On 2016-08-20 09:07 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/08/16 10:48, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>>
>>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>>> address (bug-numb
On 18/08/16 10:48, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>
>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>> address (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
> [...]
>> Maybe time to star
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:38:35PM +0200]:
> I was only talking about control emails (e.g. the -done address and
> control@). The requirements for opening bugs or submitting comments
> (without pseudo-headers) could remain as they are.
>
> Maybe it could insist that emails from a
On 2016-08-18 16:13:29 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
>
> Am 18.08.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > Reject mail with "X-PHP-Originating-Script:", at least for -done?
> > I quite often see this in spam not caught by the filters, and I
> > suppose that PHP scripts do not send mail to the BT
Am 18.08.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> Reject mail with "X-PHP-Originating-Script:", at least for -done?
> I quite often see this in spam not caught by the filters, and I
> suppose that PHP scripts do not send mail to the BTS; well, this
> should be easy to see with the archives.
Then y
On 2016-08-17 14:47:24 -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> All of that said, we certainly do appreciate better anti-spam SA rules
> for the BTS, and we do already give negative scores for messages which
> have things which look like PGP signatures and/or come from an address
> which is in the whitelist.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
[...]
> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to t
Daniel Pocock writes:
> I was only talking about control emails (e.g. the -done address and
> control@). The requirements for opening bugs or submitting comments
> (without pseudo-headers) could remain as they are.
I don't believe the spammer intended to close the bug. The bug
had already been
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>
> Maybe time to start requir
On 17/08/16 18:34, Stéphane Blondon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 17/08/2016 à 18:14, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>>
>> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to
>> the BTS?
>
> Requiring signature will increase the level
On 17/08/16 18:29, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>
>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>> address (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>>
>>
>> https:/
Hello,
Le 17/08/2016 à 18:14, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>
> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to the BTS?
Requiring signature will increase the level to send bugs to the BTS for
external people. And spammers co
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
It w
I received a notification that a bug was closed.
The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
(bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to the BTS?
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:25:08AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Moreover I wonder if when closing via mail should I write in
> > Changelog sth like: this upload fixes bug number 1234567 in
> > testing and unstable which has been closed via mail, and add tag
> > sarge to bug that remain opened
* Steinar H. Gunderson [Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:03:03 +0200]:
> BTW, does the BTS understand that the package might "fork"? Specifically, if
> I have a bug in a sarge package (say, 1.0) that is fixed in an upstream
> version 1.2, but is backported to sarge (because it's an RC bug), can I say
> that it
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:49:19AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>> AFAICT there is no support for a "done" command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I meant "close":
>
> close 99 1.2
BTW, does the BTS understand that the package might "fork"? Specifically, if
I have a bug in a sarge package (say,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In recent announce about changes in BTS (Subject: BTS version tracking
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:06:29 +0100) is described how to use new
>versioning system. I'm not sure if sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
>now prefered way to closing
also sprach Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.25.0038 +0200]:
> > done 99 1.2
>
> AFAICT there is no support for a "done" command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I meant "close":
close 99 1.2
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft
Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:25:08 +0200
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In recent announce about changes in BTS (Subject: BTS version
> > tracking Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:06:29 +0100) is described how to
> > use new versioning system. I'm not sure if sending mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 25 August 2005 00:25, martin f krafft wrote:
> done 99 1.2
AFAICT there is no support for a "done" command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgps430gVp78z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Em Qua, 2005-08-24 às 23:59 +0200, Grzegorz Bizon escreveu:
> In recent announce about changes in BTS (Subject: BTS version tracking
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:06:29 +0100) is described how to use new
> versioning system. I'm not sure if sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
> now prefered way to c
also sprach Grzegorz Bizon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.24.2359 +0200]:
> Maintainer uploads fixed package into unstable and closes bug in
> Changelog, after few days corrected package enters testing, depending on
> urgency. Granted that reported bug wasn't so important to justify
> upload do stab
Hi there !
I was just wondering about few issues in BTS after recent changes -
how to close bugs in apropriate way.
Maintainer uploads fixed package into unstable and closes bug in
Changelog, after few days corrected package enters testing, depending on
urgency. Granted that reported bug wasn't
24 matches
Mail list logo
