Closing the oclug mailing list (and a couple of others) is on my todo list. bjb On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:39:38PM +0000, Lisa wrote: > Thanks, Greg. This correlates with what Mike Kenzie was describing to me last night. He said he often does not receive the first of a new topic on OCLUG-Tech or Board mailing lists, but always seems to get the replies. AFAIK I've never experienced it myself, but since you're not the only one I'd say this warrants further investigation. I just don't know how to do it. > > Of course, as someone posted earlier, the question becomes whether it's feasible/worth it to quickly patch our current system for the moment, or if it's better to just expedite the major hardware and software upgrades we know need to happen anyway. Either way, I only have a portion of the knowledge needed but am willing to assist with the necessary tasks. For those who don't know me, my background is in electronics and computer repair, networking, and some web admin/development (LAMP, installing/maintaining scripts); actively using GNU/Linux since about 2000. > > Lisa > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg <sphex [ at ] sympatico [ dot ] ca> > Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:37:43 > To: <exexpat2 [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> > Cc: Dave O'Neill<dmo+oclug [ at ] dmo [ dot ] ca>; linux<linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca>; John Sebastien Taylor<johnsebastientaylor [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com>; John Nash<nashjc [ at ] uottawa [ dot ] ca>; Brenda J. Butler<bjb [ at ] credil [ dot ] org>; Eric & Christine Brackenbury<eric [ dot ] brackenbury [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] Fwd: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > > Apologies.. I don't know who to remove from the address list. > > > You might revert to one open maillist. There are some anomalies. > > _1_ > > Once in a while, I receive a reminder that I am subscribed to : > [oclug] = <oclug [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca> > > Recently, seeing a remark that [oclug] is deprecated, > I attempted to subscribe to : > [OCLUG-Tech] = linux <linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca> > > I was informed that I am already subscribed, > and received an emailed warning that possibly "a bad person" was > meddling. (That is a nice thoughtful addition.) > > _2_ > > I receive (one copy of) almost all posts sent to both lists. > > A quick check, late at night, of the archives suggested I do indeed > receive all messages, except sometimes the first of a new topic posted > to [OCLUG-Tech]. > > There were so few that I may have lost some to carelessness or the whims > of spam checking. I would want to check my records again before anybody > spends more than a millesecond on this. > > _3_ > > There are two archives, despite all messages (absent glitches) being > sent to everybody. If somebody on [oclug] replies to a message posted > originally to [OCLUG-Tech], the reply goes (first) to the [oclug] list. > Immediately there is an ambiguity : which archive stores the message? > > It appears (again, minimal checking) that any first message, and any > thread which stays on one list, is stored in the corresponding archive. > But if a thread crosses lists, subsequent messages are stored in the > [OCLUG-Tech] archive regardless to which list that message is sent. > > I thought I saw a second level ambiguity, however, I could not refind it > : if "[OCLUG-Tech]" was removed from the Subject: line, and the message > was sent to [oclug] it was stored in the [oclug] archive. This suggests > that maybe a common process examines all messages and looks only for > "[OCLUG-Tech]". > > _4_ > > You probably didn't need all that, perhaps mistaken, detail. > > I think there should be only one open list, and one archive. > > Sometime, somebody, bored, and trustworthy, should merge old archives. > > > Greg > > > > Lisa wrote: > > Thank you Dave, for your help with this. There's been some discussion by the Board, actually, that both hardware and much of the software on Tux need upgrading. > > > > IMHO, this issue unfortunately shows that there is far too much complexity in our current setup. The difficulty we've had in determining who administers what, and emergency preparedness, for me has served as a disturbing wake-up call. I would be all for offloading some functionality to reliable outside sources as you suggest, and documenting as we go so we have a clear action plan in case things really go awry. > > > > I say the less items we have to stay on top of, the better. If we can offload the mailing list functionality altogether, or use a single piece of software to accomplish this along with other services/needs, all the better. > > > > Still reading... > > > > Lisa > > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Dave O'Neill" <dmo+oclug [ at ] dmo [ dot ] ca> > > Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:55:48 > > To: Lisa L<exexpat2 [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> > > Cc: Prof. John C Nash<nashjc [ at ] uottawa [ dot ] ca>; Brenda J. Butler<bjb [ at ] credil [ dot ] org>; linux<linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca>; Mike<kenziem [ at ] sympatico [ dot ] ca>; Eric Brackenbury<eric [ dot ] brackenbury [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com>; R RENAUD<rjrenaud [ at ] rogers [ dot ] com>; John Sebastien Taylor<johnsebastientaylor [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> > > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] Fwd: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 05:54:34PM -0400, Lisa L wrote: > >> I'll paste below the contents of the files John sent. To me, it > >> appears to be a Viagra ad coming from a host in Spain, with a link to > >> a website in Russia. What we're trying to determine is whether (1) > >> Tux has been compromised by crackers and is being exploited as a spam > >> relay, (2) we are receiving this message in error because Tux' mail > >> server has been configured to relay Board messages, and the error was > >> intended for the spammer, or (3) something went awry with Google's > >> Gmail servers. Note, 204.225.221.10 is Tux' IP. > > > > Based on the headers in that message, it looks like it's partly (2) -- > > the spammer is sending to board-members [ at ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca, and Tux is just > > expanding the alias and relaying the mail onwards. However, you're not > > receiving the rejection messages in error, exactly, because as far as > > Google cares, you're contributing to the spam problem by not blocking > > the original instead of passing it on. Servers that relay mail are > > responsible for the mail they emit, even if they didn't originate it. > > > > I'd suggest that someone needs to upgrade the spam filtering on Tux... > > if the header added is correct, you're running SpamAssassin 3.1.7, which > > is pretty much an antique as far as spam filtering goes -- it's almost 4 > > years old. Version 3.3.1 has been out since March 2010. I'm guessing > > that Tux is running something outdated (etch, or perhaps sarge), as > > stock Debian Lenny has 3.2.5, with 3.3.1 being available from backports. > > > > It might be possible for me to set up free hosted antispam for OCLUG > > through my employer, if you're interested. It would remove the need to > > have someone maintain cutting-edge-current inbound spam filtering on > > Tux. I can find out on Tuesday if this is possible (unless David is > > still reading linux@... and would like to respond). > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > > Linux mailing list > > Linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux mailing list > Linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux ---end quoted text---