Uff da and Oy Vey!  Not only did we have someone send that short
message to over 270 lists ([log in to unmask]) but then [log in to unmask]
took it upon himself to answer, not only to the list, BUT INCLUDING
ALL THE LISTS AGAIN!
 
   If you want to be sure to SERVE these OFF here they are:
 
  [log in to unmask]            (original perpetrator)
   [log in to unmask]            (replied to ALL every time)
 
Kolarm said something about his attorneys - I'm wondering if they happen
to handle immigration too.  ;-)
 
   Anyway, it is probably important that we stress to our subscribers
that they SHOULD complain BUT only to the original perpetrator and the
folks who run that system, not the list and certainly not ALL the
lists!
 
   Of course only secure total moderation can really stop this sort
of nonsense but that is time consuming.
 
   This brings up a couple ideas:
 
   1.  I changed one of my lists that was hit from "Send= Public" to
       "self-moderated".  By self-moderated I mean the list is set up
       on LISTSERV as "Send= Editor" but the Editor includes the list
       subscribers as SECONDARY editors.  For example, POWER-L has:
            Editor= NU021172@NDSUVM1 (Marty Hoag)
            Editor= (POWER-L)
       Then if a "non-subscriber" sends something to the list it goes
       to me first.  I have used this for a long time for private lists
       instead of "Send= Private" because I considered it more user
       friendly (especially when someone's address changes).  In fact,
       it is really my preferred set-up for open lists now.  As with
       private lists you can add folks with NOMAIL to "pre-approve them".
 
   2.  Might there be a way to have a limit setable as a default at the
       server level AND overridable on a list basis which would block
       mail sent to more than n recipients.  In this last case the To:
       line included some 273 (probably) recipients.  Other "attacks"
       have been sent to lists and groups one at a time but at least
       that could make it a bit harder (maybe also harder to do a
       reply ALL and continue the problem).
 
   3.  Anyone thought of a global signoff facility?  Maybe allowing
       any LISTSERV postmaster to do something on the LOCAL listserv
       which would be relayed - either with prior approval of other
       postmasters or to take effect and notify the other postmasters
       so they could undo it if they wish...
 
   4.  One of our list owners suggested a "VISITOR" file like the WELCOME
       file but sent to someone who sent an item to the list but was not
       a subscriber.  I don't know how you'd track that so you don't
       send more than one though...
 
   How else can we help prevent future similar network pollution
problems?
 
   marty
 
-----------
Marty Hoag   [log in to unmask]            US Mail: NDSU ITS
ND Higher Education Computer Network                IACC Room 206
Phone: (701)-237-8639  Fax: (701)-237-8541          PO Box 5164
Bitnet: nu021172@NDSUVM1  (note 0=zero)             Fargo, ND  58105