check this out! spamming/ Attn: Admin

This latest spamming scheme attacks Yahoo group lists that have open
memberships with no screening.

The spammers join using gibberish names and then post these idiotic
messages. If the owner removes them, they just return with another name.

There's a simple way to beat it.
I'm on another list where they did it and it works.
You just have to change group membership settings so that new members
asking to join are screened. What happens is someone asking to join the
list goes into a pending status until you approve membership. It will have
no effect at all on current members.
Any garbage gibberish name can be spotted and not allowed membership.
Actually, once you change the group membership so it's not open, it seems
the spammers don't even try.
I guess it's a bit more trouble for you to screen members, but it will
eliminate this spam if you want to do it.

Mike Berman
digiboy at nyc.rr.com

 

Sorry folks, I'm abroad at the moment, I've changed the membership to
approve only so that should be the end of the rubbish posts.

Well, the unrelated to Tomita rubbish posts anyway

J.
--

 

I am owner of several other groups that have been hit by these
dirtballs. In addition to screening memberships, the ones that are
determined to be the spammers, I have left in the "pending" folder.
Basically, I am compiling a list of spammer addreses to forward to
Yahoo hoping it might help them determine origination domains to ban
from registration.

If you have pending new members wanting to join that you are not
sure of their intentions, if you approve them,put them individually
on a probationary message moderate status. As you see there posts and
are ok for the group, you can then decide when to reset them to
unmoderated mode. (Don't forget to temporarely remove their file
uploading priviledges also!)

This has worked well in my groups, so I thought that I would pass
this on.

Good Luck! Pete


--- In isaotomita at y..., "jgbreslin" <cloud at e...> wrote:
> Sorry folks, I'm abroad at the moment, I've changed the membership
to
> approve only so that should be the end of the rubbish posts.
>
> Well, the unrelated to Tomita rubbish posts anyway
>
> J.
> --

 

In message <aml1a0+jk64 at eGroups.com>, Pete <triggermortiss at yahoo.com>
writes
>I am owner of several other groups that have been hit by these
>dirtballs. In addition to screening memberships, the ones that are
>determined to be the spammers, I have left in the "pending" folder.
>Basically, I am compiling a list of spammer addreses to forward to
>Yahoo hoping it might help them determine origination domains to ban
>from registration.

Nice idea, although I do not think it will be effective. It looks as
though they use a randomly generated email address. They probably have
some sort of script that automatically subscribes to groups, posts spam,
then unsubscribes before anyone can do anything.

The best policy is to screen subscriptions, as John has done - you can
easily tell the randomly generated ones, and additionally you can check
the IP address of the sender.

--
Brendan Heading, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Caill do chlú agus faigh ar ais é, agus ní hé an rud céanna é.

 

Is the Restricted Membership option linked to the "Archives for
members only" option? Restricting access to the archives will
discourage a lot of people from joining the group.

Also, I know some Yahoo groups' messages are searchable on Google;
I'm not sure of the hows and whys of that and how this change may
affect that.

 

>Is the Restricted Membership option linked to the "Archives for
>members only" option? Restricting access to the archives will
>discourage a lot of people from joining the group.
>
>Also, I know some Yahoo groups' messages are searchable on Google;
>I'm not sure of the hows and whys of that and how this change may
>affect that.


No, the 2 features are independent.

Mike Berman
digiboy at nyc.rr.com

 

In message <amq7t2+3kqm at eGroups.com>, kimbawlion2001
<kimbawlion at www.com> writes
>Is the Restricted Membership option linked to the "Archives for
>members only" option?

I doubt it.

> Restricting access to the archives will
>discourage a lot of people from joining the group.

I doubt that too. I can't see how accessing the archives would effect
your desire to join the group. It might be moderately inconvenient
though.

>Also, I know some Yahoo groups' messages are searchable on Google;
>I'm not sure of the hows and whys of that and how this change may
>affect that.

It just means that you can't join without the moderator approving the
subscription. Simple.

--
Brendan Heading, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Caill do chlú agus faigh ar ais é, agus ní hé an rud céanna é.

 

--- In isaotomita at y..., Brendan Heading <brendanheading at c...> wrote:
> I can't see how accessing the archives would effect
> your desire to join the group. It might be moderately inconvenient
> though.

Simple reason: 99% of Yahoo groups are an utter waste of time. With
the archives available only to members, it's impossible for a
prospective member to assess the suitability of the group. The odds
are heavily against it being worthwhile to wait for membership
approval to check out what's been said on any one group.

Yes, that attitude can result in missing a worthwhile group, but
faced with a stone wall, one is likely to play the odds.

I don't think I've ever joined a group that locked out non-members
from reading _and_ made applicants wait to be approved.

 

>--- In isaotomita at y..., Brendan Heading <brendanheading at c...> wrote:
>> I can't see how accessing the archives would effect
>> your desire to join the group. It might be moderately inconvenient
>> though.
>
>Simple reason: 99% of Yahoo groups are an utter waste of time. With
>the archives available only to members, it's impossible for a
>prospective member to assess the suitability of the group. The odds
>are heavily against it being worthwhile to wait for membership
>approval to check out what's been said on any one group.
>
>Yes, that attitude can result in missing a worthwhile group, but
>faced with a stone wall, one is likely to play the odds.
>
>I don't think I've ever joined a group that locked out non-members
>from reading _and_ made applicants wait to be approved.

Whoa!
This is way out of proportion. This is a very minor issue over a very good
solution to this new spamming scheme.

Yahoo is not responding to complaints about the spamming. Groups that
leave the "join" option on automatic are getting hit with all these crap
ads.

The membership approval mode DOES stop the spam. It works! I can verify that.
So what's the big deal? New people sign up to join, their membership goes
to "pending" status, and then as soon as the moderator hit's the OK button,
they're in...what's the problem?

The "approval" step in membership is NOT linked to any other feature in the
Yahoo group.
Archives and messages can remain public or not, as designated by the list
manager, regardless of whether membership requires approval. For people
who are already members, the switch to membership approval doesn't change
anything else about the way the group works .

It solves a problem, that's all.




Mike Berman
digiboy at nyc.rr.com

 

Hopefully I can bring an end to this discussion by changing the
setting so that anyone can read past messages (e-mails are spam
protected) and only members can post. I moderate all memberships and
now we have allowed potential members to read past threads and see if
they are interested in joining or not.

Thanks,

John.
--
www.isaotomita.net