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 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?
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) I do get a lot of spam for BTS entries (mainly for www.debian.org entries) and the quantity has increased somewhat recently. I've found that when I go to bugs.debian.org/#Bugnumber to report it the spam has been already removed (good). 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 (bad). Would it be possible to have a 'bounce spam' mail address that could use the Message-ID in it to add it to the list of spams you already process? If not it would be nice to at least, have an interface to submit a bunch of Message-IDs that have already been determined to be spam (by a human being that has received the backscatter) Thanks for your efforts in pruning spam off the BTS. Regards Javier PS: If abuse of that (e-mail) interface was of concern it could be implemented so as to only consider GPG/PGP signed mail from DDs (I don't see that the web interface takes any precaution against being abused, from what I can tell, but a e-mail gateway is slightly more easier to abuse)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
