On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > [...] > > All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via > > a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically > > reject what they consider SPAM without the customer's knowledge. If > > the sender of the ping is on a SPAM list for one of them, the ping > > will never get to the maintainer, and *no one* will know. > > (From personal experience I can tell you mail from the Debian list addresses > > does get "caught" in these SPAM "filters" and no, the ISPs won't change the > > policy.)
> Given that Debian lists are 'open' and haven't always had good spam > filtering, it is not too surprising that they are sometimes treated > as spam sources. > In general, anything that needs to reach the maintainer(s) of a > specific package should not be sent to the maintainer address, not to > some general mailing list. (The maintainer address may itself be a > mailing list, but if the maintainer(s) no longer read mail sent to it > then that's a further reason to orphan/salvage the package!) I strongly recommend that such mails always be sent via the BTS. This ensures that the mail follows the same path as bug mail, and avoids getting tripped up on filtering bugs that don't actually impact the maintainers ability to carry out their responsibilities as maintainer. I.e.: maintainers don't have a responsibility to reply to private mails. They do have a responsibility to act on bug reports. So if you send it via the BTS, and the maintainer claims afterwards that they didn't receive the mail, it's clear where the responsibility lies. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
