Re: UseNet Gateway One Way ok?

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
27 May 1997 14:33:16 -0700

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.970525104859.21232A-100000@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
Peter Svensson <petersv@df.lth.se> wrote:
>On 25 May 1997, david parsons wrote:
>
>> >I tend to agree here. Unless the feed can be restricted to people with a
>> >certified clue, I tend to be against such a one way feed. I have enough
>> >problems with the fuckwits at agis.net as it is without having to deal
>> >with other, admittidly lesser, spamming idiots.
>>
>> If it's a one-way feed, it could be set up to mangle headers so that
>> only a human can figure them out. Rot13 the from: address, or put
>> spaces in it, or anything along those lines.
>
>I disagree very strongly about this. Why should we go through a lot of
>trouble?

It's no trouble. If I, for instance, made the pell mail to news gateway
global instead of local, the extent of the work I'd have to do would be
to set CLOAKING="/R" and all of those icky from and reply-to addresses
would be rot13ed into a nice safe place.

>Just configure procmail/sendmail to drop everything from
>cyberpromo and other known spammers,

That gives me a 20% cleaning rate. For news, I get a better cleaning
rate by mangling my headers. (If I post to mailing lists that don't
let me mangle my headers, a single post is immediately followed by
a whole bunch of spam. It's gotten me here, it's gotten me in the
RAILROAD newsgroup, and I'm sure if I subscribed to anything else it
would get me there.)

____
david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.chi.il.us
\/