Hey Maxmsp@cycling74.com ;)



    • Apr 28 2007 | 8:57 am
      On 28 Apr 2007, at 03:10, Josh Hogan wrote:
      What, *another* teenage networking site?
      (Besides, Cycling are already on MySpace.)
      -- N.
      nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://
      www.cassiel.com
    • Apr 28 2007 | 9:47 pm
      Josh
      This is darn close to being spam, and we take a real dim view on that sort of thing. Next time you decide to spam everyone in your address book with a link to join a social networking site, please make sure no cycling74.com lists are in there, otherwise you'll find yourself removed from the list.
      This goes for everyone else on the list and forums as well. Mass invites to social networking sites that include cycling74.com list addresses are considered spam and will get you warned ONCE, and then booted if it happens again.
      w
    • Apr 29 2007 | 3:21 am
      On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 03:47:40PM -0600, wallace winfrey wrote:
      > This is darn close to being spam, and we take a real dim view on that sort of thing. Next time you decide to spam everyone in your address book with a link to join a social networking site, please make sure no cycling74.com lists are in there, otherwise you'll find yourself removed from the list.
      >
      > This goes for everyone else on the list and forums as well. Mass invites to social networking sites that include cycling74.com list addresses are considered spam and will get you warned ONCE, and then booted if it happens again.
      Actually this person didn't do that on purpose - they didn't "decide
      to spam everyone" in their address book. They got a link from someone
      trusted which they followed and were then asked to input their gmail
      account password. Once the site had their password it logs into gmail as
      that person and does the spamming. It's a sort of gmail-worm which uses a
      social engineering attack as it's infection vector. I don't think you can
      hold the poor recipient responsible just because they were not quite
      cynical enough regarding internet security.
      Best regards,
      Chris.
      -------------------
    • Apr 30 2007 | 6:58 pm
      Chris McCormick wrote:
      > I don't think you can
      > hold the poor recipient responsible just because they were not quite
      > cynical enough regarding internet security.
      I'm sorry, but I can, and will. Folks who are unable to prevent their
      email accounts from sending out spam will be prevented from sending
      future spam to this, or any other c74-operated, mailing list. Whether or
      not the person who facilitated the sending of this email did it
      wittingly or unwittingly, it makes no difference -- sending spam to this
      list is prohibited, period. You get warned, then you get booted if it
      happens a second time. The whole idea behind warning someone is so they
      take steps in the future to address this issue before it becomes one again.
      I appreciate the mechanical explanation, and I am sympathetic, but
      really, it doesn't make a difference. That being said, I'll do some
      research on this issue and see if it's possible to implement some topic
      blocking mechanisms in mailman to prevent these sorts of issues in the
      future.
      cheers
      w