Re: Proposed changes to the support newsgroups/mailing lists
Frank
> PREFACE: I'm setting replies to this post to be posted in
> mozilla.general. If you don't want to subscribe to mozilla.general, you
> send your response to my email address and I'll post it there.
>
>
> _The problem_
> Spam in the newsgroups.
>
>
> _How is it happening_
> These newsgroups are mirrored between lists.mozilla.org,
> news.mozilla.org, and Google Groups. All the spam is coming via Google
> Groups, and Google is doing nothing to stop it.
>
>
> _What are the proposed changes to fix it in other newsgroups_
> The plan for the developer newsgroups is laid out at
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal>. There is more
> information there about the details of the problem. The solution for
> other newsgroups basically goes like this:
> * all posts require moderator approval
> * the moderator can add you to a whitelist, which means all your posts
> will be automatically approved
>
>
> _What is the plan for the support newsgroups_
> Because most threads in the support newsgroups are started by new
> posters, who often don't post in other threads, and rarely come back
> after their issue is fixed, the plan for the developer newsgroups isn't
> ideal for the support newsgroups. So I want to lay out our options and
> get your feedback.
>
>
> _The options_
>
> A) We mark the Google Groups end as read-only. This is not an option in
> the developer newsgroups, because web-access is mandatory. But for
> support, there are other (better) web-based support forums
> (support.mozilla.com, getsatisfaction, mozillazine, etc.), so the
> ability to post here via the web isn't really preventing users from
> getting web-based support.
> To see what a read-only Google Group looks like, go to
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.general>
>
> However, I'm not sure this will stop spam that is cross-posted from
> other Google Groups. It may prevent people in the developer newsgroups
> from cross-posting to the support newsgroups via Google. And I'm not
> sure if users looking for help via the Google Groups end will know where
> to go, after they see that they cannot post.
>
>
> B) We implement the same plan as for the developer newsgroups, but only
> contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more moderators, to
> increase the chances of a new thread getting approved quickly.
>
> However, this requires vigilance from moderators, and there may not be
> enough to eliminate the latency.
>
>
> C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
>
> However, the mailing lists still gets the odd message from non-members
> thinking it's a private support address. Right now, posts from
> non-members are automatically rejected and given a message explaining
> that this is a community forum. But if we go with plan C, those messages
> would be automatically approved.
>
>
> _Why this post_
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>
I'm not primarily a computer person but like group.
Would prefer no moderator as it slows response time.
Spam is a PITA but not all that bad.
Andrew DeFaria
C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
However, the mailing lists still gets the odd message from non-members
thinking it's a private support address. Right now, posts from
non-members are automatically rejected and given a message explaining
that this is a community forum. But if we go with plan C, those messages
would be automatically approved.
Mike Easter
> _The problem_
> Spam in the newsgroups.
> _What is the plan for the support newsgroups_
> _The options_
>
> A) We mark the Google Groups end as read-only. This is not an option in
> the developer newsgroups, because web-access is mandatory. But for
> support, there are other (better) web-based support forums
> (support.mozilla.com, getsatisfaction, mozillazine, etc.), so the
> ability to post here via the web isn't really preventing users from
> getting web-based support.
However, that strategy would deprecate the moz support groups by
diminishing its activity.
So it would diminish the options and interactions for the one seeking
help and it would diminish the activities for those rendering help.
> B) We implement the same plan as for the developer newsgroups, but only
> contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more moderators, to
> increase the chances of a new thread getting approved quickly.
>
> However, this requires vigilance from moderators, and there may not be
> enough to eliminate the latency.
Gmane's strategy for auto-authenticating seems simpler than that.
> C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
I don't know if I understand that one.
> _Why this post_
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
Another idea would be to do it with gmane instead of GG and instead of
the mailman listserv.
Gmane provides a web interface, has good antispam strategies, provides a
news server and a mailing list.
A great many listserv/s converted themselves over to gmane's, which is
its principle function.
http://gmane.org/ There are currently 15,611 mailing lists subscribed to
Gmane, with a total of 106,936,814 messages. -
// This is what Gmane offers. Mailing lists are funneled into news
groups. This isn't a new idea; several mail-to-news gateways exist.
What's new with Gmane is that no messages are ever expired from the
server, and the gateway is bidirectional. You can post to some of these
mailing lists without being subscribed to them yourself, depending on
whether the mailing lists allow non-subscribers to post or not.
In addition, Gmane does spam detection, cross-post handling, has a
TMDA-fueled encryption/forwarding service, a web interface, respects
X-No-Archive, supplies RSS feeds, uses SPF, gathers traffic statistics,
and has a real-time indexing search engine. //
--
Mike Easter
Bill B
>
> A) We mark the Google Groups end as read-only. This is not an option in
> the developer newsgroups, because web-access is mandatory. But for
> support, there are other (better) web-based support forums
> (support.mozilla.com, getsatisfaction, mozillazine, etc.), so the
> ability to post here via the web isn't really preventing users from
> getting web-based support.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.general>
>
> However, I'm not sure this will stop spam that is cross-posted from
> other Google Groups. It may prevent people in the developer newsgroups
> from cross-posting to the support newsgroups via Google. And I'm not
> sure if users looking for help via the Google Groups end will know where
> to go, after they see that they cannot post.
>
>
> contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more moderators, to
> increase the chances of a new thread getting approved quickly.
>
> However, this requires vigilance from moderators, and there may not be
> enough to eliminate the latency.
>
>
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
>
> thinking it's a private support address. Right now, posts from
> non-members are automatically rejected and given a message explaining
> that this is a community forum. But if we go with plan C, those messages
> would be automatically approved.
Option C. The downside mentioned can be handled with a brief, civil,
helpful response. We can even draw straws and take turns being nice to
people who have lost their way.
Bill B
Michael Gordon
> PREFACE: I'm setting replies to this post to be posted in
> mozilla.general. If you don't want to subscribe to mozilla.general, you
> send your response to my email address and I'll post it there.
>
>
> Spam in the newsgroups.
>
>
> These newsgroups are mirrored between lists.mozilla.org,
> news.mozilla.org, and Google Groups. All the spam is coming via Google
> Groups, and Google is doing nothing to stop it.
>
>
> _What are the proposed changes to fix it in other newsgroups_
> The plan for the developer newsgroups is laid out at
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal>. There is more
> information there about the details of the problem. The solution for
> other newsgroups basically goes like this:
> * all posts require moderator approval
> * the moderator can add you to a whitelist, which means all your posts
> will be automatically approved
>
>
> posters, who often don't post in other threads, and rarely come back
> after their issue is fixed, the plan for the developer newsgroups isn't
> ideal for the support newsgroups. So I want to lay out our options and
> get your feedback.
>
>
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>
Chris,
It seems that Spam Assassin is performing a decent job of weeding out a
majority of Spam. Some is going to leak through no matter what you do.
The one improvement many of us would like to see is the ability to use
graphic images to assist us in providing support from our own systems.
Granted not everybody's system is the same, but there are enough
similarities that image support could be a huge benefit. One picture
can be worth a 1000 words or more.
Another improvement would be the inclusion of the header listing the
application type and version of the program sending the post. We used
to have this many years ago because a lot of new users would use Mozilla
1.x to post a question and do not realize how important it is to know
what version and number we are working with. Imaging trying to provide
support for Mozilla Suite 1.x through SeaMonkey 1.x, and now SeaMonkey 2.x.
Thanks for asking for our comments.
Michael
Phillip Jones
C first B second. A no way Jose. Although I have a G-Mail Account I
don't use it all that there is Spam . It’s a Spammer's Dream.
Plan D would be to find another go between other than gmail who cares
about spam control. I think maybe Google actually encourage spam as
addition revenue.
In a recent article posted on cNet, ZDnet, and Computerworld. The CEO of
Google said he could careless about user Privacy.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
David H. Lipman
| _The options_
Move to GMane.Org
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Mike Easter
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> B) We implement the same plan as for the developer newsgroups, but
>> only contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more
>> moderators, to increase the chances of a new thread getting approved
>> quickly.
>> C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
>> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam.
>> (SpamAssassin is already installed on the mailing list, and has been
>> doing a very good job of catching the spam and holding it for
>> moderation.)
>
> I don't know if I understand that one.
If I understand B&C correctly, that means that for either of those,
everything posted thru' the newsgroup is going to go thru' mailman with
the resultant adverse affect on the headers and threading.
I'm not sure I really understand whether or not the 'ugly' headers I see
in the developer groups are just ugly because the ones I looked at were
mailing list headers or what, but I seem to recall other mailman
situations in which the quality of threading was compromised by the
listserv header influence.
If the current moz.dev.apps.tbird is an example of how the headers would
look (more importantly, function) under plan B or C, then that's not
bad. If the headers are going to look like mailing list headers, I don't
think they work as well as normal nntp-only headers.
--
Mike Easter
Ron Hunter
> contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more moderators, to
> increase the chances of a new thread getting approved quickly.
>
> enough to eliminate the latency.
>
>
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
>
> thinking it's a private support address. Right now, posts from
> non-members are automatically rejected and given a message explaining
> that this is a community forum. But if we go with plan C, those messages
> would be automatically approved.
>
>
> _Why this post_
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>
regular contributors, then implement the plan b.
However, I already have google groups filtered, so perhaps offering a
filter file to those who don't know how to create their own would be a
better solution.
Terry R.
You don't need a Gmail account to access Google Groups Phillip. It has
nothing to do with what Chris suggested.
And Google has some of the best filtering out there for spam.
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
goodwin
>
>
> _Why this post_
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>
then
Plan C
Chris Ilias
Posting via the mailing list doesn't strip reference headers, so
threading should not change. One newsgroup that has set up like option B
for a long time now is mozilla.test.multimedia, so you can test
threading there if you like.
Chris Ilias
The problem mentioned is not a matter of how those users are treated by
the community. Even if the user gets a helpful polite response, they're
not going to see it, because they're not subscribed to the mailing list,
newsgroup, or google group.
JoeS
> C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
I vote for this.
Remember that with TB3 trunk, it is now possible to locally delete spam
with a simple press of the del key. So what does get through is easily
disposed of.
--
JoeS Using TB3
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird_3.0_-_New_Features_and_Changes
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Thunderbird/Thunderbird_Binaries
Daily Build Thread RSS feed http://th3oretiker.de/stuff/thunderbirdfeed.xml
Chris Ilias
>
> Move to GMane.Org
I'm not sure why gmane was rejected for the dev groups. I'll look into
that, as I'm not that familiar with gmane.
I assume it would have the same negative affect as plan A, and I'm not
sure how much would be in Mozilla's control.
»Q«
Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
With Gmane, Mozilla would control the mailing lists, and Gmane would
provide the nntp and web interfaces. Gmane may have other options, but
that's generally the way it works. It was set up mainly to provide nntp
access (a gateway) to the many Linux mailing lists (both dev and
support lists). The web interface was secondary, but it's been greatly
improved over the years, and I actually prefer it to Google's.
Plan A involved having a read-only web interface (Google's), but
Gmane's would be read-write.
There may some show-stopper with Gmane, but if there is I've never
seen anyone bring it up. Gmane seems to me to meet all the stuff people
want in a web interface (reading, posting, archive access) without the
drawbacks of Google (spam, unresponsiveness in the face of problems).
--
»Q« /"\
ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /
against html e-mail X
<http://www.asciiribbon.org/> / \
David H. Lipman
>> Move to GMane.Org
It is used for the likes of...
OpenOffice
LibreOffice
WGet
WireShark
Python
W3BNR
Plan D: Gmane seems to be the best option, if one is to be picked.
I find that most of the spam in the last few months can be easily deleted by the
use of filters. i.e. ALL CAPS, Google. Other than those I haven't seen any.
--
Ed
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1zhwu/
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/
If you can't come up with the answers, come up with the questions.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
For whatever reason the initial post is no longer available, so I'll
make my suggestion here:
Leave it as-is, the spam is livable as long as there are no responses to
it/them, etc.
--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
*DISCLAIMER: I have no authority here, therefore all replies other than
factual support answers are my opinions only.*
David E. Ross
of broken threads. To me, a reply that is not within the same thread as
the original message is almost as annoying as spam.
goodwin
>
> For whatever reason the initial post is no longer available, so I'll
> make my suggestion here:
>
> Leave it as-is, the spam is livable as long as there are no responses to
> it/them, etc.
>
>
yeah, the spam is livable if you are you sophisticated enough to to deal
with it - I wouldn't trust the masses that stumble into the group to be
that savvy. I'd just as soon not have it displayed publicly so as to
not give the spammers the satisfaction of seeing their crap getting through.
Fox on the run
> PREFACE: I'm setting replies to this post to be posted in
> mozilla.general. If you don't want to subscribe to mozilla.general, you
> send your response to my email address and I'll post it there.
>
> Spam in the newsgroups.
>
> These newsgroups are mirrored between lists.mozilla.org,
> news.mozilla.org, and Google Groups. All the spam is coming via Google
> Groups, and Google is doing nothing to stop it.
>
> _What are the proposed changes to fix it in other newsgroups_
> The plan for the developer newsgroups is laid out at
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal>. There is more
> information there about the details of the problem. The solution for
> other newsgroups basically goes like this:
> * all posts require moderator approval
> * the moderator can add you to a whitelist, which means all your posts
> will be automatically approved
>
> posters, who often don't post in other threads, and rarely come back
> after their issue is fixed, the plan for the developer newsgroups isn't
> ideal for the support newsgroups. So I want to lay out our options and
> get your feedback.
>
>
> A) We mark the Google Groups end as read-only. This is not an option in
> the developer newsgroups, because web-access is mandatory. But for
> support, there are other (better) web-based support forums
> (support.mozilla.com, getsatisfaction, mozillazine, etc.), so the
> ability to post here via the web isn't really preventing users from
> getting web-based support.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.general>
>
> However, I'm not sure this will stop spam that is cross-posted from
> other Google Groups. It may prevent people in the developer newsgroups
> from cross-posting to the support newsgroups via Google. And I'm not
> sure if users looking for help via the Google Groups end will know where
> to go, after they see that they cannot post.
>
> contributors are added to the whitelist. We then add more moderators, to
> increase the chances of a new thread getting approved quickly.
>
> However, this requires vigilance from moderators, and there may not be
> enough to eliminate the latency.
>
> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
>
> However, the mailing lists still gets the odd message from non-members
> thinking it's a private support address. Right now, posts from
> non-members are automatically rejected and given a message explaining
> that this is a community forum. But if we go with plan C, those messages
> would be automatically approved.
>
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>
> Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Personally I use exclusively Google Groups to participate. I much
prefer how it threads messages vs a news reader (not here to argue
with those that prefer otherwise - just stating /my/ preference). So
making it read only would force me to find another way to participate
(hence not my preferred option). I'm not sure how Google Groups spam
can be controlled. Personally I see maybe one message every 3-4 days
on average it seems (in Firefox support - don't spend much time in
other groups).
A white list of posters would work (but would put additional burden on
moderators). Perhaps once someone has had X number of messages
approved they get white listed (clearly establishing it's not a
spammer address). The threshold wouldn't have to be very high - as
few as 10 I would suggest.
JB
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> _Why this post_
> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
Leave it alone or more support givers will be leaving. The little bit of
spam is livable so long as people don't respond to it. What really needs
to be done is to find a new host.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
The answer is to move this server to another host that is aware enough
to use spam traps such as spamassassin for instance. And also, there are
those of us that don't want to have anything to do with moderation,
especially in a support group where threads can be lost, moved, not
found and so on. Moderation is NOT a solution to controlling spam in a
venue such as this one, IMHO of course.
goodwin
There is much to be said for that - I've seen a bit in gmane but am
thinking it is list oriented.
goodwin
> On 03.02.2011 19:22, goodwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, the spam is livable if you are you sophisticated enough to to deal
>> with it - I wouldn't trust the masses that stumble into the group to be
>> that savvy. I'd just as soon not have it displayed publicly so as to
>> not give the spammers the satisfaction of seeing their crap getting
>> through.
>>
>
> The answer is to move this server to another host that is aware enough
> to use spam traps such as spamassassin for instance. And also, there are
> those of us that don't want to have anything to do with moderation,
> especially in a support group where threads can be lost, moved, not
> found and so on. Moderation is NOT a solution to controlling spam in a
> venue such as this one, IMHO of course.
>
I would defer to your experience there - moderation seems like a
hopeless/no win cause.
Woodstock was 43 yrs. ago...
goodwin
>
> Personally I use exclusively Google Groups to participate. I much
> prefer how it threads messages vs a news reader (not here to argue
> with those that prefer otherwise - just stating /my/ preference). So
> making it read only would force me to find another way to participate
> (hence not my preferred option). I'm not sure how Google Groups spam
> can be controlled. Personally I see maybe one message every 3-4 days
> on average it seems (in Firefox support - don't spend much time in
> other groups).
>
> A white list of posters would work (but would put additional burden on
> moderators). Perhaps once someone has had X number of messages
> approved they get white listed (clearly establishing it's not a
> spammer address). The threshold wouldn't have to be very high - as
> few as 10 I would suggest.
>
one of the 1st gmail accounts (remember when you needed an "invitation"
to get an account?)
But IMO, their interface went down the toilet. And the quality of their
input to newsgroups is sub-par (present company excluded). Makes one
infer that only dimwits use google groups.
Lotsa people speak Chinese but I don't. Lotsa folks buy viagra from
Canadian Pharma, but I don't. Lotsa folks use Windows, but I don't.
Lotsa folks like google and yahoo but count me out - /especially/ using
their forums.
To each his own...
Chris Ilias
> PREFACE: I'm setting replies to this post to be posted in
> mozilla.general. If you don't want to subscribe to mozilla.general, you
> send your response to my email address and I'll post it there.
Question via private email:
"Will your decision affect the way i use the newsgroup
mozilla.support.seamonkey thru and only thru SeaMonkey's Mail and
Newsgroups client ? "
Answer:
If we go with option B, your first post after the change will need to be
approved. Robert is in charge of mozilla.support.seamonkey, so he'll
have to add you to an auto-approve list. After you have been added,
there won't be any difference in the way you use it.
For options A and C, no.
Chris Ilias
The solution is different than option A, but the drawbacks are largely
the same:
* Cannot cross-post between dev and support groups via the web.
* People on Google Groups who see the dev groups and an archived version
of support newsgroups won't know where to go. (Post in the dev groups?)
* And we're still cutting off our google groups contributors, like Fox
on the run.
The big issues about gmane is this: we're not talking about all Mozilla
newsgroups. Just the support newsgroups. news.mozilla.org is not
changing hosts, so when you say Gmane would provide the nntp interface,
that completely separates support and dev groups.
And even more importantly, if there's a problem, Mozilla wants to have
control to correct that problem. As
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal> says "Our destiny
is in our own hands. " That's why these groups are not on Usenet to
begin with. It's about having control over or own forums.
Chris Ilias
I don't think any of the options will result in more broken threads. The
mozilla.test.multimedia newsgroup has the same setup as option B, and
messages don't lose their reference headers.
The recent increase in broken "threadage" is a result of Google's new
groups interface, so option A (preventing people from posting via google
groups) would actually result in less broken threads.
Phillip Jones
If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
Gmail Account is Spam. I've had a niece to cancel her Gmail account
because of Spam and go to something else. We need to go back to
Mozilla only server if they don't have the bucks, they need to ask for
donations to buy the equipment. The switching to GMail and Giganews is
the worst thing they have ever come up with.
what ever they do any thing but choice A. Choice a is worse than going
to GMail, Giganews.
Phillip Jones
> On 2/3/2011 12:34 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>> C) We configure the newsgroups like the dev groups, but automatically
>> approve every post, and let SpamAssassin filter the spam. (SpamAssassin
>> is already installed on the mailing list, and has been doing a very good
>> job of catching the spam and holding it for moderation.)
>
> I vote for this.
> Remember that with TB3 trunk, it is now possible to locally delete spam
> with a simple press of the del key. So what does get through is easily
> disposed of.
>
you click the spam button it automatically sends the item to an abuse box.
Phillip Jones
-------------------snip-------------------
> And even more importantly, if there's a problem, Mozilla wants to have
> control to correct that problem. As
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal> says "Our destiny
> is in our own hands. " That's why these groups are not on Usenet to
> begin with. It's about having control over or own forums.
If that's the case why did Mozilla decide to ditch their own servers and
go with Giganews/Gmail?
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
> -------------------snip-------------------
>
>> And even more importantly, if there's a problem, Mozilla wants to have
>> control to correct that problem. As
>> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal> says "Our destiny
>> is in our own hands. " That's why these groups are not on Usenet to
>> begin with. It's about having control over or own forums.
>
> If that's the case why did Mozilla decide to ditch their own servers and
> go with Giganews/Gmail?
* Mozilla weren't using their own server to ditch. news.mozilla.org used
to be hosted by AOL, and the new mozilla.* hierarchy couldn't be
implemented until someone stepped up to be a news admin.
See <http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/04/the-history-of-mozilla-newsgroups/>
* The Mozilla newsgroups were always on Google Groups. It was worse with
the previous server, because those netscape.public.mozilla.* newsgroups
were on Usenet.
* Google Groups does not equal Gmail. You don't need a gmail account to
post via Google Groups. From your hatred of Google, I would think that
option A is the plan you would prefer. That's the one where posting from
Google Groups is not allowed.
Mike Easter
> Personally I use exclusively Google Groups to participate. I much
> prefer how it threads messages vs a news reader (not here to argue
> with those that prefer otherwise - just stating /my/ preference).
I was recently quite surprised to find that a usenet group that I mostly
lurk rather than participate was mostly participated by GGers.
I only surveyed the last 10 days or so of group particpation headers,
but about 80% of the messages (non-spam) were posted by GGers.
One of those GG posters was complaining about the spam seen in the group
and I was proselytizing for (recommending) using a nntp newsreader and
news server, since my view of the newsgroup with NIN news.individual.net
contained zero spam in some 300 messages, but none of those using GG
were/ seemed to be/ interested in changing.
The view of the group's messages with GG showed a lot of spam. Besides
the spam, I don't like GG's view, and only use GG for searching and
referencing. Unfortunately it doesn't search as well as it used to.
--
Mike Easter
Ron Hunter
not-spam, I don't see it as a problem. Anything else would be handled
as it currently is. BTW, Moderation IS. It is less intrusive in these
groups than in other support venues I have experienced.
Ron Hunter
Mike Easter
> The recent increase in broken "threadage" is a result of Google's new
> groups interface,
My recent experimentation with the new interface indicates that it has
some new deficiencies at being able to create messages like a newsreader.
It is less intuitive in facilitating/allowing quoting of the message
being replied and it no longer has a method for adding/subtracting
newsgroups or creating a f/ups header.
IMO GGers shouldn't use the new interface, and I'm not really sure of
the easiest way to get out of it once you are in. Naturally GG
streamlines and encourages changing and *says* that it is easy to change
back, but the ease/method of changing back isn't apparent to me yet.
--
Mike Easter
Ron Hunter
Control? Seems to me there is much LESS control than before moving to
Google. In what way do we have better control? Adding another entity
to the mix of a process doesn't usually enhance control.
Mike Easter
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> The recent increase in broken "threadage" is a result of Google's new
>> groups interface,
> IMO GGers shouldn't use the new interface, and I'm not really sure of
> the easiest way to get out of it once you are in. Naturally GG
> streamlines and encourages changing and *says* that it is easy to change
> back, but the ease/method of changing back isn't apparent to me yet.
Here are the 'fascinating' instructions GG gives for getting back out of
the new user interface. The reason I haven't seen any way out is because
while experimenting, I didn't want to commit to having the new UI become
my default. GG is saying that in order to see the way out of the new UI,
you have to commit to the new UI being the default!
// If you would like to set your default Groups experience to the old
Google Groups interface, you can do so by opting out of the new
interface. Simply go to the overview page of the new Groups interface at
https://groups.google.com/forum/. Then click the "Switch to the new
Groups" button. Once you receive confirmation that the new Groups is
your default interface, you will also have the option to switch back to
the old version. //
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1047901
--
Mike Easter
Ron Hunter
From a programming point of view, it makes sense.
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> GG is saying that in order to see the way out of the new UI,
>> you have to commit to the new UI being the default!
> Kinda like "I can't tell you how to get home until you get here." Grin.
> From a programming point of view, it makes sense.
It is all a clever strategy for someone google to 'prove' how well liked
the new UI is because of the high frequency of people who are changing
their default to the new UI.
The fact of the matter is that if you want to 'try' (or even see) the
new UI, there is no way (other than backspacing or using history into
past browser screens) to simply 'click' back to the old UI.
Here you are testing the new UI and you only have one choice, accept it
as the default; there is no 'take me back to my old UI' function.
Very clever programming if your job is to come up with a new UI which
will attract new converts in droves. Just don't count the ones who
change to the new UI for the default and then change back 'later'.
--
Mike Easter
Bill B
> On 02/03/2011 09:34 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>> _Why this post_
>> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
>> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>>
> then
> Plan C
For my preferences, I could not object more strongly to moving to a web
based interface. No Gmane.
Stay with Usenet. The tradeoffs, for me, are just fine.
Bill B
Fox on the run
As much as I've found GG work well for me so far, I agree that the new
UI is a major step back in usability. I tried it when it was simply
being offered as a read only view in the early stages and it sucked
big time. Don't know if it's changed much from then but the old UI
works well for me and meets all my needs so I see no value to me to
change. If the new UI was forced on to me I would be more inclined to
seek another solution.
JB
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> * Mozilla weren't using their own server to ditch. news.mozilla.org used
> to be hosted by AOL, and the new mozilla.* hierarchy couldn't be
> implemented until someone stepped up to be a news admin.
> See <http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/04/the-history-of-mozilla-newsgroups/>
>
> * The Mozilla newsgroups were always on Google Groups. It was worse with
> the previous server, because those netscape.public.mozilla.* newsgroups
> were on Usenet.
>
> * Google Groups does not equal Gmail. You don't need a gmail account to
> post via Google Groups. From your hatred of Google, I would think that
> option A is the plan you would prefer. That's the one where posting from
> Google Groups is not allowed.
Some of what you're stating here is simply not true but this isn't the
place to make challenges. Another day another time.
goodwin
goodwin
> On 2/3/2011 6:09 PM, goodwin wrote:
>> On 02/03/2011 09:34 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> _Why this post_
>>> I'm looking for feedback. Which plan do you prefer? Are there any
>>> caveats we've missed? Any solutions you'd like to add?
>>>
>> gmane
>> then
>> Plan C
>
> For my preferences, I could not object more strongly to moving to a web
> based interface. No Gmane.
gmane uses usenet - news.gmane.org
Bill B
I stand corrected, thank you.
What is it that I see when I go to gmane.com? I assumed (incorrectly it
seems) that this was the access/interface point.
Bill B
Terry R.
>
> If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
> Gmail Account is Spam. I've had a niece to cancel her Gmail account
> because of Spam and go to something else. We need to go back to
> Mozilla only server if they don't have the bucks, they need to ask for
> donations to buy the equipment. The switching to GMail and Giganews is
> the worst thing they have ever come up with.
>
> what ever they do any thing but choice A. Choice a is worse than going
> to GMail, Giganews.
>
Are you marking the spam as such?
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
> Gmail Account is Spam.
Maybe no real people know your Gmail address?
I have two Gmail accounts, and both receive at least 300 spams per
month. However -- they do all end up in the Spam folder. This folder is
self-maintaining as they auto-delete themselves after 30 days. I cannot
remember the last time even one spam made it into my Gmail Inbox, for
either account. The Spam folder gets all the Viagra, fake Rolex, sex
video, cheap software spam. Gmail's spam filter is excellent.
> I've had a niece to cancel her Gmail account because of Spam and go to
> something else.
If the two of you picked easily guessable common addresses, such as
"pjo...@gmail.com" chances are much greater for receiving spam. Change
to something cryptic, like philmjones<fourdigitnumber> @gmail.com
Oh, and don't bother with addresses using punctuation; Gmail doesn't
observe those characters in its mail distribution. IOW, pjones and
p.jones will both receive all the mail sent to pjones
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
Jeff
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> > The recent increase in broken "threadage" is a result of Google's new
> > groups interface,
>
> My recent experimentation with the new interface indicates that it has
> some new deficiencies at being able to create messages like a newsreader.
>
> It is less intuitive in facilitating/allowing quoting of the message
> being replied and it no longer has a method for adding/subtracting
> newsgroups or creating a f/ups header.
>
Yes, they definitely need to fix the ability to add or subscribe a f/ups header. Quoting is not really that hard for me. Right above the composition window is a link which says "Quote Original".
> IMO GGers shouldn't use the new interface, and I'm not really sure of
> the easiest way to get out of it once you are in. Naturally GG
> streamlines and encourages changing and *says* that it is easy to change
> back, but the ease/method of changing back isn't apparent to me yet.
Click on Google Groups to the left of the search bar. On the right side of the main window is a box which says something to the effect of, Do you wish to switch back to the old Groups.
Jeff
Mike Easter
> Phillip Jones
< I didn't get Phillip's message, I only see it in Terry's cite>
>> If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
>> Gmail Account is Spam.
My gmail spam filtering is excellent. I get virtually no spam and never
have a false positive goodmail in my spam. It is as good as any spam
filter I've ever used including my SpamPal with custom blocklists and
plugins.
> Are you marking the spam as such?
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
> < I didn't get Phillip's message, I only see it in Terry's cite>
Oops nevermind I found it.
--
Mike Easter
David
The only SPAM I ever see comes from the mozilla newsgroups that get
pushed to the email lists. I do not follow any newsgroups.
--
David
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> My gmail spam filtering is excellent. I get virtually no spam and never
>> have a false positive goodmail in my spam. It is as good as any spam
>> filter I've ever used including my SpamPal with custom blocklists and
>> plugins.
> The only SPAM I ever see comes from the mozilla newsgroups that get
> pushed to the email lists. I do not follow any newsgroups.
You have to see that spam as gmail can't filter it because you have the
mailing list and its spam whitelisted.
--
Mike Easter
Jeff
Yes, I agree also. Google's spam filtering for their Gmail service is
the best I have ever seen. Hopefully they can incorporate that same
technology into their Google Groups service.
Jeff
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter
>> My gmail spam filtering is excellent.
> Yes, I agree also. Google's spam filtering for their Gmail service is
> the best I have ever seen. Hopefully they can incorporate that same
> technology into their Google Groups service.
I don't think GG has any such/same intentions toward filtering usenet
spam as gmail does email spam.
I also think there is a significant distinction between what can be
identified as email spam and usenet spam.
What works is what NIN does about usenet spam, which is a combination of
cleanfeed and spam cancellers.
So, if one doesn't want spam in their usenet groups, they should
subscribe to a well-admin/ed news server like NIN, not GG.
It is profitable for gmail to be a good email spam filterer. It is not
profitable for GG to be a good usenet spam filterer.
So if one doesn't want spam in their email, they can use gmail.
--
Mike Easter
Jeff
Yes, you are probably correct on that. Bummer, I actually like the
new GG interface, but hate the issues that it currently has (i.e. no
references header, no ability to change the newsgroup you are
responding to, or adding/modifying a followup header). It makes it
easier for me since I use a few different computers everybody. Home
and work.
Jeff
David
Gmail catches *all* other SPAM and nothing is white listed. Especially
these lists. I have yet to try to filter Mozilla's newsgroup SPAN being
concerned that would also catch the non-SPAM messages.
--
David
Mike Easter
Your contacts, namely the mailing list From is automatically
whitelisted, or if not actually *really* whitelisted, rather that
contacts condition reduces the chance that gmail will identify an item
from the mailing list as spam.
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=9008 Gmail
will deliver messages from members of your Contacts list to your inbox,
unless we know with high confidence that they are spam.
--
Mike Easter
NoOp
> On 11-02-03 4:25 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>
>> Move to GMane.Org
>
> I'm not sure why gmane was rejected for the dev groups. I'll look into
> that, as I'm not that familiar with gmane.
>
> I assume it would have the same negative affect as plan A, and I'm not
> sure how much would be in Mozilla's control.
>
NoOp
Sorry left out the added link to this group:
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mozilla.general
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mozilla.general
David
> David wrote:
>
>
> Your contacts, namely the mailing list From is automatically
> whitelisted, or if not actually *really* whitelisted, rather that
> contacts condition reduces the chance that gmail will identify an item
> from the mailing list as spam.
I have no list of anyone, or any thing, whitelisted (on an actual list
of allowed to pas) but I do have Gmail's SPAM filters enabled and I have
added some myself from time to time that slip through theirs. The
'emails' that come from Mozilla lists show two points of origin. The
mail list and the Giganews group. A reply-to selects *both* the mailing
list and the newsgroup in the Ro: and Newsgroup: lines. That fails to
send until I remove the newsgroup 'reply-to' since I do not poll the
newsgroups nor have i subscribed to any. I gave up on newsgroups long
before The Internet went graphic. Too much SPAN and 'parts of porn'
pictures. No thanks.
> http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=9008 Gmail
> will deliver messages from members of your Contacts list to your inbox,
> unless we know with high confidence that they are spam.
As I said before the major spam that i get today comes from these lists
when melded with the newsgroups.
In the 6 to 8 months that I have followed these lists I have not had any
minor problem that I could not easily solve myself. I have not see
someone with a problem that I have had so I was not able to offer
advice. So I really do not care much about the SPAM.
But if it gets worse the simplest solution, for me, is to unsubscribe.
--
David
Chris Ilias
"before moving to Google"
Just so there's no confusion, the old groups are not the ones on
secnews. They are the ones in the netscape.public.mozilla.* hierarchy,
and they were already on Google Groups.
goodwin
googles spam filter is swell - I'm curious why they don't flat out
reject more.
I get 1-3 a day through cox - I request they send it all.
When I had a gmail acct., the volume was over 100 per day. They
filtered it alright, but I always wondered why they accepted delivery
from ROKSO and Nigerian spammers to start with.
Add the google group problem to my wonderment of google's lack of action...
David
> On 02/04/2011 11:49 AM, David wrote:
>> On 2/4/2011 1:04 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> David wrote:
>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My gmail spam filtering is excellent. I get virtually no spam and
>>>>> never
>>>>> have a false positive goodmail in my spam. It is as good as any spam
>>>>> filter I've ever used including my SpamPal with custom blocklists and
>>>>> plugins.
>>>
>>>> The only SPAM I ever see comes from the mozilla newsgroups that get
>>>> pushed to the email lists. I do not follow any newsgroups.
>>>
>>> You have to see that spam as gmail can't filter it because you have the
>>> mailing list and its spam whitelisted.
>>
>>
>> Gmail catches *all* other SPAM and nothing is white listed. Especially
>> these lists. I have yet to try to filter Mozilla's newsgroup SPAN being
>> concerned that would also catch the non-SPAM messages.
>>
>>
> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product. spam is the unwanted stuff.
Sorry to disagree but 'SPAM' is a *loud* way of saying 'spam'.
;-) <<< and that is a winking smiley so that you know that I am not
angry. So are we on the same page now?
> googles spam filter is swell - I'm curious why they don't flat out
> reject more.
> I get 1-3 a day through cox - I request they send it all.
> When I had a gmail acct., the volume was over 100 per day. They
> filtered it alright, but I always wondered why they accepted delivery
> from ROKSO and Nigerian spammers to start with.
> Add the google group problem to my wonderment of google's lack of action...
I am currently using FF 4.0b12pre and have been using nightly
development versions since 3.7 (whatever). My TB is 3.3a3 and has been a
nightly development version since I forget when. My first computer I
bought in 1981. I have no formal computer schooling, programing classes,
and I don't work in the tech indsutry. I do use computers for work and
at home.
All of which proves what exactly? I think that I have a pretty good idea
of what I am talking about and I don't say things without having a good
grasp on what I say and what I mean. Fair enough?
I was not having problems and I did not have any questions about Firefox
or Thunderbird when I joined these several Mozilla lists. But I thought
that I might learn a few clever tricks. To date I have not. And that is
not meant to speak poorly of anyone. Most are helpful and try mightly to
help those in need.
However had I realized that the email lists were joined at the hip (my
fault I did not read far enough) to the newsgroups I would not have
subscribed. Why not? Newsgroups are spam (note the lower case) magnets.
Really? Yes. Last month for example (midnight Dec 31/Jan 1 thru midnight
Jan 31/Feb 1) the account that I use for *all* the (currently subscribed
to 24) mailing lists that I follow received 33 spam posts. 33? Yes and
29 of them came from Mozilla emails that had newsgroup addresses. *Not*
addressed to *me* directly but the list(s). The other two are,
technically, not spam but advertisement come-ons from sites from which I
purchase items and were directly addressed to me.
I use several other accounts for business, personal, and family (total
of 7) traffic and they get no spam. None? As in zero? Yes. Zero. Which
means to me that my spam comes from here, Mozilla, and the 'here' that
appears to be the newsgroup part.
Your turn.
--
David
Mike Easter
> I was not having problems and I did not have any questions about Firefox
> or Thunderbird when I joined these several Mozilla lists. But I thought
> that I might learn a few clever tricks.
> However had I realized that the email lists were joined at the hip (my
> fault I did not read far enough) to the newsgroups I would not have
> subscribed. Why not? Newsgroups are spam (note the lower case) magnets.
I would qualify that spam magnet statement to say that various ways of
exposing one's email address have various consequences.
I'm not aware of any recent studies, but a very old study compared
exposing your email in the From of messages to various different types
of usenet newsgroups, as well as exposing your email openly in the
unmunged message body or someplace like the Reply-To. That was also
compared to exposing your email address on websites in various ways.
That study indicated that only the From exposure was of any consequence,
and the consequence of that exposure was minuscule compared to the
effect of exposure on webpages.
That is, the harvesting of email addresses from the From (only) by XOVER
bots does occur to some extent, but not nearly as badly as the
harvesting from other mechanisms.
In any case, almost everyone I know munges their From in posts with a
newsreader to usenet groups, whatever else they might do with the
Reply-To or other sources of their email address.
However, this is not a usenet group, so the Froms in this group would
not be harvested by the 'same' XOVER bots which harvest from various
general usenet servers.
All the same, you may notice that I have a munged From. However, because
you subscribe to the mailing list, then you /don't/ have a munged From
here. That represents an exposure.
> Really? Yes. Last month for example (midnight Dec 31/Jan 1 thru midnight
> Jan 31/Feb 1) the account that I use for *all* the (currently subscribed
> to 24) mailing lists that I follow received 33 spam posts. 33? Yes and
> 29 of them came from Mozilla emails that had newsgroup addresses. *Not*
> addressed to *me* directly but the list(s).
That is an important distinction. Those spams did not come from the
condition of newsgroups being a spam magnet. Those spams came from the
condition of GG being a spam generator. Those spams were generated into
the GG moz groups and then 'published' in the newsgroups and propagated
to the mailing list.
> I use several other accounts for business, personal, and family (total
> of 7) traffic and they get no spam. None? As in zero? Yes. Zero. Which
> means to me that my spam comes from here, Mozilla, and the 'here' that
> appears to be the newsgroup part.
>
> Your turn.
You are getting GG spam, not spam as a consequence of your From being
harvested by a moz server XOVER bot and mailed to you.
--
Mike Easter
David
> David wrote:
>
>
>
> exposing one's email address have various consequences.
>
> I'm not aware of any recent studies, but a very old study compared
> exposing your email in the From of messages to various different types
> of usenet newsgroups, as well as exposing your email openly in the
> unmunged message body or someplace like the Reply-To. That was also
> compared to exposing your email address on websites in various ways.
>
> That study indicated that only the From exposure was of any consequence,
> and the consequence of that exposure was minuscule compared to the
> effect of exposure on webpages.
>
> That is, the harvesting of email addresses from the From (only) by XOVER
> bots does occur to some extent, but not nearly as badly as the
> harvesting from other mechanisms.
>
> In any case, almost everyone I know munges their From in posts with a
> newsreader to usenet groups, whatever else they might do with the
> Reply-To or other sources of their email address.
>
> However, this is not a usenet group, so the Froms in this group would
> not be harvested by the 'same' XOVER bots which harvest from various
> general usenet servers.
>
> All the same, you may notice that I have a munged From. However, because
> you subscribe to the mailing list, then you /don't/ have a munged From
> here. That represents an exposure.
>
>
> condition of newsgroups being a spam magnet. Those spams came from the
> condition of GG being a spam generator. Those spams were generated into
> the GG moz groups and then 'published' in the newsgroups and propagated
> to the mailing list.
>
>
> harvested by a moz server XOVER bot and mailed to you.
I see. Explained that way it does make sense.
So may I ask is there a workable solution for stopping this or not?
--
David
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
> So may I ask is there a workable solution for stopping this or not?
It depends on which 'this' you mean.
In the general sense of the concept of usenet newsgroups 'at large'
being a 'spam magnet' -- I have no problems with usenet related spam at
all. For general usenet, I subscribe to a news server which has
excellent antispam administration and I munge my From as I do here.
As a result, I get no spam due to exposing a From, and I see no spam
because my news server gets rid of all of it with cleanfeed and spam
cancellers.
The only newsgroup related spam I see is a little bit on this moz
server. Since I've never seen what the mailing list's spam is that you
see, I don't know if I see less than you do, but what I see on the news
server doesn't seem like very much to me.
I'm accustomed to reading newsgroups without any filtration as I prefer
to ignore the posts I don't want to see rather than filter them out
algorithmically. I can do that because my usenet news provider is such
an excellent filterer of spam, so I am just left to ignore the trolls.
In the case of the moz server, instead of ignoring usenet trolls, I
ignore an occasional spam.
So one suggestion is that you might try the news server instead of the
mailing list and see if there is any less spam to cope with. I have
always preferred newsgroups to their counterpart mailing lists.
If I were doing my own spam filtering for email as I have done in the
past, I would be using a proxy such as SpamPal for my Windows systems.
If I were getting moz mailing list mail, I would not whitelist the moz
mail, but I would see what happened if I allowed my spam filter to comb
the headers for 'bad' IPs and the plugins to comb for spammish regular
expression defined qualities.
I don't know what the result of that would be on the moz mailing list
spam. My experience was that my custom SpamPal configuration caught
almost all of my spam and never had false positives.
--
Mike Easter
goodwin
goodwin
> On 2/4/2011 6:10 PM, goodwin wrote:
>>>
>> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product. spam is the unwanted stuff.
>
> Sorry to disagree but 'SPAM' is a *loud* way of saying 'spam'.
>
> ;-)<<< and that is a winking smiley so that you know that I am not
> angry. So are we on the same page now?
who said you were angry - oh, the caps.
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger...
>> googles spam filter is swell - I'm curious why they don't flat out
>> reject more.
>> I get 1-3 a day through cox - I request they send it all.
>> When I had a gmail acct., the volume was over 100 per day. They
>> filtered it alright, but I always wondered why they accepted delivery
>> from ROKSO and Nigerian spammers to start with.
>> Add the google group problem to my wonderment of google's lack of action...
>
>
> All of which proves what exactly? I think that I have a pretty good idea
> of what I am talking about and I don't say things without having a good
> grasp on what I say and what I mean. Fair enough?
>
I understand English well enough but don't think you have a good grasp
on what you are talking about regarding spam.
>
> However had I realized that the email lists were joined at the hip (my
> fault I did not read far enough) to the newsgroups I would not have
> subscribed. Why not? Newsgroups are spam (note the lower case) magnets.
I was going to go on here but Mike's post took care of this.
Personally, I think newsgroups are far superior to lists or forums. The
spam comes from google groups. To avoid the magnet thingy, pull the
plug out of the wall.
> 29 of them came from Mozilla emails that had newsgroup addresses.
no, the spam did not come from Mozilla
>
> I use several other accounts for business, personal, and family (total
> of 7) traffic and they get no spam. None? As in zero? Yes. Zero.
In this day and age, I find this hard to fathom - you sure your ISP
isn't filtering things out? Or are you running your own mail server?
Which
> means to me that my spam comes from here, Mozilla,
that is incorrect, as you now know.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> On 2/4/2011 6:10 PM, goodwin wrote:
>> David wrote [with snippage]:
>>> Gmail catches *all* other SPAM and nothing is white listed.
>>> Especially these lists. I have yet to try to filter Mozilla's
>>> newsgroup SPAN being concerned that would also catch the non-SPAM
>>> messages.
>>
>> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product. spam is the unwanted stuff.
>
> Sorry to disagree but 'SPAM' is a *loud* way of saying 'spam'.
Sorry to disagree, but '*spam*' is a loud way of saying 'spam'. The
fully-capitalized word SPAM is *trademarked* by the Hormel Foods
Corporation.
http://www.spam.com/about/internet.aspx
> ;-) <<< and that is a winking smiley so that you know that I am not
> angry. So are we on the same page now?
Sure. Just settin' you straight. :-)
> I use several other accounts for business, personal, and family (total
> of 7) traffic and they get no spam. None? As in zero? Yes. Zero.
> Which means to me that my spam comes from here, Mozilla, and the
> 'here' that appears to be the newsgroup part.
>
> Your turn.
You shouldn't be comparing your spam experience between regular email
accounts and newsgroups. I don't get any spam at my many email
addresses, either.
Newsgroup spam comes from (mostly robotic) posts through Google Groups.
These Mozilla 'lists' are actually three-part:
1. Post via Usenet newsreader, as you and I are doing
2. Post via email to the list-server
3. Post via Google Groups, same as one would post to any
Usenet group that GG carries
You can verify this by reading the headers.
All Usenet newsgroups are subject to spam. One way to completely get rid
of it is to filter out Google Groups posts. If you discover a worthy
real poster (other than say, the "I am Samantha.." spammer), you
whitelist that person.
See: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Google is never going to take steps to clean up their mess. But it is
*not* a Mozilla mess.
David
I see. I am am wrong for being annoyed by this spam over which I have
little to no control. Or that everyone blames on someone else? And I am
to be lectured by various posters for asking for a solution? And those
same people that are lecturing me to 'just accept it'?
Hmm..
Actually I have a solution.
PLONK! These lists.
--
David
David
> Google is never going to take steps to clean up their mess. But it is
> *not* a Mozilla mess.
>
I am not sure that is what I said. What I said was that Mozilla
newsgroups is my source of the spam. Spam that is not addressed directly
to me but to these lists. And since I poll these list I get this spam.
If the spam comes from some other source *to* Mozilla newsgroups then
IMO that is a Mozilla problem. To stop the spam that it receives for
this other source. Do you disagree with that?
--
David
David
> On 02/04/2011 04:42 PM, David wrote:
> I thought that was the point of this thread - isn't it?
> general mailing list
> gen...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
So did I. But all I see so far are excuses.
--
David
Phillip Jones
> On 11-02-04 12:13 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> -------------------snip-------------------
>>
>>> And even more importantly, if there's a problem, Mozilla wants to have
>>> control to correct that problem. As
>>> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Discussion_Forums/Proposal> says "Our destiny
>>> is in our own hands. " That's why these groups are not on Usenet to
>>> begin with. It's about having control over or own forums.
>>
>> go with Giganews/Gmail?
>
> * Mozilla weren't using their own server to ditch. news.mozilla.org used
> to be hosted by AOL, and the new mozilla.* hierarchy couldn't be
> implemented until someone stepped up to be a news admin.
> See<http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/04/the-history-of-mozilla-newsgroups/>
>
> * The Mozilla newsgroups were always on Google Groups. It was worse with
> the previous server, because those netscape.public.mozilla.* newsgroups
> were on Usenet.
>
> * Google Groups does not equal Gmail. You don't need a gmail account to
> post via Google Groups. From your hatred of Google, I would think that
> option A is the plan you would prefer. That's the one where posting from
> Google Groups is not allowed.
>
It not so much hated of Gmail so much as all I see their as Spam
Google is my look-up engine of choice. I have a Google Calendar, and I
use Google Earth.
But Privacy is not a concern of the CEO of Google. To serve their
customers well Security should be number one concern.
Could use our own servers and require authentication like AnnexCafe On
the authenticated groups they have no spam. Haven't for years. And
until secnews.Netscape.com was finally shut down there was no spam as
well. It required a User Name and Password before you could get in and
it was tough to get in.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
Phillip Jones
> On 2/3/2011 8:25 PM, goodwin wrote:
>> On 02/03/2011 05:58 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 03.02.2011 19:22, goodwin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> yeah, the spam is livable if you are you sophisticated enough to to deal
>>>> with it - I wouldn't trust the masses that stumble into the group to be
>>>> that savvy. I'd just as soon not have it displayed publicly so as to
>>>> not give the spammers the satisfaction of seeing their crap getting
>>>> through.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is to move this server to another host that is aware enough
>>> to use spam traps such as spamassassin for instance. And also, there are
>>> those of us that don't want to have anything to do with moderation,
>>> especially in a support group where threads can be lost, moved, not
>>> found and so on. Moderation is NOT a solution to controlling spam in a
>>> venue such as this one, IMHO of course.
>>>
>>
>> I would defer to your experience there - moderation seems like a
>> hopeless/no win cause.
>>
>> Woodstock was 43 yrs. ago...
>>
> As long as the moderation is limited to determining if a post is spam or
> not-spam, I don't see it as a problem. Anything else would be handled
> as it currently is. BTW, Moderation IS. It is less intrusive in these
> groups than in other support venues I have experienced.
>
You must be on some awfully strict groups. On "general" it is like it
should be on all the groups. As long as no profane language is used.
And, no insulting (name calling) of Participants, that should be extent
of the moderation. But on the support groups it pretty tough here.
Phillip Jones
> On 2/3/2011 9:01 PM On a whim, Phillip Jones pounded out on the keyboard
>
>>
>> If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
>> because of Spam and go to something else. We need to go back to
>> Mozilla only server if they don't have the bucks, they need to ask for
>> donations to buy the equipment. The switching to GMail and Giganews is
>> the worst thing they have ever come up with.
>>
>> what ever they do any thing but choice A. Choice a is worse than going
>> to GMail, Giganews.
>>
>
> Are you marking the spam as such?
>
>
yes. problem is new spam is replacing old spam. Then I mark that, then
new replaces that , on and on.
Phillip Jones
David
> David wrote:
> Move to something beside GG.
Knock! Knock! Is anybody home?
I do *not* use Google Groups. I *have never used Google Groups*. I have
*not used newsgroups since 1997-98. *All* of the spam that I get *from*
Mozilla lists, five of them, *comes from whatever newsgroups* that
Mozilla uses that are melded with the Mozilla email lists.
Never mind. In a battle of wits you people on these lists come unarmed.
Firefox and Thunderbird are both great pieces of software. The support
lists, however, suck. Big time.
--
David
David
> David wrote:
Knock! Knock! Is anybody home?
I do *not* use Google Groups. I *have never used Google Groups*. *All*
of the spam that I get *from* Mozilla lists, five of them, *comes from
whatever newsgroups* that Mozilla uses that are melded with the Mozilla
email lists.
Never mind. In a battle of wits you come unarmed. Please go away. You
bore me.
--
David
Phillip Jones
Mozilla to Giganews (both Directions) . What spam we are getting here
is 100% from Google Groups.
Phillip Jones
using Google Groups as a go between to Giganews. Both directions. Get
rid of GG and Giganews and go to private own and authenticated you
eliminate the problem.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Google is never going to take steps to clean up their mess. But it is
>> *not* a Mozilla mess.
>
> I am not sure that is what I said. What I said was that Mozilla
> newsgroups is my source of the spam. Spam that is not addressed
> directly to me but to these lists. And since I poll these list I get
> this spam.
You said, "Yes and 29 of them came from Mozilla emails that had
newsgroup addresses. *Not* addressed to *me* directly but the list(s)."
And, "Which means to me that my spam comes from here, Mozilla, and the
'here' that appears to be the newsgroup part."
You may not know how newsgroups and Usenet works. I did attempt to
explain that, but you snipped my comments.
A simple Unsubscribe will cure your problem.
> If the spam comes from some other source *to* Mozilla newsgroups then
> IMO that is a Mozilla problem. To stop the spam that it receives for
> this other source. Do you disagree with that?
Yes. It is a Google Groups problem, as I explained.
NoOp
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1025233
I'll leave it to someone else to determine the percentage of spam vs
valid posts from that file. Suffice it to say that Google/Google
Groups/googlemail is indeed a general problem.
Doesn't bother me a bit that some valid posts to dev/support
lists/groups get trashed... I figure in the case of the devs/dev posters
that they should learn how to access the groups via methods other than
googlegroups. If they can't do that, then perhaps they shouldn't be
posting on dev groups to begin with.
Kill all input from googlegroups/googlemail and just instruct folks on
how to use their nntp (built into SeaMonkey & Thunderbird) or use the
gmane.org web (and/or nntp) interface.
Note: I've already provided information that discounts Chris' "I'm not
sure why gmane was rejected for the dev groups. I'll look into
that, as I'm not that familiar with gmane."
news.mozilla.org has been accessible from gmane.org for quite some time:
http://gmane.org/find.php?list=mozilla
Use the web interface if you (not you, but others in general) don't want
to learn how to configure the tools provided by SeaMonkey & Thunderbird
to ask to help/support/dev posts. This is, after all, mozilla
newsgroups/mailing lists that we are talking about.
For those using the lists; use gmane.org, or just set your mail filters
to filter out google. It's rather simple (check with your
Thunderbird/SeaMonkey support list/group on how to do this).
@Chris Ilias: My recommendation is to terminate any and all feeds from
google. Simple. Otherwise just post filters that accomplish the same. No
moderation needed, or wanted.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Kill all input from googlegroups/googlemail
Perhaps not from google mail. Lots of folks use gmail addresses, but are
real humans posting with valid newsreaders.
Google Groups G2? Kill 'em dead!!! ;-)
Terry R.
Now you've solved the problem. And don't be a jerk to those trying to
offer help to you. If you can't change, go elsewhere for your help.
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2011 9:01 PM On a whim, Phillip Jones pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> If they have all that good a filtering, How come all I receive in my
>>> Gmail Account is Spam. I've had a niece to cancel her Gmail account
>>> because of Spam and go to something else. We need to go back to
>>> Mozilla only server if they don't have the bucks, they need to ask for
>>> donations to buy the equipment. The switching to GMail and Giganews is
>>> the worst thing they have ever come up with.
>>>
>>> what ever they do any thing but choice A. Choice a is worse than going
>>> to GMail, Giganews.
>>>
>> Are you marking the spam as such?
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> yes. problem is new spam is replacing old spam. Then I mark that, then
> new replaces that , on and on.
>
Don't know what your problem is. I have 2 Gmail accounts and spam gets
marked correctly. Any clients I have that use Gmail don't have spam
issues. Maybe you subscribed to a site that is spamming you.
Larry Gusaas
On 2011/02/04 10:53 PM NoOp wrote:
I'll leave it to someone else to determine the percentage of spam vs
valid posts from that file. Suffice it to say that Google/Google
Groups/googlemail is indeed a general problem.
Kill all input from googlegroups/googlemail and just instruct folks on
how to use their nntp (built into SeaMonkey & Thunderbird) or use the
gmane.org web (and/or nntp) interface.
I use Gmail for as my address for posting to this group and all other newgroups and email lists. Gmail's excellent spam filtering catches the spam that I get from having a real address instead of a spoofed "invalid" adress
Larry
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan CanadaWebsite: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
ubiquity
I think you need a lesson kid.
There are three things involved here: the Mozilla News Server, the
Mozilla Groups which are also located on Google Groups, and the Mozilla
Mailing List.
A message that is sent to one, is also sent to the other two. For
example, I'm sending this message to the Mozilla News Server; therefore,
its also being sent to the Mozilla Groups that are on Google Groups,
*AND* to the Mozilla Mailing Lists.
So, the problem of the Spam is being sent from Google Groups to the
Mozilla Groups on Google Groups. Therefore, at the same time, Spam is
also being sent to the Mozilla News Server *AND* to the Mozilla Mailing
Lists.
So, Phil is correct, any spam you're getting on the Mailing Lists are
coming from Google Groups.
Got it kiddo!?
David
> David wrote:
>> On 2/4/2011 10:30 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> David wrote:
>>> Move to something beside GG.
>>
>> Knock! Knock! Is anybody home?
>>
>> I do *not* use Google Groups. I *have never used Google Groups*. *All*
>> of the spam that I get *from* Mozilla lists, five of them, *comes from
>> whatever newsgroups* that Mozilla uses that are melded with the Mozilla
>> email lists.
>>
>> Never mind. In a battle of wits you come unarmed. Please go away. You
>> bore me.
>>
> David I didn't say you used GG. GG groups is our Go between from
> Mozilla to Giganews (both Directions) . What spam we are getting here
> is 100% from Google Groups.
I apologize. My mistake and my misunderstanding.
--
David
David
If I offended you I apologize. My mistake and my misunderstanding.
My question is "Unsubscribe from what?" I am not, nor have I ever been,
subscribed to the Mozilla newsgroups, or whatever they are called, or
where ever they come from, only to the mailing lists. The spam that I
was talking about comes to me as emails passed though?? someplace as
email list traffic. I do not get spam emails to the address that I use
for the email lists. But the email list does so they come to me as list
traffic.
--
David
David
Several people here, Phil is one that you mentioned by name, who I
will express my regrets to publicly as I get to them, because I
misunderstood what they were telling me. I thought that they thought
that I was using Google Groups. And that I could fix this myself by
dropping this GG thing. I now understand what they politely explained
and why.
As for you? Kiddo? Really? Kiddo? Just how condescending is that?
Politely said as possible from someone probably old enough to be your
daddy? Consider this - Take a long walk on a short pier.
--
David
NoOp
>
> On 2011/02/04 10:53 PM NoOp wrote:
>> I'll leave it to someone else to determine the percentage of spam vs
>> valid posts from that file. Suffice it to say that Google/Google
>> Groups/googlemail is indeed a general problem.
> Google mail is not the problem. Google Groups is
>
>> Kill all input from googlegroups/googlemail and just instruct folks on
>> how to use their nntp (built into SeaMonkey & Thunderbird) or use the
>> gmane.org web (and/or nntp) interface.
> Google mail is not the problem. It is not the source of most spam on this group.
> Google groups is.
>
> I use Gmail for as my address for posting to this group and all other newgroups
> and email lists. Gmail's excellent spam filtering catches the spam that I get
> from having a real address instead of a spoofed "invalid" adress
I've nothing against folks using gmail.com, that's their choice. If I
filtered on only gmail I wouldn't have seen your post. However if you
use it to post via googlegroups, or googlemail.com then it goes in the
bin on my side.
As for "a spoofed "invalid" adress"... If you are referring to my email
address in this post then I suggest you look up .invalid - RFC's might
be a good place to start. Drop the .invalid and you can send me an email
directly. I'll probably filter it, but that's my choice, eh?
Chris Ilias
> On 2/4/2011 8:12 PM, goodwin wrote:
>> On 02/04/2011 04:42 PM, David wrote:
>> I thought that was the point of this thread - isn't it?
>
There are three proposed solutions in the original post and an
invitation for feedback and suggestions.
Which solution do you prefer?
If you're getting spam through the support mailing lists, please report
it to ab...@mozilla.org. There is already an installation of
SpamAssassin on the news-to-mail feed. It catches most of the spam (and
holds them for me to review), and if some is getting through the
list-server admin needs to know, so he can tune it.
Chris Ilias
> GG groups is our Go between from Mozilla
> to Giganews (both Directions) . What spam we are getting here is 100%
> from Google Groups.
news.mozilla.org is the middle of the chain.
Like this:
mail <----> news <----> Google Groups
Larry Gusaas
I've nothing against folks using gmail.com, that's their choice. If I
filtered on only gmail I wouldn't have seen your post. However if you
use it to post via googlegroups, or googlemail.com then it goes in the
bin on my side.
Ron Hunter
criticism of the product, or suggestions on improvement were allowed.
Makes one feel that the developers of the product don't care about
users, and what they want/need, at all.
Chris Ilias
> Note: I've already provided information that discounts Chris' "I'm not
> sure why gmane was rejected for the dev groups. I'll look into
> that, as I'm not that familiar with gmane."
>
> news.mozilla.org has been accessible from gmane.org for quite some time:
> http://gmane.org/find.php?list=mozilla
> Use the web interface if you (not you, but others in general) don't want
> to ask to help/support/dev posts. This is, after all, mozilla
> newsgroups/mailing lists that we are talking about.
Mozilla does not currently feed any groups to gmane. They must pulling
messages on their own.
See <http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/#guidelines>
If someone posts a message via gmane, does their message go to
news.mozilla.org?
If we remove a newsgroup, does it get removed from gmane?
> @Chris Ilias: My recommendation is to terminate any and all feeds from
> google. Simple. Otherwise just post filters that accomplish the same. No
> moderation needed, or wanted.
Feedback noted. Thanks.
Ron Hunter
they came from Google Groups. I think that is what he meant to say.