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 much faster than debian-devel that I'm > >>more than a week behind in reading. > > > >So you really want to be manually informed about spam runs against the > >BTS? Don't you notice unusual activity in some rrd-based monitoring > >system? > > 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 also getting non-spam. > > I do see each message with a SA score >= -1, but at times I've been > days behind slogging through them.
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? Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]