Re: Cookin' SPAM

[pdCampbell@goodyear.com (pDaleCampbell)]

In r.m.g, on Sat, 13 Apr 96 08:18:53 GMT, chrisw@miso.wwa.com (Chris Williams)
wrote:

[my original proposal:]
>>A proposal for SPAMicide:
>>
>>A gatekeeper system, where the "post"-processor will kick-out a post from
>>anyone not on The Approved List.  These purgatorious posts would be Suspended
>>in Gaffa and sent to a select, annointed group of X (20?) people (any
>>volunteers?).  If at least Y (4?) of these "gatekeepers" sent it back to a
>>special address within Z (24?) hours, the post would be added to L-H and
>>r.m.g, and the post's author ID would be added to The Approved List for future
>>posts.  If said confirmation did NOT occur within Z hours, the post would be
>>sent on to hell (and, in a perfect world, the author would go with it).
>
>   Sounds like a very good idea (except for the problem that the only person
>who could do anything about this is the one person known to be too busy.)
Yes, that would be a problem.  I am willing to give the robo-moderator a hack,
if Bill Wisner is so inclined to allow.

>   A suggestion for a modified version....
>
>   A modified news server that only carries one group...the un-vetted feed
>to love-hounds. 
>
>   Anyone willing to be a part of the moderation group will have newsreading
>rights on the group...as long as they have been a subscriber to love-hounds
>for a reasonable period of time, to make sure spammers don't join just to
>allow spam.
>
>   Any article that is read and accepted is forwarded to the rest of the 
>group. Any article that is killed is put into a holding queue.
>
>   If 4 succesive readers kill it, it goes into the bit-bucket.
>
>   This would make sure that good stuff goes out quickly, and bad stuff
>is deleted. I'd hate to have a long delay on non-spam just to get rid of
>spam.
I don't have a clear understanding of this proposal.  Do you mean that posts
to r.m.g or L-H would only go to r.m.g@X (the special news server) until a
certain length of time passed?  Once it hits L-H, it's *g*o*n*e*; you can't
CANCEL it like a newsgroup post.  Whatever time delay you propose could be
used in my proposal, as well.  Now maybe, technically, your suggested method
(using a special newsgroup) is better than mine (a special mailing-list).
Bill?...

>>The group-moderation handles problems with undue censorship and moderators
>>taking vacation.
>
>   Remember, although Stev0 is being really pissy, we owe a *lot* to Bill
>Wisner. The entire mailing list is passing through his personal machine,
>and he is hosting the new GaffaWeb site and devoting considerable
>resources to it.
Chris, Chris... I meant NOTHING against Bill, our long-suffering p-m.  I
appreciate Bill's efforts.  He's stepped up to bat where the rest of us have
not.

There is no problem with *Bill* taking vacation--the robo-mod is doing the
approvals, anyway, not him.  I was referring to a potential problem with
ACTIVE moderation, which the Y of X moderators is intended to address.

>>Additionally, isn't there a way to determine whether an address is "real"
>>(finger?)?  That could be a first step.
>
>   If the address is SMTP-spoofed (as most spam is) the spoofed address
>will finger ok. I could send you e-mail from president@whitehouse.gov,
>and the finger would work. Also, this would exclude many decent people
>who post from behind company firewalls, and everyone unlucky enough
>to be on AOL.
And the problem would be...? (Sorry, IED ;)  Item withdrawn.  (Aside: these
Kretin Kevin posts do NOT have valid addresses.  I've tried enough times.)

>>The above system may not be technically feasible, given the list-processor
>>software used by "our humble pseudo-moderator".  There are certainly details
>>that need to be addressed which are not mentioned above.  Any comments?
>
>   Something is feasible, either through NNTP, mailing to the moderators,
>a password protected approval web page or something else. Almost any
>active moderation will destroy spammers. Remember, virtually no spammers
>*target* love-hounds/rec.music.gaffa. It's just one more list. To date I 
>haven't seen any of the spam use the one method that would get around
>the current system (no, I won't tell anyone what the weakness is.)
Fascinating... We're *Intentionally* allowing these magazine-crap posts
through to L-H/r.m.g?  Or do you mean, "the current PROPOSED system?". :)

Thanks, Chris!

Well, what say you, Good People?  Bill?...

Fare thee well.