On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:43:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
spammer/malicious person from closing all the bugs or mangling
with the BTS in such a way that would
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:43:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
spammer/malicious person from closing all the
On Nov 02, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than that, I would like to see non-versioned close messages
depriciated, other than ones that are explicitly so. No change would
be needed for the majority of cases, only the rare not a bug close
message would need to be different.
A
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:51:16PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
Decreasing the score at which we ignore messages is trivial, but it
means increasing the number of false positives. [And because
backscatter is bad, these will be messages which just disappear,
unless some (massochistic) person
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
spammer/malicious person from closing all the bugs or mangling
with the BTS in such a way that would take us some effort to
recover
There's no reason to restrict
On Wed November 1 2006 16:20, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
When I have suggested that (sending signed messages to the BTS to be
accepted for processing) it was
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
spammer/malicious person from closing all the bugs or mangling
Bruce Sass wrote:
I don't think that disqualifies it as a solution, it just means there
would be a transition period while users learn that it is a required
part of messages sent to the BTS.
Yes it does. People other than Debian developers mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Heck, people who are not
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a spammer/malicious
person from closing all the bugs or mangling with the BTS in such a way
that would take us some effort to recover
Rather than that, I would like to see
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 05:56:16PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) for mails to -close or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to prevent a
spammer/malicious
person from closing all the bugs or mangling with the BTS in such a way
that would take
On Thursday 02 November 2006 02:56, Blars Blarson wrote:
Rather than that, I would like to see non-versioned close messages
depriciated, other than ones that are explicitly so. No change would
be needed for the majority of cases, only the rare not a bug close
message would need to be
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 12:46:46AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
BTW, could it be possible to provide an alternate interface to submit spam?
(like the 'report-listspam AT lists.debian.org' we can bounce spam from the
mailing lists to)
Using the devscripts package you can bts
Hi, Hamish
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I wrote a trivial perl script to which I pipe in BTS spams from mutt;
it extracts the bug number from the Subject then runs the bts program.
URL? ;)
--
·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
: :' :
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:24:06PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 12:46:46AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
BTW, could it be possible to provide an alternate interface to submit spam?
(like the 'report-listspam AT lists.debian.org' we can bounce spam from
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:51:20PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Isn't there a risk of causing double work?
Person A reports spam, Blars removes it
Person B reports the same spam, Blars checks again - no spam found
My script to clean bugs checks to see if the bug has been cleaned
since the
Bruce Sass wrote:
I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a Package:
pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate BTS spam without
preventing non-DD's helping out.
OTOH, a /lot/ of legitimate mail is sent to the BTS w/o a Package:
pseudo-header (think: pretty much
On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Bruce Sass wrote:
I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
Package: pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate BTS spam
without preventing non-DD's helping out.
OTOH, a /lot/ of legitimate mail is sent to the
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Bruce Sass wrote:
I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
Package: pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate BTS spam
without preventing non-DD's helping out.
On Tue October 31 2006 23:02, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Bruce Sass wrote:
I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
Package: pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:32:09PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
On Tue October 31 2006 21:15, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Bruce Sass wrote:
I have yet to see a spam message sent to the BTS which used a
Package: pseudoheader, so that should work to eliminate BTS spam
without preventing
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:02:41 -0800, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because they were all sent
to (at least)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:02:41 -0800, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We have a SA rule for this run now, but sending such hints to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will get them seen much faster than debian-devel that I'm
more than a week behind in
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:36:56PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:02:41 -0800, Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We have a SA rule for this run now, but sending such hints to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will get them seen
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:50:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
If you have an idea for a new spamassassin rule that will get a
current spam run without triggering on non-spam, send it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunatly, much spam is now using anti-bayes tecniques
and is hard to catch without
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:50:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Does that mean that we shouldn't report spam we see in the BTS? If I
now see spam going to a bugreport of mine, I always go and press the
this bug log contains spam. Should I just not bother with it?
The ones that are reported
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, could it be possible to provide an alternate interface to submit spam?
(like the 'report-listspam AT lists.debian.org' we can bounce spam from the
mailing lists to)
Here's a short script I use to process messages sent to [EMAIL
On Mon October 30 2006 16:46, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
...
However, confirming each spam I have
in my mailbox vs. the web interface is time consuming and slightly
frustating when you find that the spam had no opportunity to get in
(the bug was archived) or it was already removed
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because they were all sent
to (at least) the 'www.debian.org' pseudo-package, and I have reported all of
them in the
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 07:10:20PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi Javier,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because they were all sent
to (at least) the 'www.debian.org' pseudo-package, and I have reported all of
them in the BTS' spam interface [1]
They also seem to share
Hi Javier,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because they were all sent
I've seen BTS spam before and ask the list admins
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing this but I have seen (just today) 28
spam messages sent to the BTS. I've received them because they were all sent
I've seen BTS
31 matches
Mail list logo
