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]

Reply via email to