Marilyn- Ask her to send you the full expanded headers of BOTH copies of one the duplicates -- we can't tell why there would be TWO copies by just seeing one set of headers. Joan In a message dated 11/21/2011 9:22:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Tribehunter@aol.com writes: A subscriber has asked why she's receiving duplicate emails from the mailing list but I can't seem to figure out the problem from the headers of the two duplicates. The subscribers address is llepore@comcast.net Can anyone help please? Thanks, Marilyn

A subscriber has asked why she's receiving duplicate emails from the mailing list but I can't seem to figure out the problem from the headers of the two duplicates. The subscribers address is llepore@comcast.net Can anyone help please? Thanks, Marilyn 1- Return-Path: belarus-bounces@rootsweb.com Received: from imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (LHLO imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.28.169) by sz0174.wc.mail.comcast.net with LMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists9.rootsweb.com ([66.43.28.163]) by imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yhkR1h00F3X97rW0bhkRvi; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:44:25 +0000 X-CAA-SPAM: F00000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Q89QEvKa c=1 sm=1 a=HciYAL2vVmmgSrEvJt5dkg==:17 a=4rl5UCcxXVEA:10 a=h6H2t06USwQA:10 a=mQsX4_zo9-EA:10 a=5aHpjQumjM4A:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ixjGs0MFAAAA:8 a=O-D_cOlrvamrat6EmPkA:9 a=zpaKaWZoFA4Ow1DtLYUA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=xY6rdcZP4KkA:10 a=Dy8l5IYJyXoA:10 a=HciYAL2vVmmgSrEvJt5dkg==:117 Received: from lists9.rootsweb.com (lists9.rootsweb.com [127.0.0.1]) by lists9.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhxp7001391 for <llepore@comcast.net>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:44:31 -0700 Received: from mail3.rootsweb.com (mail3.rootsweb.com [192.168.26.64]) by lists9.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhw4t001388 for <BELARUS@lists9.rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.26.52]) by mail3.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhwNk029883 for <BELARUS@lists9.rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from comm.myfamily.com (comm.myfamily.com [66.43.22.155]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhwoO022052 for <BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from smail03 ([10.8.10.23]) by comm.myfamily.com (StrongMail Enterprise 4.1.2(4.1.2-51177)); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 X-VirtualServer: comm, comm.myfamily.com, 10.8.10.23 X-MailingID: 00000::00000::00000::00000::::111742 X-SMHeaderMap: mid="X-MailingID" X-Destination-ID: BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com X-SMFBL: QkVMQVJVUy1MQHJvb3Rzd2ViLmNvbQ== Message-ID: <1321638238.111743@rootsweb.com> Received: from Unknown (HELO 10.6.15.10) (10.6.11.250) by smail03 (qpsmtpd/0.40) with SMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:57 -0700 X-clientid: 1521464909 X-Sender: <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> X-Receiver: BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com From: "gc-gateway@rootsweb.com" <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> To: <BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:43:44 -0000 X-VirtualServerGroup: comm X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 192.168.26.64 Subject: Re: [BELARUS] George John Turluck/Turlock X-BeenThere: belarus@rootsweb.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7 Precedence: list Reply-To: gc-gateway@rootsweb.com, belarus@rootsweb.com List-Id: <belarus.rootsweb.com> X-Loop: BELARUS@rootsweb.com X-Member: BELARUS@rootsweb.com List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/belarus>, <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=belarus> List-Post: <mailto:belarus@rootsweb.com> List-Help: <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/belarus>, <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=subscribe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: belarus-bounces@rootsweb.com Errors-To: b+-elarus-bounce+llepore=comcast.net@rootsweb.com ************************************************************************** 2 Return-Path: belarus-bounces@rootsweb.com Received: from imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (LHLO imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net) (76.96.28.169) by sz0174.wc.mail.comcast.net with LMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists9.rootsweb.com ([66.43.28.163]) by imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id yhkR1h00F3X97rW0bhkRvi; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:44:25 +0000 X-CAA-SPAM: F00000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Q89QEvKa c=1 sm=1 a=HciYAL2vVmmgSrEvJt5dkg==:17 a=4rl5UCcxXVEA:10 a=h6H2t06USwQA:10 a=mQsX4_zo9-EA:10 a=5aHpjQumjM4A:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ixjGs0MFAAAA:8 a=O-D_cOlrvamrat6EmPkA:9 a=zpaKaWZoFA4Ow1DtLYUA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=xY6rdcZP4KkA:10 a=Dy8l5IYJyXoA:10 a=HciYAL2vVmmgSrEvJt5dkg==:117 Received: from lists9.rootsweb.com (lists9.rootsweb.com [127.0.0.1]) by lists9.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhxp7001391 for <llepore@comcast.net>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:44:31 -0700 Received: from mail3.rootsweb.com (mail3.rootsweb.com [192.168.26.64]) by lists9.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhw4t001388 for <BELARUS@lists9.rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.26.52]) by mail3.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhwNk029883 for <BELARUS@lists9.rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from comm.myfamily.com (comm.myfamily.com [66.43.22.155]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAIHhwoO022052 for <BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 Received: from smail03 ([10.8.10.23]) by comm.myfamily.com (StrongMail Enterprise 4.1.2(4.1.2-51177)); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:58 -0700 X-VirtualServer: comm, comm.myfamily.com, 10.8.10.23 X-MailingID: 00000::00000::00000::00000::::111742 X-SMHeaderMap: mid="X-MailingID" X-Destination-ID: BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com X-SMFBL: QkVMQVJVUy1MQHJvb3Rzd2ViLmNvbQ== Message-ID: <1321638238.111743@rootsweb.com> Received: from Unknown (HELO 10.6.15.10) (10.6.11.250) by smail03 (qpsmtpd/0.40) with SMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:43:57 -0700 X-clientid: 1521464909 X-Sender: <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> X-Receiver: BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com From: "gc-gateway@rootsweb.com" <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> To: <BELARUS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:43:44 -0000 X-VirtualServerGroup: comm X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 192.168.26.64 Subject: Re: [BELARUS] George John Turluck/Turlock X-BeenThere: belarus@rootsweb.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7 Precedence: list Reply-To: gc-gateway@rootsweb.com, belarus@rootsweb.com List-Id: <belarus.rootsweb.com> X-Loop: BELARUS@rootsweb.com X-Member: BELARUS@rootsweb.com List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/belarus>, <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=belarus> List-Post: <mailto:belarus@rootsweb.com> List-Help: <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/belarus>, <mailto:belarus-request@rootsweb.com?subject=subscribe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: belarus-bounces@rootsweb.com Errors-To: b+-elarus-bounce+llepore=comcast.net@rootsweb.com

Thanks for this heads-up. I fortunately only had one of my boards hit so the number is now down to 105. Best wishes, Jim "Pops" Jackson -----Original Message----- From: listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of W David Samuelsen Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:21 AM To: listowners@rootsweb.com Subject: [LO] What? another spammer in a insidious manner Didn't realize there's another spammer using this very same format on over 1000 boards already (now reduced to 106 and you can pick out the subject) until I received msg from Westchester co NY about this spammer. Keep your eyes open for this! David Samuelsen (snip)

should have said 100, now up to 106. and I left out the link http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.newyork.counties.westchester/7212.2/mb.ashx David Samuelsen

Didn't realize there's another spammer using this very same format on over 1000 boards already (now reduced to 106 and you can pick out the subject) until I received msg from Westchester co NY about this spammer. Keep your eyes open for this! David Samuelsen Can anyone help me ? I’m looking for the name and the biography of the founder of Lime township in Baker County, Oregon. How did it get this name ? I also looking for the names and the appointment date of the persons that served as postmaster in this township. If anyone have pictures of/from this township I would be glad to have a scan of them. If anyone have covers or postcards from this place and from the time periode 1899 - 1964 I would like to buy them. My contact info is. Mr. kim Henriksen Email : danmark@mimer.no

On 11/20/2011 8:04 AM, Diane wrote: > How do you put the gateways on moderated please, because some of mine > are spammed? > > Thanks for any answers that anyone can give me. > > Diane Diane: Someone else replied with instructions. Basically, you put the gateway address on "Ban" after the gateway to the mailing list is open. This is NOT actually "moderation", technically speaking. But it works very similarly. I do this for all of my board --> list gateways. I am not the board admin for any of them. I find that I miss enough real posts from non-subscribers to make the effort worthwhile. Darrell

I guess I didn't do a god job of explaining what I meant by moderating. My apologies. If you go to the list tools > ban > and put in gcgateway@rootsweb.com any board that is gatewayed will first have that post held in pending for admin review, from there you can delete any board post not suitable for the list. I did some snooping at the site of our least favorite spammer and they only spam the boards for which they claim to have a product for which means if you have a surname and they have no product for that surname that message board should be safe from spam. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to ban the gateway address should that board be gatewayed to the list. What I'm trying to say is if you want to know if you have a board at risk for spam you can go to the spammers website and check out the list of surnames for which they claim to have products. I hope that better explains what I mean. J. Asche On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM, W David Samuelsen <dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > I meant this to go to the list. > > Joan Asche, > > The last 2 rounds they did, they hit more than 1,000 boards. Listadmins > won't know because not all are gatewayed. Moderating won't work, since > you have to get to message boards to report the posts as spam abuse then > RW does the rest of mass-posting removals. > > David Samuelsen > > On 11/20/2011 6:18 AM, JLA wrote: >> If you go to their website you will see a list of the so called books >> they have.  If a you admin admin a board on their list you can expect >> them to spamming your board.  If you don't see a surname on the list >> then your board is most likely safe. >> >> This worked for me.  I know which gateways to moderate and which I >> don't need too. >> >> Joan Asche

no bashing here.... reply to some points On 11/20/2011 10:21 AM, Sue wrote: > What I want to know... why is it up to RW, and, not up to Ancestry, the Parent company? They are > the ones that set the AUP globally. RW has NOT had any paid staff for years! It is all Ancestry. Message boards on RW is mirroed on Ancestry side and vice versa. > I realize we have RW staff (paid? unpaid?) during the week, could Ancestry not staff weekends? > Could Ancestry not step up and take the helm from Friday eve to Monday morn? Never had any paid RW staff for years. I should know because I called to verify information years ago - the SECRETARY said no paid RW staff for at least 3 years when I made that call 3 years ago. It has been Ancestry staff whole time. Yes, they do have staff on weekends just to keep eye on the servers, not to do mundane tasks like mailing lists, etc. > Certainly Ancestry is manned on the weekends, being the corporate entity that it is- ready to take > a subscription for Christmas. The money the unknowing person who follows AB spends the money on a > Bad Book rather than a Good Subscription. The subscription outfit is not in same place as the servers. They're in different building. After all, I live in Salt Lake City and Ancestry, inc is in Provo, Utah W. David Samuelsen

OK, I'm going to say something here that some of you folks are going to claim I've never, ever said before, and you've never, ever heard from me or anyone else. (What else is new?) This is not "bash Rootsweb-L", "bash Ancestry-L", "dictate how you think the company should be run-L", et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. Why is it not? Not, as some have alleged in the past, because we're here to "suck up" to Ancestry. But because this is and always has been a list for one purpose and one purpose only: peer-to-peer self-help for list admins. YOUR FELLOW LIST ADMINS HAVE NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER OF HOW ROOTSWEB OR ANCESTRY ARE OPERATED. Apparently the above statement is going to come as a revelation to some of you. Nevertheless, it's true, always has been, always will be. So kindly drop the topic, if you would. Or if not, moderation is always an option. Thanks. --pig, admin

I meant this to go to the list. Joan Asche, The last 2 rounds they did, they hit more than 1,000 boards. Listadmins won't know because not all are gatewayed. Moderating won't work, since you have to get to message boards to report the posts as spam abuse then RW does the rest of mass-posting removals. David Samuelsen On 11/20/2011 6:18 AM, JLA wrote: > If you go to their website you will see a list of the so called books > they have. If a you admin admin a board on their list you can expect > them to spamming your board. If you don't see a surname on the list > then your board is most likely safe. > > This worked for me. I know which gateways to moderate and which I > don't need too. > > Joan Asche

they even hit the one board for kids! Already hitting Quebec message boards. Time to get into message boards and report every one as spam abuse so RW staff can purge them and block this person. David Samuelsen On 11/19/2011 8:59 PM, M Nickless wrote: > > I see that “Wellness21” has posted the same note to at least 182 boards. They seem to be working alphabetically and have made their way as far as the Carlton board so far. > > > > > > > From: W David Samuelsen > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 7:29 PM > To: LISTOWNERS > Subject: [LO] Looks who is back?! > > The notorious spammers from ancestralbooks.com They just started on > surname message boards that are gatewayed to mailing lists. > > David Samuelsen > >

I see that “Wellness21” has posted the same note to at least 182 boards. They seem to be working alphabetically and have made their way as far as the Carlton board so far. From: W David Samuelsen Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 7:29 PM To: LISTOWNERS Subject: [LO] Looks who is back?! The notorious spammers from ancestralbooks.com They just started on surname message boards that are gatewayed to mailing lists. David Samuelsen

Christina- Why don't you want to go through the HelpDesk? I ask because I believe that even if you write to: listmaster@rootsweb.com that mail goes To the HelpDesk and they will answer from there. Joan In a message dated 11/19/2011 6:19:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, chrisnina@gmail.com writes: who it is at RW who can removed a listmember from all their lists? I saw this happen and got a copy of the email sent to the listmember a few months ago. I have seen several lists being annoyed by emails from someone who has been hacked and is sending a lot of spam to various Irish lists she is subbed to. List admins seem to be missing in action. For the sake of the lists it would be nice to remove this person. But I can't remember the name of the guy at Rootsweb who did the unsubbing. I don't want to go through the Help Desk on this. Thanks, Christina

who it is at RW who can removed a listmember from all their lists? I saw this happen and got a copy of the email sent to the listmember a few months ago. I have seen several lists being annoyed by emails from someone who has been hacked and is sending a lot of spam to various Irish lists she is subbed to. List admins seem to be missing in action. For the sake of the lists it would be nice to remove this person. But I can't remember the name of the guy at Rootsweb who did the unsubbing. I don't want to go through the Help Desk on this. Thanks, Christina

singhals wrote: > Darrell may be right, but -- > > I don't see the admin's job as including being an anti-_pam > warrior for the universe. Seems to me, as an admin, my job > is to keep the stuff of MY lists, whether I do by deleting > it from the pending file or by reporting it to someone > before I delete it. I agree. Whilst it never hurts to go the extra mile on occasion, there's only so many extra miles you can do before it gets too exhausting. > Particularly since, IME, reporting 4 of 'em gets me 16 more > within a couple hours, and reporting those 16 gets me > too-many-to-count more in the next couple hours. Whereas, > simply deleting the first 4 gets me 0 more in the next 24-hours. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. I've stopped reporting them now for exactly that reason. I know it doesn't help train the filters but there's a limit on how much time (and patience) I have to deal with these idiots who only want to spoil other people's pleasure in our hobby or other legitimate uses of the net. Slightly different tack, I stopped reporting phishing mails to my bank because I noticed every time I did, I had a pile more. Since I stopped last year I've had just one (touch wood!! <G>) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > The only thing RootsWeb COULD do but it would be a major undertaking would > be to encrypt ALL addresses on the list index Web site. The old John Fuller > site would have to be encrypted as well and I'm not sure who has charge of > that now as it always was a volunteer activity. I believe the lack of > encryption on these sites is the main reason admins and list addresses > regularly get harvested for spam. The list archives is all encrypted and that > protects list subscribers and posters. It would probably be too big an undertaking both time and cost wise, esp as Rootsweb is a free service. While the weakest link remains between the chair and the keyboard, it will be nigh on impossible to prevent harvesting one way or another, whether it be through an harvester bot or inviting in malware by clicking on a malicious link or any other means. All anyone can do is be aware of the potential problems of being on the net and learn how to deal with them, what to avoid and, above all, be sensible. That said, you can't protect people from their own ignorance and stupidity. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Tom Hutchison wrote: > Captcha verifies a human is submitting something on a form and it is not a > bot program. And it would soon drive people round the bend if they had to complete a captcha repeatedly. Yahoo mail does it on a fairly regular basis, and esp if I'm sending out a number of mails. It's also why I don't use Yahoo mail very often. > Right now spam bots just scrub the webpages looking for email addresses. > When they find them they record them, then they start spamming them. I think we are all aware of this already but thanks for the reminder! > This is > why most people mask their email online. Most people DON'T mask their addresses. Most don't know how to munge an address or don't want to. Even in newsgroups, where I DO use a munged address and where a fair few others also munge their addresses, there are other who will not make a private reply if they can't click on the address. With those genealogical newsgroups that are gatewayed to Rootsweb lists, posts with munged address don't get included in the archives. To effectively run a mailing list, it's not possible for people to use a munged address. The lists might possibly not include a private address in mails or the From field but that doesn't stop people putting their email address in the body of a mail - or even their private snail mail address and phone number! There's only so much Rootsweb can do to protect people from their own daftness or downright stupidity. > Example, John at domain.net, please > substitute the "at" with @ to send me an email.... It's also why a number of people won't bother with replies to address with such instructions. > I went back and looked at some of the spam today. It is so bad they are > actually backscattering the lists. In other words, they are sending out the > spam, and using the mailman system bounce back to send it to listowner-admin > addresses as a return address. It only gets sent to an admin address if the admin address is either in the To field or the Bcc field. Spam sent to the request, bounces or list addresses does NOT get "backscattered" or bounced by default to the admin address. > Perhaps they should just use the boards method and use a graphic generated > email address of the admin's real contact email. This would stop it too. An admin's "real contact email" isn't seen by anyone unless or until the admin him/herself reveals it either on list or to a list member who might have a compromised address. Although I have my doubts about Rootsweb's ability to keep addresses secure, I'm assured they are. At least Rootsweb is taking the matter seriously enough to attempt to keep list members safe. Just for the record, I'm not as green as I'm cabbage looking. You probably don't intend to come across as arrogant, but you are. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Darrell- When I mentioned encrypting the addresses on those sites I wasn't referring to the use of Captcha but rather the threefold encryption in place now for the archives where you SEE the addresses in place but the coding and flybait tends to discourage harvesters. Yes, I know they can defeat this type of encryption they don't generally bother. Joan In a message dated 11/18/2011 10:29:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, darrellm@sprynet.com writes: Captcha is not actually as bad as scumjunkspam, but it is fairly competitive in the category "cure worse than disease", in my opinion.

I agree completely. Just saying this would be the only way to make a difference in harvesting these addresses for spamming -- but would be too hard to accomplish for the reasons you cite. Joan In a message dated 11/18/2011 10:00:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, charani.b@gmail.com writes: It would probably be too big an undertaking both time and cost wise, esp as Rootsweb is a free service.

Tom- Reread the sentence I've quoted from your message. "I'm TRYING" not to "SOUND" arrogant. "those who have no clue" -- Note that the caps were for emphasis not shouting. Shouting would be using ALL quotes. Capitalizing a single word denotes emphasis. To me your statement sounds like I know I know everything and you poor idiots don't have a clue but let me condescend to explain things to you from my lofty perch. I'll say one thing about Charani. I always find her responses on this list to be very helpful and she's very knowledgeable. Neither she (nor I for that matter) deserve the type of replies we are getting from you. Sorry to have strayed a bit off the subject matter being discussed but it sort of needed to be said. Joan In a message dated 11/18/2011 9:28:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tom@hutch4.us writes: I'm trying not to sound arrogant, I just don't like bullies who SHOUT(sorry) to try and make their point, especially those who have no clue what they are talking about.