Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UH9vX-0003DR-Kw for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:30:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UH9vW-0006yt-ED for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:30:50 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UH9vV-0006yn-Dj for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:30:49 +0000 Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UH9vL-0007FG-Cf for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:30:48 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u54so4152962wey.16 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ceCJiMmeh+QMwEGPXCXgytQo5uyldPaEaISsEv9jhJs=; b=DT/b+1mMEhkxyqexdHkCOk+jix4gNVg4LMP34mKW0EoAuiXi25VsLOoiCgIMKeZUN4 2TsWwWUo3hu/FUmyAtvMMeH7zXbZaRpC0EGgCjGIVfJNJHy4Yl3hOjERdZpnhEJZI1Cs iOOqd4qiCLGTaW2sz9pbi6rVRxz1dcptmY+qyPJqNgeY5l8u4dmiiXy58f/Qetwvo4O7 D6rJN7+XSgfLmqC5SRJ6aZjOBCl9eQ0Za2/kufy3m1zB77Fr0X9DsMQ1p482Vmka79NP RZysZgcnpB5FTxwx8Gu/7qjb1yPmmsJC4kQLHCGi71uSmFGyaX0APJfSae+qGsNNrCm3 v2ew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.95.198 with SMTP id dm6mr19123633wjb.6.1363512637989; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.171.40 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.171.40 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:30:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130317003931.GB3686@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <24283.1363371381@sss.pgh.pa.us> <514376C3.9060405@kaltenbrunner.cc> <28200.1363380396@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5144BB24.9080001@kaltenbrunner.cc> <52010C9D-0538-45D2-B781-32CC869B3533@pgadmin.org> <25288.1363460164@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20130317003931.GB3686@alvh.no-ip.org> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:30:37 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A plague of link spam ... From: Magnus Hagander To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: PostgreSQL WWW , Stefan Kaltenbrunner , Dave Page , Tom Lane Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03a506f3d0c04d81b86ed X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlb0Nn0XQ1OZwgjLTcPucghC99yG0/W0OhoUWkvbtS3wA+Wejt2LlWDEdlJiEscFI4Xsphv X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-www Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org --047d7bb03a506f3d0c04d81b86ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mar 17, 2013 12:39 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > Dave Page writes: > > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 18:34, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > > > >> On 03/15/2013 09:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: > > >>>> On 03/15/2013 07:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >>>>> (I am only about one or two more spams away from > > >>>>> summarily blocking all yahoo traffic from my own mail server, btw. > > >>>>> They account for easily a third of all the spam I'm seeing lately.) > > > > >> However - I still don't think we can seriously consider blocking all of > > >> yahoo inbound - what do others think about this? > > > > > Sooner or later someone has to make a stand. > > > > TBH I wasn't (very) seriously suggesting we institute such a block on > > the project's mailing lists, only remarking that I was about ready > > to do so for my own mail. But I'm well known for having draconian > > filtering in place. > > The valid traffic from Yahoo is fairly low -- less than one a day. > > It bothers me too that link spam is getting through. We have a great > record of very clean traffic. I'm happy to hear that Stefan is working > more on improving it, thanks. > If it's less than one per day, perhaps we can just auto moderate *all* mail from yahoo, at least as a temporary measure? /Magnus --047d7bb03a506f3d0c04d81b86ed Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 17, 2013 12:39 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.= org> writes:
> > > On 16 Mar 2013, at 18:34, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@ka= ltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> >
> > >> On 03/15/2013 09:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>= writes:
> > >>>> On 03/15/2013 07:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>>>> (I am only about one or two more spams away = from
> > >>>>> summarily blocking all yahoo traffic from my= own mail server, btw.
> > >>>>> They account for easily a third of all the s= pam I'm seeing lately.)
> >
> > >> However - I still don't think we can seriously consi= der blocking all of
> > >> yahoo inbound - what do others think about this?
> >
> > > Sooner or later someone has to make a stand.
> >
> > TBH I wasn't (very) seriously suggesting we institute such a = block on
> > the project's mailing lists, only remarking that I was about = ready
> > to do so for my own mail. =A0But I'm well known for having dr= aconian
> > filtering in place.
>
> The valid traffic from Yahoo is fairly low -- less than one a day.
>
> It bothers me too that link spam is getting through. =A0We have a grea= t
> record of very clean traffic. =A0I'm happy to hear that Stefan is = working
> more on improving it, thanks.
>

If it's less than one per day, perhaps we can just auto = moderate *all* mail from yahoo, at least as a temporary measure?

/Magnus

--047d7bb03a506f3d0c04d81b86ed--