well, to the list)
Sorry, but that tells us more more about the audience of such lists than you just intended to.
If I want to answer to the list, I press the "reply-to-list" (or "reply-to-all") button. Sometimes I really just wants to reply privately.
FWIW such bad behaviour of list-admins is usually called "reply-to munging" and https://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html should show why that is always a bad idea (and that a configuration option is actually a serious bug in any mailing software).
Every sane MUA has separate "Reply to sender" and "Reply to list" buttons (or similar user-interface elements) for mails with RFC 2919/2369 headers - either directly or via some addons/plug-ins/extensions.
If your MUA is not sane, change the MUA or edit the addresses by hand - your choice.
MfG, Bernd
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at
participants (10)
-
Bernd Petrovitsch
-
dovecot-e51＠deemzed.uk
-
Hendrik Boom
-
Luke Lane
-
M. Balridge
-
Michael A. Peters
-
Noel Butler
-
Phil Turmel
-
Ralph Seichter
-
Ruben Safir