"Message has a suspicious header"

[Pete Batard]

On 2012.01.25 13:08, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Yes. It's a misfeature of mailman that it doesn't allow you to
> automatically get notified of the reason when your post matches one of
> the filters. The idea is that the list moderator will then tell you
> explicitly what the reason is, if your post is rejected.

In that case the message still shouldn't be "suspicious header", which 
make it sound like a server/software issue, that also got notified to 
the moderators, rather than a pure moderation issue.

>> 2. Since I tend to use thread-hijacking on regular basis to reframe
>> existing discussions,
>
> Yes, this is quite common. It's customary to end up with a subject line
> containing something like (was: Re "Message has a suspicious header"),
> which would be perfectly sufficient to satisfy the filter. And of course
> the final decision is with the list moderator anyway. This isn't
> automatic rejection; it's just being held for moderation.

Well, my issue here is that other mailing lists seem to take the 
approach of "approve first, then let the moderator delete if needed", 
rather than "reject first, then let the moderator approve it if needed".

On a technical discussion list, where spam is expected to be low 
(because spammers would not be unlikely to reach a large audience) I 
think the first approach is the better one.

It's only if you get evidence that the first approach becomes too taxing 
to implement, or if you really do expect abuse of a permissive rule 
right away, that you should switch to a more restrictive one.

A new mailing list is obviously unlikely to experience spam or abuse 
from the onset, so it makes sense to me to try permissive first.

> It is up to the list admins. I've set up the list like all the other
> lists I run here, for simplicity, but they are quite free to change it
> as they see fit.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that.

>> 4. While a subset of people may use thread-hijacking because they are
>> "lazy", others may see very legitimate use for it such as reframing a
>> debate or going on a tangent *while* wanting to ensure that readers of
>> the new thread can find out very precisely where the tangent originated
>> from.
>
> You're absolutely right that this happens. Nevertheless, it's rare
> enough, and especially it's rare enough to see it *without* the original
> subject line being preserved as I mentioned above, that it normally
> hasn't been an issue for such messages to require manual approval.

Sometimes, subject line length constraints (especially as a lot of 
mailing list/e-mail software out there seems to want to mangle subject 
lines) are also a consideration of the poster.

Also, I'm weary about assuming that something will be rare enough. Each 
mailing list is different, so what may hold true for some may not be so 
true on others, which is why I'd advise caution and permissiveness for a 
start.

>> 5. The first duty when implementing a mailing-list should be with
>> fostering as much contribution as possible, rather than exclude it. This
>> means, the less you restrict a subscriber's ability to post, the better.
>
> Yes and no. We do try to do some spam filtering, and barring all HTML
> goes a long way towards achieving that.

Does that mean that HTML will be rejected by default as well?
On a project mailing list, where  think we want people from all 
backgrounds (including non computer-savvy people) to be able to report 
bugs, this may be another issue...

> And, of course, you shouldn't
> necessarily bar non-subscribers from posting.

That's actually what I'd do. Try permissive, see how it goes, and only 
restrict if abuse becomes too much to handle.

> It might make sense to
> have a lower standard of filtering for subscribers. Patches to mailman
> would be most welcome :)

I wish I had the time for that. ;)

>> Else, one might find that some very insightful posts were prevented for
>> pure arbitrary restrictions.
>
> One might. However, years of experience has taught me that in the
> *general* case, the idiots who hijack threads, top-post and send HTML
> are the very same idiots who can't string a coherent email together and
> whose drivel is barely worth reading. That is, of course, a
> *generalisation*. But it is a very real correlation.

Yes, and your generalization is expected to include quite a few non 
technical mailing lists, which behave quite different from technical 
ones. I doubt libusbx will because such a popular mailing list that we 
need to worry about abuse until we actually experience it.
Therefore, once again, I'd try the permissive approach rather than the 
one where restrictions are applied due to what has been seen elsewhere.

> Again, there's no reason for the list admins to run their list the way I
> run mine; I only copied the settings over as a starting point for them.

Agreed. As long as the options are ours to control, we should be able to 
decide ourselves.

Regards,

/Pete