You don't usually see 'em because they hit the moderation queue, but this list gets a ridiculous amount of spam. I've enabled spam filtering and will now automatically discard highly-scored spam messages. This shouldn't affect any legitimate messages, but if you post and it doesn't get through... that might be it and I'll look at adjusting the settings.
Le 30/03/2014 18:54, Matthew Miller a écrit :
You don't usually see 'em because they hit the moderation queue, but this list gets a ridiculous amount of spam. I've enabled spam filtering and will now automatically discard highly-scored spam messages. This shouldn't affect any legitimate messages, but if you post and it doesn't get through... that might be it and I'll look at adjusting the settings.
do you need help for moderating the list ?
regards, H.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 06:56:07PM +0200, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
You don't usually see 'em because they hit the moderation queue, but this list gets a ridiculous amount of spam. I've enabled spam filtering and will now automatically discard highly-scored spam messages. This shouldn't affect any legitimate messages, but if you post and it doesn't get through... that might be it and I'll look at adjusting the settings.
do you need help for moderating the list ?
I don't think so, but thanks. The basic problem right now is that the moderation queue so full of spam that looking for legitimately held messages is the proverbial search for a needle in a haystack. More people just means more people being annoyed by that. :) By auto-discarding the messages which are clearly spam, the moderation queue should be something actually useful.
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 13:03 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I don't think so, but thanks. The basic problem right now is that the moderation queue so full of spam that looking for legitimately held messages is the proverbial search for a needle in a haystack. More people just means more people being annoyed by that. :) By auto-discarding the messages which are clearly spam, the moderation queue should be something actually useful.
So just a plug for dspam. Its a learning spam filter and once trained does *wonders* for us on many systems. With the archives it should be easy to quickly train it and the packages are in Fedora/EPEL. :)
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:48:24PM -0600, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
So just a plug for dspam. Its a learning spam filter and once trained does *wonders* for us on many systems. With the archives it should be easy to quickly train it and the packages are in Fedora/EPEL. :)
Fedora Infrastructure hooked up spamassassin, so that's what we're using now. We'll see how it goes. :)
Hi,
I'm a fan of the SA integration (there was a bug I needed to fix to get it working mind - check logs to see if you have the same, one of the SA functions changed prototype in the last ~6 years) - I've found that a lot of spam requests get through it with the default ratings (5->hold, 10->drop) - afetr a period of gaining confidence, I switched these to 3->hold, 5->drop with a list member bonus of -5 (that might be a bit aggressive for other lists).
Cheers, Dave.
On 03/31/2014 02:19 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 09:48:24PM -0600, Nathanael d. Noblet wrote:
So just a plug for dspam. Its a learning spam filter and once trained does *wonders* for us on many systems. With the archives it should be easy to quickly train it and the packages are in Fedora/EPEL. :)
Fedora Infrastructure hooked up spamassassin, so that's what we're using now. We'll see how it goes. :)