Hershey Felder, Hebrew Musical Instruments, A Vital Part Of Culture
Music is a great form of communication; it facilitates religious ceremonies, and celebrates victorious battles. Jubal was the inventor of Hebrew musical instruments. The whole Hebrew history and literature are proving that the Hebrews are really committed to cultivate music. We all remember that after the passage of the Red Sea, Moses and his people sang their song of happiness and freedom.
william romsay wrote:
Hershey Felder, Hebrew Musical Instruments, A Vital Part Of Culture
Very interesting but annoying too. Can you please limit posts from non members in mailman?
Hershey Felder, Hebrew Musical Instruments, A Vital Part Of Culture
Very interesting but annoying too. Can you please limit posts from non members in mailman?
Please do not, it is the most stupid thing ever. Not everyone has the time to get subscribed just to start a short discussion.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Hershey Felder, Hebrew Musical Instruments, A Vital Part Of Culture
Very interesting but annoying too. Can you please limit posts from non members in mailman?
Please do not, it is the most stupid thing ever. Not everyone has the time to get subscribed just to start a short discussion.
I understand your point. However I run several lists and prefer to manually approve serious mails instead of spamming every member by keeping the gates open. It is a bit more work but keeps frustration away from list members. Of course this is just an opinion.
Hershey Felder, Hebrew Musical Instruments, A Vital Part Of Culture
Very interesting but annoying too. Can you please limit posts from non members in mailman?
Please do not, it is the most stupid thing ever. Not everyone has the time to get subscribed just to start a short discussion.
I understand your point. However I run several lists and prefer to manually approve serious mails instead of spamming every member by keeping the gates open. It is a bit more work but keeps frustration away from list members. Of course this is just an opinion.
Instead of simply rejecting them, moderate all the non-subscribed messages. The best of two worlds.
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 23:01, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Instead of simply rejecting them, moderate all the non-subscribed messages. The best of two worlds.
I believe this is, what we do.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that there are some spammers that already know how to subscribe to a Mailman list and then send unwanted emails. To really battle this we would need a harder subscribtion process.
Bernhard
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:27:23AM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
I believe this is, what we do.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that there are some spammers that already know how to subscribe to a Mailman list and then send unwanted emails. To really battle this we would need a harder subscribtion process.
..or anti-spam on the list server.
Cheers, Al.
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 10:50, Alan Pope wrote:
..or anti-spam on the list server.
We also do this, but it does not catch everything.
On 23/01/2008, Bernhard Reiter reiter@fsfeurope.org wrote:
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 10:50, Alan Pope wrote:
..or anti-spam on the list server.
We also do this, but it does not catch everything.
It's a very blunt instrument in my experience with Wikimedia lists. Our mail server assigns a spam score to everything that comes through, but it's amazing how low some spam scores and how high some human emails score. I tend to set high scoring mail to "discard" and a somewhat lower threshold to "hold for moderation". On lists where it's particularly important every human mail be read (e.g. Oversight-l, the alert address for deleting sensitive personal information from the wiki), I don't discard anything automatically.
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/2008, Bernhard Reiter reiter@fsfeurope.org wrote:
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 10:50, Alan Pope wrote:
..or anti-spam on the list server.
We also do this, but it does not catch everything.
It's a very blunt instrument in my experience with Wikimedia lists. Our mail server assigns a spam score to everything that comes through, but it's amazing how low some spam scores and how high some human emails score. I tend to set high scoring mail to "discard" and a somewhat lower threshold to "hold for moderation". On lists where it's particularly important every human mail be read (e.g. Oversight-l, the alert address for deleting sensitive personal information from the wiki), I don't discard anything automatically.
I suggest to simply use a good spam filter and enqueue marked e-mails in a separate queue which is maintained by a human, so "learning data" can be collected and the false-positive rate can be reduced. I think discarding e-mails is not useful.
But when using spam filters keep in mind that people who send spam also use them for testing purposes and optimise their e-mails to pass the filter. But generally speaking I think the spam rate on the FSF Europe mailing lists is quite low and if someone cleans the archive, I don't care about less than 1% spam.
-- Matthias-Christian
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 23:01, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Instead of simply rejecting them, moderate all the non-subscribed messages. The best of two worlds.
I believe this is, what we do.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that there are some spammers that already know how to subscribe to a Mailman list and then send unwanted emails. To really battle this we would need a harder subscribtion process.
With a list with a lot of members you don't want to approve membership manually. Besides, based on his name only it is hard to distrust spammer williamromsay at gmail.com (btw he is still on this list...). On the other hand manual membership approval may be the only solution for now because a look at the membership list shows several accounts I wouldn't trust. Tough decision to make.
On 23/01/2008, Wiebe van der Worp wiebe@vrijschrift.org wrote:
With a list with a lot of members you don't want to approve membership manually. Besides, based on his name only it is hard to distrust spammer williamromsay at gmail.com (btw he is still on this list...). On the other hand manual membership approval may be the only solution for now because a look at the membership list shows several accounts I wouldn't trust. Tough decision to make.
On wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org all new members are set to moderated until their first message is approved. This is a massive pain in the backside and no-one ever clears the list quickly enough for the aggrieved new subscribers. I advise against it on nuisance grounds unless and until problematic posters (spammers and trolls - it was address-changing trolls we had to do it to fight) make it the only feasible option.
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org all new members are set to moderated until their first message is approved. This is a massive pain in the backside and no-one ever clears the list quickly enough for the aggrieved new subscribers. [...]
How fast is wikien-l-admin at clearing the list, just out of interest?
I've not had problems with first-post-moderated yet and I try to clear the queue at least once a day.
Regards,
On 22/01/2008, Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
I understand your point. However I run several lists and prefer to manually approve serious mails instead of spamming every member by keeping the gates open. It is a bit more work but keeps frustration away from list members. Of course this is just an opinion.
Instead of simply rejecting them, moderate all the non-subscribed messages. The best of two worlds.
Manual approval from nonmembers, letting through anything vaguely on-topic written by a human, is not onerous and wouldn't break expectations. The "your message is held for moderation" message could include a suggestion to join the list if participating regularly :-)
- d.
I understand your point. However I run several lists and prefer to manually approve serious mails instead of spamming every member by keeping the gates open. It is a bit more work but keeps frustration away from list members. Of course this is just an opinion.
Instead of simply rejecting them, moderate all the non-subscribed messages. The best of two worlds.
Manual approval from nonmembers, letting through anything vaguely on-topic written by a human, is not onerous and wouldn't break expectations.
Letting one annoying message slip through for every 100 is quite acceptable.