Re[2]: Re: Get back to me pls

Hi Tom,

I should not have banned the user. I basically did it because the other moderator always bans the user. I knew about spoof emails. I should have used my own judgement. More below..

Saturday, January 30, 2010, 5:20:56 AM, you wrote:

>

Also, there have been relevant hack attacks later.  This article says Yahoo may have been hacked, and Gmail admits it was (and Donna Holmes, and me too, are gmail users:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-14/business/17828129_1_google-s-e-mail-service-google-s-chief-legal-officer-adobe-yahoo



That means that we may get more spam from innocent users.

I don't really think it is worth putting the whole group on moderation just because a few spam might slip through. Usually it is safe to moderate new members only. Just look at the group's track record. 

I rushed to judgement because many times when spam is on a list, a list will freak out with many complaints. Then people will complain about the complaints.

>

Actually, I don't think it is bad to immediately ban the user, as long as they get notified in a separate email and then steps can be taken to address the situation.  But please don't leave them in the dark, send them some notification, and please don't make the assumption that the GtD member sent the spam.


If an account sends spam, it could be put on moderation to see if more spam come through vs being banned. (If they send 100 spam messages then that means the moderator has to check them and delete them.) It can also be set to "this member cannot post". A message can be rejected instead of being deleted. 

I know that one time I rejected a message vs banning it because I was not sure if it was spam. I got literally 10s of thousands of spam because of that, because this gave the spammer my email. They now use my email address for all kinds of spam. I would not be surprised if I was banned in many places because of this person. (It is a website so I don't really want to lose my website by giving up on my domain name due to this person.)

>

I would suggest, as one form of "self-policing", that a person who starts a new thread should get a copy of it sent to them; for instance, in this case, Donna Holmes herself would have gotten an email, supposedly from herself, that she had not posted. (I don't know if this already happens.)  It may be a setting in the Yahoo Groups setup. But I know some maillist servers were set up to send the message to everyone except the person in the From line.

Tom


Unless the person is set to web only, a copy of all posts are mailed to them either singly or in digest form.. even if they were the one that started the new thread. If the message is deleted and not posted, the email address would not get a copy of it. If the person is banned and the message is not posted, I don't know if they get a message or not.

The person may have gotten an automatic message because she said thank you for the notification.

Donna (the person who was hacked) said she had recently unsubscribed. I guess that means our list still has the problem where people are not subscribed but they still show up as a member and still continue to get email for a while after unsubscribing. (I know about this because members have written the moderators wondering why they are still getting mails when they have unsubscribed.)

I am sorry Donna for not checking with you before banning you.

-- 
Brenda                     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]