Re: Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg52036] Re: [mg52010] Re: [mg51971] Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 03:13:16 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200411060707.CAA25940@smc.vnet.net> <200411070603.BAA18026@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: drbob at bigfoot.com
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
>> [SpamArrest would not work on my systems which are not Windows.... It doesn't matter what kind of systems you have; they have NOTHING installed on my machine, and I assume they wouldn't put anything on yours. Their only presence here is in the pop-3 mail setup, where I input the addresses and password they sent me. SpamArrest intercepts e-mail at my ISP and forwards it to me only if (a) the sender responds to an e-mail challenge, or (b) I have added them to my "white" list at their website. I can block or authorize specific addreses or whole domains, and I can authorize mailing lists (like this one), so everybody sending to the list doesn't get challenged. I only had to sign up at their website and change my mail setup. Bobby On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:03:26 -0500 (EST), DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com> wrote: > I can volunteer (on a limited basis, if it helps and doesn't get too onerous) to post notebooks on my website for people who can't do it themselves. In many cases -- maybe most cases -- I'd just use the Copy as InputForm palette and return the code to them. > > As for spam, David Park and I both use SpamArrest http://www.spamarrest.com/ to eliminate spam. It really works. The only downside to it for me -- and I don't think this should apply to you, the moderator -- is that I have to check the stopped mail I _want_ from senders who aren't human. > > >[SpamArrest would not work on my systems which are not Windows. I only use > UNIX systems. I consider Windows systems to be a security risk I do not > want anywhere near my work. I use spamassassin and my own hand built > procmail filters. - Moderator] > > > You shouldn't want mail like that at all, at the mathgroup address. > > Bobby > > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 02:07:32 -0500 (EST), Steven M. Christensen <steve at smc.vnet.net> wrote: > >> >> See my comments within the message below. >> >> Steve Christensen >> >> >>> >>> In article <cmfd5u$7ta$1 at smc.vnet.net>, >>> "Steven M. Christensen" <steve at smc.vnet.net> wrote: >>> >>> > I want to take the opportunity to reply to Paul's suggestion in >>> > as much detail as possible. >>> > >>> > I am sorry I was not at the event at the Wolfram Technology >>> > Conference when this was discussed. >>> > >>> > First, here are the steps I take each day to moderate this group. >>> > Figuring out where in these steps to put in categorization would need >>> > to fit into this. >>> > >>> > 1. I get perhaps 2500-3000 emails a day, every day. Of these, perhaps >>> > 500 are not spam. Because the Mathgroup addresses are easily found >>> > by spammers, there is no way around getting a lot of spam. >>> >>> Do you mean that the spammers are forging email addresses of MathGroup >>> participants and using these to post messages to MathGroup >>> (mathgroup at wolfram.com)? I can see how that would make things more difficult >>> to filter. >> >> >> Yes, this happens all the time. Spam comes to mathgroup via mailing >> list messages, newsgroup posts, spammers who have just found addresses >> in the newsgroups and archives. >> >> >>> >>> If I understand you correctly, requiring individuals to "register" with >>> you, possibly listing multiple email addresses, and bouncing email that >>> is not from registered participants, with a message telling them how to >>> register, would not work. >> >> >> No this would not work. I even get spam from wolfram.com addresses >> even though I know it did not come from there. I sometimes get >> spam from myself! >> >> >>> >>> Because I usually post from a news reader, my messages have the >>> following field: >>> >>> Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica >>> >>> Could this be used as a filter (or do spammers forge this as well)? >> >> >> Spammers forge every element of posts. >> >> >>> >>> [As an aside, a solution to SPAM needs to be found. To me, it should >>> cost money, only of the order of a couple of cents, to send any email >>> message. You would need to purchase a valid one-off "e-stamp", using >>> some form of encryption technology, from some site (I'm suprised that >>> the automatic billing sites have not already done this). Then only valid >>> e-stamps would be routed though the network. There are, of course, many >>> issues with this proposal ...] >>> >>> > Further, because MathGroup users often, unfortunately, >>> > send html email or other attachments, maybe 10-20 of their mails get >>> > filtered by my, fairly sophisticated but not perfect, spam filters into >>> > my spam folder. >>> >>> To me, one of the major limitations of MathGroup is that we cannot >>> attach Notebooks (without including them in the body of the message). >> >> >> >> Attaching notebooks causes numerous problems. >> >> 1. Notebooks as attachments are very often rejected by spam filters >> either at ISP's, moderation level, or end users. >> >> 2. Can a windows user really trust that a notebook attachment is not >> a virus or worm? If I were using a Windows machine and saw an >> attachment, I would not open it. >> >> 3. Many notebooks are very long and some mail systems will not be able >> to handle them. Rules about attached notebooks would have >> to be devised. Not a simple matter given that I get so many >> posts that can't follow even simpler rules. >> >> It is far simpler to have someone put their notebook on a server somewhere >> where it can be downloaded and then include a link within the post. >> >> >>> >>> > 2. Of the 500 good emails that get past my spam filters, I then have to >>> > filter out those mails that are for Mathgroup. Then, I have to >>> > go through the spam folder to find any MathGroup posts that might be >>> > there. So,there are usually about 70 emails relevant to MathGroup. >>> > Some, maybe 10 do not follow the rules - flames, licensing questions, >>> > discussions of other systems, really trivial items, totally >>> > non-Mathematica >>> > related. In the end, there are 30-60 emails to read in more detail. >>> >>> Actually, if the Subject line included question categories as is being >>> proposed, couldn't you use this as the primary filter (or again, do >>> spammers forge this as well)? >> >> >> Again, spammers will grab email addresses, Subject lines, even >> content sometimes. Most of that comes to me where I filter it. >> But I have had some reports that people get email from mathgroup >> and I did not send. >> >> >>> >>> > 3. Once I decide that the posts are OK, I run them through a number of >>> > UNIX scripts and do some more editing to take out unneeded mail headers >>> > etc. >>> > >>> > 4. Then the mails are run through scripts that send them to the >>> > newsgroup and the mailing list. One of the scripts adds the >>> > numbers to the Subject line of the mail that goes to >>> > the mailing list. Note that the [ ] are really needed. >>> >>> As I read MathGroup in a newsreader or sometimes via Google at >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica >>> >>> I do not see the numbers or the []. Google seems to handle threading >>> better than my newsreader. >>> >> >> >> >> The [mg ... ] numbers only go out to the mailing list to help with >> filtering. They will not be seen in the newsgroup or on google. >> >> >>> The numbers do not appear at >>> >>> http://forums.wolfram.com/mathgroup/archive/2004/Nov/ >>> >>> until you click on a particular message so I'm not sure exactly how they >>> are useful (but then again, I avoid mailing lists and prefer to use >>> newsgroups or the web). (And I wonder why the Mathgroup archive is not >>> threaded?) >> >> >> The archive gets its message from the mailing list and I also think >> it just uses a mail to html script and not a threaded system. I do >> not do the archive. >> >> >>> >>> > Suppose you just put Statistics in the Subject line, mail filters might >>> > not always know how to do the filtering, whereas [Statistics] >>> > is easier to filter. >>> >>> > This process takes from 1-3 hours typically, depending on the >>> > number of emails, their complexity, etc. >>> >>> I did not realise exactly how big a task you face. >> >> >> Clearly if it weren't for the spam, it would be easier. >> >> >>> >>> > So, the questions are, when during this process would categorisation >>> > take place? Who would do it? >>> >>> It would be best if contributors did such a categorisation for you, i.e. >>> at the time of posting. >>> >>> > What would it look like? >>> >>> Instead of [], another suggestion would be (mock Mathematica syntax >>> using /:), e.g., >>> >>> Statistics /: Chi-square test >>> >>> This would also be harder to forge and should still be easy to filter. >> >> >> It might be possible if we can define say only 10 categories and >> then put the category either in a special header or within the >> test of a message. This could be done in a voluntary way by >> the person sending the post. >> >> If people want to send me a list of 10 categories, I can collect >> them and see if there really are 10 or maybe 100, which would >> be silly I think. >> >> Another idea would be for someone clever to write a script that >> could categorize a post. For example, all words in a post >> could be extracted to a list and then compared to a list of >> categories and those categories that that fit could be chosen >> and put on say the top line of the post to help with filtering. >> Some posts might not be easy to treat in this way, but it might >> help. >> >> Paul, this is your suggestion and you are known to be very clever, want to >> write such a program? >> >> In truth, I don't think I want to do anything unless there is >> a significant vote from end users to do it and a nice way >> to handle it consistently >> >> >>> >>> > How would it effect mail and newsgroup readers? >>> >>> I imagine that it would have little effect, except the desired one of >>> allowing better filtering. >>> >>> > I think it would be a bad idea to put things like [Statistics] in >>> > the Subject line. Would newsgroup and mail readers be able to >>> > thread such Subject lines? >>> >>> Surely that is exactly what they are designed to do. >>> >>> And I could filter the messages into subfolders of my MathGroup folder >>> automatically. >>> >>> > It might be better to put it in something like an X-Category mail header, >>> > but I am not sure that all readers could handle this. >>> >>> This idea has merit and, again, it might be harder to forge, but I don't >>> know enough about these headers. >>> >>> > Personally, I think they would just make the Subject lines longer >>> > and harder to read. >>> >>> Nested Re: Re: Re: ... already does this, though Google handles this >>> very well, in its threading, dropping all Re at the top level, listing >>> only the subject, and then listing the contributor for each item in the >>> thread. >> >> >> Yes, the Re Re Re is a problem and I will try to fix that. >> >> >>> >>> > Who is going to do the categorisation? >>> >>> The contributor. >>> >>> > I know a lot about >>> > Mathematica and mathematics, but certainly not enough to figure >>> > out what every message best fits into. If I make a poor selection >>> > and a message has gone out it is virtually impossible to re-do >>> > the categorization in the newsgroups, mailing list, google group >>> > listings, archives, etc. >>> >>> Sometimes categorizations have to change. You could have >>> >>> Numerics -> Graphics /: Accurate plotting >>> >>> when there is such a change. >>> >>> > Search therefore becomes inaccurate very quickly. >>> >>> I don't think that this is true. >>> >>> > What if someone disagrees with my selections? >>> >>> Not a big issue, I think. I think the group will come to consensus on a >>> categorization, or move on to a different categorization as required. >>> >>> > How much time will this add to moderation? >>> >>> I would hope that it would greatly _reduce_ your moderation time. >> >> >> I can assure you that adding more complexity to the posts will >> increase moderation time. >> >> >>> >>> > If others select the categories to help me out, that will just >>> > delay moderation. >>> >>> I do not see why. >>> >>> > Maybe, we can urge the person who originally writes the message to select >>> > a category, but how does a new user know what category to pick? >>> >>> There should be a list in the rules section at >>> >>> http://smc.vnet.net/mathgroup.html >>> >>> > What if a users forgets to include a categorisation? >>> >>> You can add one. >>> >>> > Is someone going to go back and categorise the 51,000 messages that >>> > are already in the archive? >>> >>> Unlikely, I think. However, I expect that the archive has grown >>> exponentially and will continue to do so. >>> >>> > The simplest thing to do would be to have some group that is willing >>> > categorise the posts once they get into the Wolfram Research >>> > archive only. Then search could be done fairly easily. >>> > >>> > This sort of categorisation may be done in other newsgroups, but >>> > I have not seen it. >>> >>> I expect that it is used on other newsgroups, but I have not seen it, or >>> there are subgroups. >>> >>> sci.math >>> sci.math.symbolic >> >> >> If you look at these groups you will find no real categorisation >> of any kind. I could not find any group that had any. >> >> >>> >>> > I am open to suggestions and comments, but I frankly this this >>> > is going to be a very difficult process to do. >>> >>> It was intended as a suggestion to reduce your workload, to speed up the >>> rate of posting to MathGroup, and to improve the automatic filtering >>> (and threading) of messages. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi all, and especially Steve Christensen: >>> > >>> > At the recent Wolfram Technology Conference in Champaign, Luc Barthelet >>> > <lucb at ea.com>, a regular user of MathGroup suggested that it would be >>> > good if all postings to MathGroup included a categorisation in their >>> > header, e.g. >>> > >>> > Newbies, Graphics, Functions, Programming, Statistics, Teaching, >>> > Integration, Numerics, Symbolic Algebra, Special Functions, ... >>> > >>> > so a Subject line might take the form >>> > >>> > [Statistics]: How to fit to an elliptical function? >>> > >>> > (not sure if the [ ] are required or useful). In this way, sorting by >>> > Subject would be easier. Of course, it's not always easy to do such a >>> > categorisation, and they may change with time (as a problem stated as a >>> > Numerics might end up being solved using Symbolic Algebra). >>> > Nevertheless, I think such a change would be very useful. It should also >>> > help when doing searches on MathGroup archives. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Paul >>> >>> -- >>> Paul Abbott Phone: +61 8 6488 2734 >>> School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 6488 1014 >>> The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G) >>> 35 Stirling Highway >>> Crawley WA 6009 mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au >>> AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- DrBob at bigfoot.com www.eclecticdreams.net
- References:
- Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: "Steven M. Christensen" <steve@smc.vnet.net>
- Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
- From: DrBob <drbob@bigfoot.com>
- Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings