[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is the list down?
On Mon, 9 May 1994, Jim Gillogly wrote:
> Well... countermeasures. Majordomo could require its subscriptions signed
> with a valid public key (PGP or RIPEM) with the public key in the signed
> body, and process future transactions for that individual only if they're
> signed. That's still open to a spam attack, though, where the attacker
> can subscribe 30 variations of (say) Jim Gillogly's address with different
> public keys constructed just for that, and Gillogly wouldn't be able to
> send the right unsubscriptions.
Or you could remove the ability to whois the subscribers of the list. I
know it can be done as queernet has done that for its majordomo lists.
At the very least, that will remove the ability to get a listing of who
is subscribed, although I kind think it's nice to be able to see who is
on the list.
I worry that requiring PGP or some other signature could pose problems
for those outside the U.S., especially if MIT-PGP is apparently not
Another choice is to require a confirmation from the subscriber. I run
several LISTSERV mailing lists, and while it doesn't require confirmation
for unsibscription (just signing up), it does keep down on the number of
"accidental" activities. It'd be pretty trivial to hack majordomo to
reply to the address in the whois list (instead of the Reply-To:) and
maintain a small database of 'pending' people. By requiring a, say,
six-digit code in the subject line of the confirmation, the software can
verify that it is genuine.
As I said, LISTSERV implements something similiar as an option for
subscribing. Maybe even for unsubscribing (I've never checked).
____ Robert A. Hayden <=> [email protected]
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)