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 take us some effort to > > recover > > There's no reason to restrict control; spam sent there doesn't really > do anything at all. Indeed, to this point, we have only occasionally > had problems with control, generally of the BTS ping-pong variety > which tends to be best dealt with with a bit of social engineering.
I was not only suggesting closing it to spammers, I was also suggesting blocking it to non-legitimate users which might mangle with control in insane ways (on purpose). True, I have not yet seen that before, but I'm afraid our BTS would have little resilience if it was targeted by some Debian-hater due, precisely, to it's openness. > Messages to -close are slightly more annoying; we could increase the > default score of messages to control, and rely on the negative scoring > rules to keep legitimate messages.... but that would, again, result in > more false positives. I (and AFAIK, the rest of the BTS admins) are > rather wary of gratitously increasing the numbers of false positives. > [And yes, messages sent by scripts or people who haven't learned to > jump through the right hoops are clearly false positives.] Still, there could be a "warning period" before starting to reject those mails sent to -close that lacked whatever we decided on (be it a GPG signature or a Pseudo-header). And even in aggresive mode I guess that it would be possible to send bounces based on the scoring of messages (those that 'look' like they are legitimate but fail the checks are bounced with a warning, those that do not look like they are *and* fail the checks go to the bit bucket). Just my few cents. Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
