procyberian/emacs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Modernize spam section in Gnus manual slightly

Browse source 
* doc/misc/gnus.texi (The problem of spam): Don't explain what
spam is; there is no need for that in 2022.  Don't explain
limitations of obsolete software TMDA; it's website has stopped
working but seems to have been updated last in 2007.
(Thwarting Email Spam, Anti-Spam Basics)
(Spam Package Configuration Examples): Prefer "spam" to "UCE".
(The problem of spam): Use example.org in example.
(SpamAssassin, Hashcash): Improve wording.
This commit is contained in:
Stefan Kangas 2022-08-16 10:14:52 +02:00
parent c3dedb8b85
commit 780c525d11
1 changed files with 10 additions and 31 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

41
doc/misc/gnus.texi
View file

@ -24193,8 +24193,7 @@ people have started putting nonsense addresses into their @code{From}
lines. I think this is counterproductive---it makes it difficult for
people to send you legitimate mail in response to things you write, as
well as making it difficult to see who wrote what. This rewriting may
perhaps be a bigger menace than the unsolicited commercial email itself
in the end.
perhaps be a bigger menace than the spam itself in the end.
The biggest problem I have with email spam is that it comes in under
false pretenses. I press @kbd{g} and Gnus merrily informs me that I
@ -24220,33 +24219,13 @@ This is annoying. Here's what you can do about it.
@cindex UCE
@cindex unsolicited commercial email
First, some background on spam.
If you have access to e-mail, you are familiar with spam (technically
termed @acronym{UCE}, Unsolicited Commercial E-mail). Simply put, it
exists because e-mail delivery is very cheap compared to paper mail,
so only a very small percentage of people need to respond to an UCE to
make it worthwhile to the advertiser. Ironically, one of the most
common spams is the one offering a database of e-mail addresses for
further spamming. Senders of spam are usually called @emph{spammers},
but terms like @emph{vermin}, @emph{scum}, @emph{sociopaths}, and
@emph{morons} are in common use as well.
Spam comes from a wide variety of sources. It is simply impossible to
dispose of all spam without discarding useful messages. A good
example is the TMDA system, which requires senders
unknown to you to confirm themselves as legitimate senders before
their e-mail can reach you. Without getting into the technical side
of TMDA, a downside is clearly that e-mail from legitimate sources may
be discarded if those sources can't or won't confirm themselves
through the TMDA system. Another problem with TMDA is that it
requires its users to have a basic understanding of e-mail delivery
and processing.
dispose of all spam without discarding useful messages.
The simplest approach to filtering spam is filtering, at the mail
server or when you sort through incoming mail. If you get 200 spam
messages per day from @samp{random-address@@vmadmin.com}, you block
@samp{vmadmin.com}. If you get 200 messages about @samp{VIAGRA}, you
messages per day from @samp{random-address@@example.org}, you block
@samp{example.org}. If you get 200 messages about @samp{VIAGRA}, you
discard all messages with @samp{VIAGRA} in the message. If you get
lots of spam from Bulgaria, for example, you try to filter all mail
from Bulgarian IPs.
@ -24357,7 +24336,7 @@ In my experience, this will sort virtually everything into the right
group. You still have to check the @samp{spam} group from time to time to
check for legitimate mail, though. If you feel like being a good net
citizen, you can even send off complaints to the proper authorities on
each unsolicited commercial email---at your leisure.
each spam---at your leisure.
This works for me. It allows people an easy way to contact me (they can
just press @kbd{r} in the usual way), and I'm not bothered at all with
@ -24373,8 +24352,8 @@ Be careful with this approach. Spammers are wise to it.
@cindex Vipul's Razor
@cindex DCC
The days where the hints in the previous section were sufficient in
avoiding spam are coming to an end. There are many tools out there
The days where the hints in the previous section were sufficient to
avoid spam are over. There are many tools out there
that claim to reduce the amount of spam you get. This section could
easily become outdated fast, as new products replace old, but
fortunately most of these tools seem to have similar interfaces. Even
@ -24455,7 +24434,7 @@ spam. And here is the nifty function:
@subsection Hashcash
@cindex hashcash
A novel technique to fight spam is to require senders to do something
One technique to fight spam is to require senders to do something
costly and demonstrably unique for each message they send. This has
the obvious drawback that you cannot rely on everyone in the world
using this technique, since it is not part of the Internet standards,
@ -25112,8 +25091,8 @@ The @code{gnus-article-sort-by-chars} entry simplifies detection of
false positives for me. I receive lots of worms (sweN, @dots{}), that all
have a similar size. Grouping them by size (i.e., chars) makes finding
other false positives easier. (Of course worms aren't @i{spam}
(@acronym{UCE}, @acronym{UBE}) strictly speaking. Anyhow, bogofilter is
an excellent tool for filtering those unwanted mails for me.)
strictly speaking. Anyhow, bogofilter is an excellent tool for
filtering those unwanted mails for me.)
@item @b{Ham folders:}