headers
Nick Arnett | 1 Mar 2003 02:19

RE: censorship, etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: razor-users-admin <at> lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:razor-users-admin <at> lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Vipul Ved
> Prakash

...

> 2) The upcoming SpamNet upgrade has a new feature called "auto-unblock"
>    that learns from people's behavior and automatically unblocks
>    newsletters/lists people have chosen to receive, soon as they receive
>    them. This is going to have a huge impact on newsletter false positives
>    for the Razor2/SpamNet community. We also plan to enable preemptive
>    revocation when we release the new clients. Unix users can achieve the
>    same functionality by auto-revoking newsletters using procmail or mail
>    processing system of their choice. Either way, Unix users will benefit
>    from the auto-unblocks from SpamNet clients.

Now that's what I like -- developers who implement a feature before I
thought of it!  That's exactly the kind of solution I imagined.  Any sharing
of this data, so that it can take a hint from the collective behavior of
others?  In other words, if lots of auto-unblocks are triggered on a given
e-mail (or source, someday?), will that increase the chance that the e-mail
will be unblocked by other Razor users?  A canalyzing function might make
sense.

Nick

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robin Lynn Frank | 1 Mar 2003 02:23
Gravatar

Re: Honeypot Accounts

On Friday 28 February 2003 12:00 pm, Marc Perkel wrote:
> If I understand it right. All someone would have to do to plack a
> newsletter they didn't like is to subscribe the newsletter to a honeypot
> account.
>
> In the case of a double opt-in system they would create an email alias
> pointing to themselves, subscrive to the double opt-in list. The point
> the alias to the honeypot account. Seems too easy to me. I question the
> value of having such accounts.
>
There are so many easier ways to report a newsletter to so many different 
sources, why bother?  Sure, one can subscribe with an address and then turn 
it into a spamtrap.  One can just as easily manually report it to any number 
of RBLs.  People can and do any number of bad things.  "Newsletters" can do 
any number of things to "subscribe" unsuspecting folks, too.  I'll spare you 
the details of how many things I must have subscribed to in my sleep.

You seem to have tansmogrified the concept of freedom of speech to the right 
to be heard.

--

-- 
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
==========================================================================
Robin Lynn Frank - Director of Operations - Paradigm-Omega, LLC
Copyright and PGP/GPG info in mail or message headers.
Email acceptance policy at http://paradigm-omega.com/email_policy.html
==========================================================================

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shawn McMahon | 1 Mar 2003 04:16

Re: Turning EFF into a censorship tool

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:58:02AM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
> If someone deliberately gamed Razor and used is to flag EFF's email (or 
> anyone else's for example) as spam it could be considered a denial of 
> service attack.

And what would you do then, Marc?

--

-- 
Shawn McMahon           | Imagine people who are just subscribing coming 
Episode IV Consulting   | onto this thread and deciding that the entire 
System Administrator    | OpenBSD community is full of hostile elitists.
and all-around nice guy |                                -  David Riley
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Price | 1 Mar 2003 04:44

Re: EFF's response to Adam Goryachev

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:07:58PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Thanks - and - we are talking about adding double opt-in to set a good 
> example - but I still don't think that's the problem. We are also 
> working to help craft a technical solution.

FWIW "double opt-in" is spammer marketing terminology that in all
but the rarest of instances goes like the following:

1st opt-in - someone (maybe you) adds your email address to a list
2nd opt-in - the list sends you a message saying that if you
             don't opt-out you'll start receiving messages from
             the list

The key is confirmation and nowhere in the above scenario has the
owner of the email address confirmed their intent to be added to
the list.  I've heard people call the correct way of running a
list opt-in with confirmation or closed-loop opt-in and have only
heard or seen double opt-in associated with spammers in my
experience.  Not saying you are a spammer mind you just offering
up a bit of terminology assistance.  Take it with a good lick of
salt and two shots of tequila if you must.

-steve

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sis | 1 Mar 2003 05:21

Re: censorship, etc.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:

> For reasons I am still investigating, I did not receive razor-users mail
> for the last two weeks. I just caught up on the censorship thread, which
> I believe is rapidly losing its signal/noise ratio. Shane Williams
> recently posted a nice clarification, and I'd like to injerject a couple
> of points too:
> ...
> I would request everyone to recognize this and cool down instead of
> taking pot shots at each other. Aggresion, in general, is
> counter-productive and not welcome on this list.
>...
> Vipul Ved Prakash          |   "The future is here, it's just not
> Software Design Artist     |    widely distributed yet."
> http://vipul.net/          |              -- William Gibson

   Thank you for opening the window and bringing in some fresh air.

   That's MISTER Razor folks!

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marc Perkel | 1 Mar 2003 16:27

Apology from EFF


Dear Razor-Users Mailing List Members,
I would like to apologize for the posting yesterday regarding EFF's response to 
Adam Goryachev, a member of this list.  Those comments were made as part of an 
internal discussion on what EFF's official stance on spam and being censored by 
Razor should be.  They were completely inappropriate for dissemination outside 
of an internal EFF list, and we're very sorry for the insensitive way our 
reaction was portrayed.

Marc Perkel is EFF's systems administrator, and he cares very much about how 
technical solutions to filtering are developed.  However, he does not represent 
EFF in any of these discussions, and he was wrong to forward internal EFF 
discussions to your list.  He wants to help you build a system that filters out 
the real spam and leaves the rest alone.  I think we're all in agreement that 
those are the ideals to strive for when building a spam filtering system.

Nothing is gained in any of these discussions by insults or close-mindedness by 
anyone affected.  We know that you are trying to fine-tune the Razor system to 
ensure that requested email is not filtered.  Please understand that, as a free 
speech organization, EFF staff and board members are particularly sensitive to 
solutions that shut down desired messages.  We're frustrated that EFFector has 
been filtered, and we're even more frustrated when it is implied that it is our 
own fault.  But we are much more interested in getting this problem solved than 
in hurling insults.

Again, please accept our humblest apologies for the comments forwarded to this list.
Shari
Shari Steele
EFF Executive Director
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Tom Betz | 1 Mar 2003 17:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: Apology from EFF


On 1 Mar 2003 at 7:27, Shari Steele (posting as Marc Perkel) wrote:
> 
> Dear Razor-Users Mailing List Members,
> I would like to apologize for the posting yesterday regarding EFF's response to 
> Adam Goryachev, a member of this list.  

"I'm sorry our true feelings about Razor escaped to the Razor-using 
public.  We are most sorry that we have shot ourselves in the foot in 
this manner."

> We're frustrated that EFFector has 
> been filtered, and we're even more frustrated when it is implied that it is our 
> own fault.  

Clearly, you still miss the point.

Ms. Steele, so long as EFF maintains an abusable resource like the 
EFFector mailing list, which is a prototypical unconfirmed opt-out 
mailing list, EFF will continue to find the EFFector mailing list 
being abused by a wide range of people (with agendas from simple 
vandalism to idealogical opposition to the EFF's stated agenda), and 
will therefore find EFFector being blocked by systems serving 
unwilling EFFector recipients.

If EFF wishes to see EFFector being delivered effectively, EFF must 
be considered a responsible mailing list manager.  If EFF wishes to 
be considered responsible, EFF must act responsibly. This requires 
that EFF take at LEAST these two steps, and the sooner the better:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ed Allen Smith | 1 Mar 2003 19:13
Picon

Re: Apology from EFF

In message <3E609990.27465.DA992BA <at> localhost> (on 1 March 2003 11:29:20
-0500), tbetz <at> pobox.com (Tom Betz) wrote:
>If EFF wishes to see EFFector being delivered effectively, EFF must 
>be considered a responsible mailing list manager.  If EFF wishes to 
>be considered responsible, EFF must act responsibly. This requires 
>that EFF take at LEAST these two steps, and the sooner the better:
>
>1) Require that all future subscriptions to the EFFector mailing list 
>be confirmed using some unforgeable token in a response (preferably 
>by e-mail, but acceptably via a web link) from the prospective 
>subscriber. and

I entirely agree. (I am speaking on this as someone who notified EFF that
their main outgoing mailserver had been placed on
inputs.relays.osirusoft.com, and did my best to get it removed (after being
properly fixed, of course) ASAP, given the timing in question - it was when
the so-called "anti-terrorist" USA "PATRIOT" Act was coming up for a vote.)

>2) Clean your existing mailing list by requiring all present 
>"subscribers" -- I place that word in quotes because I have no 
>confidence regarding how many of the addresses on your list actually 
>belong to willing recipients -- to confirm (by means similar to those 
>you will employ for new subscriptions) that they do indeed wish to 
>receive EFFector.  To allow for temporary undeliverables (something 
>you should NOT do for initial subscriptions), you can even give them 
>two or three opportunities to respond before you cut them off.  This 
>step will at once remove undeliverables from your mailing list and 
>(more importantly) remove all unwilling recipients, protecting the 
>EFFector mailing list from being reported to Razor (and other anti-
>spam tools) as spam.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ed Allen Smith | 1 Mar 2003 18:13
Picon

Re: Apology from EFF

In message <3E60D149.1020807 <at> perkel.com> (on 1 March 2003 07:27:05 -0800),
marc <at> perkel.com (Marc Perkel) wrote:
>
>Dear Razor-Users Mailing List Members,
>I would like to apologize for the posting yesterday regarding EFF's
>response to Adam Goryachev, a member of this list.  Those comments were
>made as part of an internal discussion on what EFF's official stance on
>spam and being censored by Razor should be.  They were completely
>inappropriate for dissemination outside of an internal EFF list, and we're
>very sorry for the insensitive way our reaction was portrayed.

Thank you. I'm happy to hear that John Gilmore does not speak for EFF on
this matter.

>Marc Perkel is EFF's systems administrator, and he cares very much about how 
>technical solutions to filtering are developed.

Entirely understandable; the discussion would not have gotten as emotional
as it has (that being a major reason why I've generally stayed out of it) if
this were not true for many - most - people on here.

>Please understand that, as a free speech organization, EFF staff and board
>members are particularly sensitive to solutions that shut down desired
>messages.  We're frustrated that EFFector has been filtered, and we're even
>more frustrated when it is implied that it is our own fault.  But we are
>much more interested in getting this problem solved than in hurling
>insults.

I trust - hope - this is true of everyone involved. If we're too busy
fighting each other, those who are against freedom of speech - including
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom Betz | 1 Mar 2003 20:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Apology from EFF


On 1 Mar 2003 at 13:13, Ed Allen Smith wrote:
> In message <3E609990.27465.DA992BA <at> localhost> (on 1 March 2003 11:29:20
> -0500), tbetz <at> pobox.com (Tom Betz) wrote:
> >2) Clean your existing mailing list by requiring all present 
> >"subscribers" -- I place that word in quotes because I have no 
> >confidence regarding how many of the addresses on your list actually 
> >belong to willing recipients -- to confirm (by means similar to those 
> >you will employ for new subscriptions) that they do indeed wish to 
> >receive EFFector.  To allow for temporary undeliverables (something 
> >you should NOT do for initial subscriptions), you can even give them 
> >two or three opportunities to respond before you cut them off.  This 
> >step will at once remove undeliverables from your mailing list and 
> >(more importantly) remove all unwilling recipients, protecting the 
> >EFFector mailing list from being reported to Razor (and other anti-
> >spam tools) as spam.
> 
> There is, of course, the potential problem with this that, if EFFector is
> going into spamtraps now, due to sabotage by others (enabled by a lack of
> adequate confirmation protection) and carelessness on the part of people
> failing to unsubscribe prior to leaving their accounts (and sysadmins
> turning such accounts into spamtraps without checking on whether they were
> thus unsubscribed - likewise careless, indeed irresponsible), these
> confirmations are themselves likely to get picked up by Razor et al,
> resulting in them getting blocked (despite the unique tokens given fuzzy
> hashing). I'm not quite sure what can be done about this.

Let's be realistic here.  EFF has been so irresponsible for so long 
that there are places on the Internet that they will NEVER be able to 
send e-mail and have it received, even by willing recipients.  There
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane