"Alperin, Glenn" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Look, your the list owner, so, that means you make the rules for your
>list.  What you can do as a solution to the problem below is to manually
>subscribe people the way you want them to be subscribed, ie with name and
>address and all.

Hi Glenn. Thanks for the reply.

Actually, they *are* all subscribed with real addresses because I have
subscribe= open,confirm
in my list's header.

But ... Has anyone else with a list gated to/from usenet run into problems
with subscribers posting from this new-ish http://www.zippo.com place?

It's a web based news site - sort of like dejanews, but it costs money.
People can read and post to some usenet news groups for free though.
One of those free groups is rec.music.dylan, the group which is gatewayed
to the hwy61-l list.

It seems that Zippo.com is set up so that it doesn't automatically use
the real address of the poster. It uses whatever the poster types into the
From: line when they post to a usenet newsgroup via Zippo.com.

If the person posting only puts their first name after the From: prompt,
Listserv seems to "assign " them the address @listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu
(in my list's case), when the message comes through the gateway from
usenet.

So ... if someone started posting offensive junk, or outlandishly
huge encoded binaries, using zippo.com to post, it'd appear to come
from the listserv running the gated list.

The situation reminded me of our gateways, and the fact that Jim
McIntosh had to change the way they're set up when people inundated him
with mail about spam that *looked* to them as if it had come from
[log in to unmask]

So, to deal with it, I've put *@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu in my
filters. There aren't any legit email accounts at that address
anyway.

(Sorry if you've all talked zippo.com to death while I was away. Don't
remember seeing it in the archives I looked through for the past month
and a half or so.)


>For the record, I do not think it would be prudent to not allow
>subscribers from a particular sight due to lack of courtesy by others at
>that site unless yoiu can reasonably say that the problem is widesperead
>from a number of people from a sight.

You're right. I was *thinking* about being the meanie, but luckily didn't
act on the thought. There is a certain amount of trouble from there, but
everyone shouldn't be penalized. (Not yet anyway...)
;-)

>Maybe there could be a ban list in a future addition of listserv (as
>opposed to a filter list) which would automatically bounce messages from
>the addresses of your choosing.  The list owner can decipher who sent the
>messsage and simply decide that people who refuse to play by the rules of
>the list, (which they agreed to by joining the list) should not be allowed
>to post to the list.  Just an idea.  The practicality oif this is not
>within my knowledge, so if what I have suggested is beyond doing, please
>ignore it.

You *can* set them to NOPOST.
SET NOPOST for [log in to unmask]
or
QUIET SET NOPOST for [log in to unmask]

When someone set to NOPOST tries to post, I think they receive a "you are
not allowed to post to the xxx-L List" message.

>Glenn
>
>BTW, I got a great chuckle from the copied message below.

Always glad to bring a smile. Heck, always glad to *smile*.

Maureen :-)
HWY61-L

("I really thought I'd be seein' Elvis soon." bd)