From patchwork Sun Aug 9 04:42:08 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gerald Pfeifer X-Patchwork-Id: 1342558 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org (client-ip=2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c; helo=sourceware.org; envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces@gcc.gnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BPRKW5BQjz9sRN for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:42:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032F6385ED4A; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 04:42:31 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4AB3858D35 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 04:42:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 0B4AB3858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gerald@pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4A133E3D for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.59.1.103] (unknown [213.249.25.242]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0B5633E27 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 07:42:08 +0300 (EEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [committed] wwwdocs: Rework note on spam to be more concise. MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20200809044227.5E4A133E3D@hamza.pair.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces@gcc.gnu.org Sender: "Gcc-patches" In 1998 Jeff created this as a dump from an e-mail (hence all the contents in a 
 environment).

Since then we haven't really change any contents, though it's interesting 
to review the commit log which reflects general changes around our web 
site (to XHTML, later reducing preprocessing, now HTML 5).

Pushed.

Gerald
---
 htdocs/spam.html | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/htdocs/spam.html b/htdocs/spam.html
index 8db948d4..61ee6209 100644
--- a/htdocs/spam.html
+++ b/htdocs/spam.html
@@ -17,40 +17,35 @@ want to run a list where only members can post).

 
Some simple guidelines for how to deal with SPAM to the lists can help
 avoid creating unnecessary traffic:

 
-
-  -  NEVER respond to SPAM, no matter *what* the message says about
-     "Remove" instructions.  It is *quite* likely that, by responding,
+
    
+  
  • Never respond to SPAM, no matter what the message says about
+     "remove" instructions. It is quite likely that by responding
      you're simply sending the spammers more email addresses (such
-     as yours) to use and share with (or sell to) all the other
-     spammers throughout the world.
-
-  -  If the SPAM you receive came through a list you're on, it is
-     probably best to remove that list itself from the "To" and "Cc"
-     fields, unless your email is really for list members to *read*.
+     as yours) to use and share.
    • 
 
+  
  • If the SPAM you receive came through a list, remove that list
+     itself should you decide to react after all, unless your email is
+     really for list members to read.
+     
    
      That is, if *you* don't like SPAM, probably nobody else on the
      list does, and probably nobody wants to read how upset you are
      about the spam, because they're already just as annoyed.
-
+     
    
      Exceptions include email like this saying "people on this list
-     should not respond to spam *on this list*".  ;-)
-
-     Cc'ing the list maintainer in email to a postmaster somewhere
-     about spam might be okay, though.
-
-  -  NEVER respond to SPAM.  I really mean this.  That's why I
-     repeated it.  If you want to *discuss* things related to the
-     SPAM, this means DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SPAMMER'S EMAIL ADDRESSES
-     IN THE LIST OF RECIPIENTS!!!
-
-     Otherwise, not only is *your* email address "harvested" as a
-     future "we know there's a person behind this" address for spamming,
-     anyone who absent-mindedly responds to *your* email without
-     trimming the spammer's address (as I've done) also gets *their*
-     email address harvested this way.
-

-
-
In addition to the above you may want to check out
+     should not respond to spam *on this list*".  ;-)

+
+  
  • Never respond to SPAM.  Really.
+     If you want to *discuss* things related to the SPAM, do not
+     include spammers.
+     
    
+     Otherwise, not only is your email address "harvested" as a
+     future "we know there's a person behind this" address,
+     anyone who absent-mindedly responds to your email without
+     trimming the spammer's address also gets their address
+     harvested.
    • 
+
+
+
    In addition may want to check out
 www.abuse.net.