Re: [wpmac] Email problems
- I got one myself this morning dated March 28, 2008 (My birthday)
something about you might be interested to know That Novell is suing
some other company.
Geoff Gilbert wrote:
> Don't know if it was the same thing, but I received a whole load of
> emails from my system administrator telling me that emails from 2008
> were undeliverable to an unknown address (I have put asterisks where
> the false address was in case the person is innocent):
- I've also received about five of these also from a gmail account from messages sent in March 2008.
However, unless we hear from a lot of people who are having this problem, I don't favor restricting access. Even though I'm still "back there in 10.4-land", and even though I don't go there a lot, I still like that the archive is open.
--- On Tue, 8/4/09, John Rethorst <jrethorst@...> wrote:
From: John Rethorst <jrethorst@...>
Subject: [wpmac] Email problems
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 1:11 AM
I got 32 emails this evening from a member, apparently automated and
so probably attempts to harvest emails from the archives. A friend on
the group also got similar emails from this member. This member has
The archives do not reveal email addresses, so I don't know how this
happened, but I apologize to any member who was inconvenienced.
If we want, we can make the archives available only to members who
have signed in, just as files and links are now only available to those
who have signed in. Would anyone prefer that message archives also
have limited access?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Happened to me too, four emails I sent to the group a long time ago were
not delivered to kingsleep at somewhere today... Could the problem be at Google?
Hugh Dobbs (hnd101)
- John Rethorst wrote:
>Respectfully, I don't see the point. Since e-mail addresses aren't in the
> I got 32 emails this evening from a member, apparently automated and
> so probably attempts to harvest emails from the archives. A friend on
> the group also got similar emails from this member. This member has
> been removed.
> The archives do not reveal email addresses, so I don't know how this
> happened, but I apologize to any member who was inconvenienced.
> If we want, we can make the archives available only to members who
> have signed in, just as files and links are now only available to those
> who have signed in. Would anyone prefer that message archives also
> have limited access?
> Thank you,
> John R.
archives, how will restricting access secure e-mail addresses? As the person in
question was a member, this restriction wouldn't have prevented this incident
anyway. Isn't it more likely that he/she harvested the addresses from the
messages he/she received by e-mail as a member? If that's the case, the steps
you already take to protect the list, including the removal of bad actors, seem
the appropriate course. Am I missing something?
- --- In email@example.com, newtownw@... wrote:
>One more: a dozen of my messages (all from a long time ago in a galaxy far away) weren't delivered to kingsleep at somewhere.
> Happened to me too, four emails I sent to the group a long time ago were
> not delivered to kingsleep at somewhere today...
- I didn¹t receive any messages, but in the past I¹ve had messages of mine
mystically appear in yahoogroups from as long as 3 years before. The
messages arrived when they were originally sent, they just were resent
somehow years later. But I¹ve never had more than one at time, and they
always went to the whole group, not just a few members.
- If you want an explanation, I reckon this is what happened:
The inbox at wpmac... got compromised/hijacked
Its contents got sent to kingsleep...
kingsleep's inbox overflowed or for other reasons gmail suspected something
kingsleep got terminated with extreme prejudice
The remainder of our messages continued to be sent to kingsleep
They were returned to the senders (us) as undeliverable because they were
sent as if from
us (the individuals, not the group
Incidentally, I think I suggested a problem at Google. If so, I should of
course have said