mask spam - Websphere

This is a discussion on mask spam - Websphere ; spam gone...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: mask spam

  1. mask spam

    spam gone

  2. Re: mask spam

    I am curious... What is the point in responding to all of the spam?
    And what is the meaning of the subject line? Your responses to the spam
    are actually revealing the spam to me, because I have so far been
    successfully filtering those. Must I filter your messages too, or are
    you a real user of this group?

    Shannon Jacobs wrote:
    > spam gone


  3. Re: mask spam

    CRPence wrote:
    > I am curious... What is the point in responding to all of the spam?
    > And what is the meaning of the subject line? Your responses to the
    > spam are actually revealing the spam to me, because I have so far been
    > successfully filtering those. Must I filter your messages too, or are
    > you a real user of this group?
    >
    > Shannon Jacobs wrote:
    >> spam gone


    Some news readers will show the last past, which is null after I've deleted
    the body of the spam and the spam subject.

    In theory, the proper solution is to report the spam to the x-abuse address
    (in the header) and the responsible party is supposed to remove it.
    Unfortunately, email to that address bounces. Evidently the remaining
    solution candidates are for IBM to either maintain this server properly or
    shut it down... I only monitor a couple of newsgroups here, and they seem
    dead except for spam, so I'd have to vote for shutting it down. (Actually,
    there are a couple of other options, but they seem too time consuming for me
    to justify pursuing them.)

    Seems obvious that the spam is not beneficial for IBM's reputation...


  4. Re: mask spam

    It is odd given the server is intended for external use that the abuse
    address is bogus; the only support for the groups is via a Lotus Notes
    database inside of IBM. Sillier still is that the LN database gives
    visibility only to one's own posts, so I could not even determine if my
    complaint might be a duplicate, by searching first. I reported that the
    abuse address was bad and complained about the horrible job of filtering
    they were doing [i.e. they were\are doing none]. Best I can infer, my
    concerns were ignored, and they merely removed some of the reported spam
    from the web-based forum view. I did notice that they are at least
    expiring some of the spam articles. I concur that for lack of any
    apparent oversight, they should just close down the groups that are not
    active. Better still would be to make the groups either moderated or at
    least require authentication with an IBM.com user [which is an email
    address] so they could easily disable any used to spam.

    Regards, Chuck

    Shannon Jacobs wrote:
    > <> In theory, the proper solution is to report the spam to the
    > x-abuse address (in the header) and the responsible party is supposed
    > to remove it. Unfortunately, email to that address bounces. Evidently
    > the remaining solution candidates are for IBM to either maintain this
    > server properly or shut it down... I only monitor a couple of
    > newsgroups here, and they seem dead except for spam, so I'd have to
    > vote for shutting it down. (Actually, there are a couple of other
    > options, but they seem too time consuming for me to justify pursuing
    > them.)
    >
    > Seems obvious that the spam is not beneficial for IBM's reputation...


+ Reply to Thread