From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Freebies List Spammed
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:52:40 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: <ronkean at juno.com>
To: <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Freebies List Spammed

[...]
>
> I run a yahoo list myself, and occasionally that list gets what I call a
> 'hit and run' spam.  Someone subscribes, posts their advertising message
> or political/religious opinion piece, and then unsubscribes, or simply
> expects to be unsubbed by the moderator/owner, once the activity is
> noticed.  On my list it happens once every couple of months or so.
>
> There is a way to keep such messages off the list.  What I do is set the
> list options such that new members are automatically on 'moderated'
> status, and for me to be automatically notified by email when a new
> member subscribes, and when a moderated message is posted.  To approve
> the message, I just 'reply' to the notification.  To disapprove the
> message, I do nothing, and that message will not go to the list.
> Periodically I promote new members to 'unmoderated' status, once there is
> some indication that those new members are legitimate.
>
> The drawback of that method is that if the list were to get hit with an
> excessive amount of such spam, it could create excessive work for the
> moderator.  But that hasn't happened with my list - yet.  I'm surprised
> that such spamming is not far more prevalent than it seems to be, since
> Yahoo allows subscription by email, and that is a process which could be
> automated by a spammer, if the spammer has software that can
> automatically harvest group names.  Perhaps yahoo already has some system
> in place to combat such spam.  One obvious way would to block subscribing
> to more than, say, five lists per day.  Yahoo could easily impose a
> Turing test on list subscription, but they have done that yet, as far as
> I know.
>
> Ironically, since my yahoo list is a political discussion list, it's not
> always easy to tell whether a new member who signs up and immediately
> posts a political rant is legitimate or not.  I consider it illegitimate
> on that list to post a one time message without the intent of
> participating in discussion on the list, or to post material which is
> wildly off-topic.  So if a political message from a new member seems to
> be on topic, I will let the message go through, even though the message
> may in fact be hit and run spam.

Referring to your last sentence:  Aren't we broadening the definition of
"spam" a bit far to include any kind of political rant not sent out by the
thousands/millions?

--Ted White