On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I suppose an alternative is to have the BTS ignore the special effect
> for -done messages which don't have a Version:, Package:, or other
> appropriate pseudoheader from a message which looks signed, a mailing
> address which is not the submi
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 09:59:56AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I suppose an alternative is to have the BTS ignore the special effect
> for -done messages which don't have a Version:, Package:, or other
> appropriate pseudoheader from a message which looks signed, a mailing
> address which is not
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Spam targeting nnn-done@bugs.d.o"):
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> > > Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> > > to close the
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Spam targeting nnn-done@bugs.d.o"):
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> > Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> > to close the bug? That would protect against both spam and typos.
>
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Georg Faerber wrote:
> On 18-02-21 10:53:49, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking more assistance in
> > creating better SA rules. Our configuration is publicly available.[1]
> > [I've just started moving it from alioth to salsa, so the gi
Hi Don,
On 18-02-21 10:53:49, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking more assistance in
> creating better SA rules. Our configuration is publicly available.[1]
> [I've just started moving it from alioth to salsa, so the git urls will
> change slightly.]
Thanks f
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> to close the bug? That would protect against both spam and typos.
That sounds best to me, but I can see it could get tedious.
It probably would also need to suppor
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:06:04PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I am not asking for a valid signature. It could but also just an
> additional header field or something. It does not happen very ofter but
> it gets more annoying each time it happens.
> In the end it is just the submitter
On 2018-02-25 09:32:32 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Would it work to rescrict the done/close-@ even more? Like to
> > pgp-signed messages only? I'm not asking for a valid DD signatures or
> > so - just any signature will do.
>
> This has
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Would it work to rescrict the done/close-@ even more? Like to
> pgp-signed messages only? I'm not asking for a valid DD signatures or
> so - just any signature will do.
This has been proposed previously, but because we don't get that many
spa
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 10:53:49 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> > We basically already do this with our ZIPFILE, MSWORD, and ZIPCOMPRESSED
> > rules:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debbugs-team/antispam/spamassassin_config/blob/master/common/virus_
On 2018-02-21 10:53:49 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> We basically already do this with our ZIPFILE, MSWORD, and ZIPCOMPRESSED
> rules:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debbugs-team/antispam/spamassassin_config/blob/master/common/virus_spam#L115
>
> Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Sven Joachim wrote:
> In fact, I am quite surprised that the current spam wave has been
> lasting for so long, those messages should be quite easy to filter
> out.
I dropped in a filter for these messages on Saturday; I personally
haven't seen any since I dropped in the filter
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:31:46PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
>
> Apart from restricting access to the BTS (which I think nobody really
> wants), the answer is to train the spam filters. In fact, I am quite
> surprised that the current spam wave
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Another question came to my mind: When I use the "this bug log
> contains spam"... Where does it end? Is it then manually filtered or
> used as input for better rules? If there is something manually
> involved, how can someone help here? Couldn't find docs
On 2018-02-21 19:36 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:31:46PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
>>
>
>> Apart from restricting access to the BTS (which I think nobody really
>> wants), the answer is to train the spam filters. In f
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:53:49AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > In fact, I am quite surprised that the current spam wave has been
> > lasting for so long, those messages should be quite easy to filter
> > out.
>
> I dropped in a filter for these messag
On 18-02-21 18:31:46, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> > Just to let people know: Recently, there has been quite some spam
> > with identical content sent to different bugs, project and team
> > mailing lists, etc. That's bad, but what's even more worse is tha
On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Just to let people know: Recently, there has been quite some spam with
> identical content sent to different bugs, project and team mailing
> lists, etc. That's bad, but what's even more worse is that this spam now
> gets send to nnn-done@bugs.d.o
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:58:46AM +0300, The Illuminati wrote:
YES I do exist. We at Valve Corporation dislike your spam bots and request
that you stop or else action will be taken against your spam company
Sorry, just checking.
It seems that someone is copying headers from the debian-devel m
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:15:23 -0500, Christopher Clements
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:01:40PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >However, because the spam meaasges are created by copying most of the
> >headers from a genuine list mail, when you reply to such a message, it
> >turns up on our lists
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:09:37AM -0500, Christopher Clements wrote:
> I have mutt configured to let me edit the headers along with the
> message, but I thought that stuff like the "To:" field were read by SMTP
> servers to determine where to deliver the message, sort of like post
> office relay b
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:01:40PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Christopher Clements writes:
...
That then provokes a small fraction of the victims to shout at us,
because they don't know ho to read headers.
That is what you are seeing.
Are you saying that these messages were not sent to
and
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:26:00PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Christopher Clements writes:
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:55:14AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Christopher Clements writes:
On closer examination, I think you are correct in saying that the
replies are written by the spammer as well.
Christopher Clements writes:
...
>>That then provokes a small fraction of the victims to shout at us,
>>because they don't know ho to read headers.
>>
>>That is what you are seeing.
>
> Are you saying that these messages were not sent to
> and relayed to subscribers, but were
> instead forged to
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On March 5, 2017 3:08:49 PM EST, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>>Le 05/03/2017 à 16:29, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>>> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some
>>> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other
Christopher Clements writes:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:55:14AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>>Christopher Clements writes:
>>> On closer examination, I think you are correct in saying that the
>>> replies are written by the spammer as well.
>>
>>On closer examination of what?
>
> The "To:" fiel
On Sun, 05 Mar 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On March 5, 2017 3:08:49 PM EST, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> >Le 05/03/2017 à 16:29, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> >> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some
> >> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other mail s
On Sun 05/Mar/2017 21:08:49 +0100 Vincent Danjean wrote:
I was under the impression that DMARC plays very bad with mailing lists. If
I recall correctly, mailman has to modify mails that come from a DMARC
domain.
Your impression is correct. However, there's nothing that Debian can do or
omit
On 14602 March 1977, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some
>> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other mail servers (that
>> follow DMARC) to get rid (spamfilter) mail that aren't from what your
>> DNS says it should be from (or
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 09:55:14AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
Christopher Clements writes:
On closer examination, I think you are correct in saying that the
replies are written by the spammer as well.
On closer examination of what?
The "To:" field.
The headers of the mail you're apparentl
On March 5, 2017 3:08:49 PM EST, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>Le 05/03/2017 à 16:29, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some
>> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other mail servers
>(that
>> follow DMARC) to get rid (spamfilter) ma
Le 05/03/2017 à 16:29, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> That would be the next step, DMARC, which is SPF plus DKIM plus some
> extra DNS records. And DMARC then allow to tell other mail servers (that
> follow DMARC) to get rid (spamfilter) mail that aren't from what your
> DNS says it should be from (or a
On 14602 March 1977, Philip Hands wrote:
> I guess we could help the mail servers of the recipients of the initial
> messages make that decision if we did SPF for debian.org, but I guess
> that the lack of SPF probably indicates that this is very hard to do
> with our distributed setup.
With the
Christopher Clements writes:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:42:50PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>>Christopher Clements writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 03:36:58PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> >I think the best explanation is that the entire message ??? complaint and
>>> >quoted part ??? were co
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:42:50PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Christopher Clements writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 03:36:58PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>I think the best explanation is that the entire message ??? complaint and
>quoted part ??? were composed and sent by the spammer themselves.
Oh
Christopher Clements writes:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 03:36:58PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> >I think the best explanation is that the entire message ??? complaint and
> >quoted part ??? were composed and sent by the spammer themselves.
>
> Oh, the "original" message is seperate, I just replied t
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 03:36:58PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I think the best explanation is that the entire message ??? complaint and
quoted part ??? were composed and sent by the spammer themselves.
Oh, the "original" message is seperate, I just replied to a reply.
I can't find the original me
On 2017-03-03 at 23:36, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> In this case, either it's faked up to look as if it's coming from
>> the person listed in the From: address but that person has actually
>> never seen the message before it reaches us, or it was faked up
>> when being sent _to
The Wanderer writes:
> In this case, either it's faked up to look as if it's coming from the
> person listed in the From: address but that person has actually never
> seen the message before it reaches us, or it was faked up when being
> sent _to_ that person (to appear as if it had come from the
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 at 14:55 Christopher Clements wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:40:52PM +0300, The Illuminati wrote:
> > Listen up shitty ass spam bot. I'm really Gabe Newell and I can track
> your
> > fucking IP
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM, CHOICEHOMEWARRANTY <[1]
> a...@sigxc
On 2017-03-03 at 20:54, Christopher Clements wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:40:52PM +0300, The Illuminati wrote:
>
>> Listen up shitty ass spam bot. I'm really Gabe Newell and I can track your
>> fucking IP
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM, CHOICEHOMEWARRANTY <[1]a...@sigxcpu.org>
>>
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:40:52PM +0300, The Illuminati wrote:
Listen up shitty ass spam bot. I'm really Gabe Newell and I can track your
fucking IP
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM, CHOICEHOMEWARRANTY <[1]a...@sigxcpu.org>
wrote:
[SPAM]
Does anyone on this list file "abuse@" reports,
Hi,
CC'ing debian-i18n since it's certainly a good place to discuss this.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:17:34PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
[..]
> I think someone who is not logged in is removing the comments and being
> disruptive.
>
> Is there a good way to fight against it?
* Add authenticati
Christian Perrier schrieb am Tuesday, den 04. August 2009:
Hi,
> > > look it up yourself:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/archive-spam-removals/review/stats.html (my
> > > user is morph...). So, are you going to help us kill spam (reporting
> > > it) or no time for this?
> >
> > So you're Debian'
Quoting Siggy Brentrup (deb...@psycho.i21k.de):
> > look it up yourself:
> > http://lists.debian.org/archive-spam-removals/review/stats.html (my
> > user is morph...). So, are you going to help us kill spam (reporting
> > it) or no time for this?
>
> So you're Debian's Mr. Antispam, my humble apo
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:36 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:33, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:28 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> >> > And if for whatever reason somebody wants to see your list disfun
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:28 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>>> And if for whatever reason somebody wants to see your list disfunctional,
>>> you open an easy way to do so by implementing a bot that reports every
>>> message
Quoting Siggy Brentrup (deb...@psycho.i21k.de):
> > This can be done by *anyone*, DDs and non, and all are encouraged to
> > do so. It's fundamental to have reports: without them we have a false
> > sense of spam-free mailing lists, when we all know it's not true.
>
> And if for whatever reason s
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:33, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:28 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>> > And if for whatever reason somebody wants to see your list disfunctional,
>> > you open an easy way to do so by implementing a bo
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:28 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> > And if for whatever reason somebody wants to see your list disfunctional,
> > you open an easy way to do so by implementing a bot that reports every
> > message as spam. Do you volunte
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:24, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 08:48 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 01:39, brian m.
>> carlson wrote:
>> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:24:28AM +0300, Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
>> >> Is there any way to actually make it harder to spam
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 08:48 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 01:39, brian m.
> carlson wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:24:28AM +0300, Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
> >> Is there any way to actually make it harder to spam the list? I just
> >> subscribed and already see spam and
2009/8/1 brian m. carlson :
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:24:28AM +0300, Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
>> Is there any way to actually make it harder to spam the list? I just
>> subscribed and already see spam and phishing attacks...
>
> Yes. There are infinitely many ways to make it harder to spam the
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 01:39, brian m.
carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:24:28AM +0300, Eugene Gorodinsky wrote:
>> Is there any way to actually make it harder to spam the list? I just
>> subscribed and already see spam and phishing attacks...
>
> Yes. There are infinitely many ways to m
Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What the hell is that about? I did not post to any mailing list. I did
> post to a nntp group. I do not want to subscribe to one another mailing
> list when there is a nntp group available. Mailing lists are as bad as
> this forum stuff. For all and ever
Hi,
Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I had posted a followup to linux.debian.user.german. Now I got a very
> strange mail from a italian host telling me that the post was canceled
> and that I have to subscribe a mailing list.
>
> What the hell is that about? I did not post to any mailing list. I did
> post
On 2008-09-29 17:46 +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I had posted a followup to linux.debian.user.german. Now I got a very
> strange mail from a italian host telling me that the post was canceled
> and that I have to subscribe a mailing list.
You don't have to do that, although it is recommended that
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 04:46:11PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I had posted a followup to linux.debian.user.german. Now I got a very
> strange mail from a italian host telling me that the post was canceled
> and that I have to subscribe a mailing list.
> What the hell is that about? I did not po
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>
> [0] Good that this list is english and not german. I can not swear that
> good in english.
You shouldn't be swearing in the first place :)
Regards,
Mauro
--
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lusers.com.ar/
2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F
Am 2007-05-07 13:13:59, schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 11:13:50AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > I don't know how much this helps, but wouldn't it be good to more
> > actively *recommend* the posters to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Something like a monthly reminder sent
Andrei Popescu:
> > Next spammers will go ahead and whitelist themselves, too.
>
> Then what is the purpose of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose is quite clear, the real question would be how whitelist@
manages suscribing, whitelisting. Is this only by been suscribed? Or
does some other policy apply?
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:13:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I don't know how much this helps, but wouldn't it be good to more
> > actively *recommend* the posters to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Something like a monthly reminder sent over all lists or similar.
>
> Next spammers wil
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:13:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I don't know how much this helps, but wouldn't it be good to more
> > actively *recommend* the posters to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Something like a monthly reminder sent over all lists or similar.
>
> Next spammers wil
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 11:13:50AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:01:36PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>
> > I belive that a rate of 0.1% is quite an acceptable rate, but we
> > permanently try to lower that.
>
> I don't know how much this helps, but wouldn't it be
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:01:36PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> I belive that a rate of 0.1% is quite an acceptable rate, but we
> permanently try to lower that.
I don't know how much this helps, but wouldn't it be good to more
actively *recommend* the posters to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECT
Qua, 2007-04-25 às 13:50 -0500, David Moreno Garza escreveu:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I'd guess that Bugzilla's mandatory registration is why. OTOH,
> > Bugzilla's mandatory is why I rarely report bugs for projects that use
> > Bugzilla. I don't think making it harder for users to report proble
Steve Greenland wrote:
> I'd guess that Bugzilla's mandatory registration is why. OTOH,
> Bugzilla's mandatory is why I rarely report bugs for projects that use
> Bugzilla. I don't think making it harder for users to report problems is
> a good trade-off.
I totally agree on this. The easier we get
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 12:45:06PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> I have been dealing with gcc's bugzilla, KDE's bugs.kde.org, mozilla's bug
> tracking system etc., I never ever received any spam messages from these
> bug tracking systems. The spam emails seem to come only from BTS. May be w
On 25-Apr-07, 11:45 (CDT), Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been dealing with gcc's bugzilla, KDE's bugs.kde.org, mozilla's bug
> tracking system etc., I never ever received any spam messages from these
> bug tracking systems. The spam emails seem to come only from BTS. Ma
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>> > How does everyone deal with this (I mean other than filtering)?
>>
>> If anyone is doing a substantially better job of filtering than the
>> bts is, let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know; but in general you should just
>> see the few spammers who end up being successful.
>
I
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 17:01 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Perhaps we should really propose a "Day of No Spam-Filtering" on
> lists.d.o. ;-)
Umm, is there enough BANDWIDTH ON THE ENTARWEB to support that?
/me thinks not
--
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The technology that is
Stronger, better, fas
Hi,
On Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:08:32 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> > Of late, I have been seeing a lot of spam from bugs.debian.org . I never got
> > this many spam emails from BTS. Has something changed?
>
> Not really; it's just the continuing
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Of late, I have been seeing a lot of spam from bugs.debian.org . I never got
> this many spam emails from BTS. Has something changed?
Not really; it's just the continuing battle between spammers and Blars
(and to a lesser extent, the rest of us w
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:04, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Of late, I have been seeing a lot of spam from bugs.debian.org . I
> never got this many spam emails from BTS. Has something changed? How
> does everyone deal with this (I mean other than filtering)?
Yes, both the admins of the BTS a
Ove Kaaven wrote:
> I won't, I package them in order. Lagging behind is just because of my
> irregular schedule, I tend to have lots of other things to do with my
> time, but it has always been my goal to catch up if nothing gets in the
> way (and last time, something did, as you can see from my ch
Seg, 2006-10-30 às 14:43 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Keeping such tests in package builds is fine, but they should either be
> > disabled by default (enabled with an environment variable, say), or they
> > should be information
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Free Ekanayaka) writes:
> This package contains a collection of drumkits for Hydrogen, a
> sample based drum machine/step sequencer.
>
This is not a single package but actually a collection of various
packages. I once packaged Erny's Percussion for private purposes and
noted
* Tyler MacDonald [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:17:38 -0700]:
> Question: Is SpamAssassin or greylisting used on lists.debian.org?
SpamAssassin is used, yes (you could know by the headers, btw).
However, check the amount of mails from lists.debian.org that my local
crm114 detected as spam:
Jun 01: 6
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Question: Is SpamAssassin or greylisting used on lists.debian.org?
Your e-mail should probably be directed to the listmasters.
The answer is: Yes, SA and other techniques are used; a _lot_ of spam is
blocked (many days, the volume
Em Seg, 2006-05-29 às 23:59 +0100, Steve Kemp escreveu:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:53:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > In fact, I want it to work as a native debian system. This way,
> > buildroot causes a lot of problems
> Isn't this what 'apt-build' can be used for?
> That allows you to reb
Em Seg, 2006-05-29 às 13:49 +0100, Chris Boot escreveu:
> I'm starting work again on a thinned-down version of Debian I call
> PicoDebian.
> The idea of this new version is to replace glibc with uClibc, and generally
> slim
> down various packages to fit nicely in confined environments.
This n
Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Package name: sgf2dg
> Version : 4.026
> Upstream Author : Daniel Bump and Reid Augustin
> * URL : http://match.stanford.edu/bump/sgf2tex.h
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
This is a call for help :). If you want to
Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > > Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > > >This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
>
Daniel Ruoso dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300]:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other references aro
On 13-Feb-06, 14:17 (CST), Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other refer
On 13 Feb 2006, Daniel Ruoso uttered the following:
> Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
>> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me why
>> something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
>> is unpack and copy make sources is deeme
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> > is unpack and copy
Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
> grateful.
Hmmm... I
Em Sex, 2005-12-23 às 00:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog escreveu:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > So, the nicest way is to create yet another subsystem that would manage
> > this type of information, and once many people starts putting
> > information there, the PTS will include it also..
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> >> debian-private, but restri
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> > read, basically, the nee
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> > After having read this - wouldn't it be easier to report the user
> > doing the spamming, and simply reverting all changes done by this
> > user.
>
> There are a limited number of wiki which have this functionality.
> Neither the current nor the new wiki have that
Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After having read this - wouldn't it be easier to report the user
> doing the spamming, and simply reverting all changes done by this
> user.
There are a limited number of wiki which have this functionality.
Neither the current nor the new wiki have t
On Sep 13, 2005, at 5:19 AM, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
After having read this - wouldn't it be easier to report the user
doing
the spamming, and simply reverting all changes done by this user
(probably the users spamming will not have add valuable content)?
Who is in charge of the wiki, I would
> http://wiki.debian.net/?spamInWikiPages
> http://wiki.debian.net/?DealingWithSpam
After having read this - wouldn't it be easier to report the user doing
the spamming, and simply reverting all changes done by this user
(probably the users spamming will not have add valuable content)?
Who is in
I had exactly the same problem with my wiki from a Chinese guy running a
crawler script which posted links to his own site.
Just add the word "spammed" to the top of the spammed page which can be
searched for and fixed.
On 13/9/2005, "Carlos Parra Camargo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The us
Carlos Parra Camargo wrote:
[...]
I've restored to the last revision all of them, is the first time that
happens?
http://wiki.debian.net/?spamInWikiPages
http://wiki.debian.net/?DealingWithSpam
Regards,
Andreas
--
Andreas Fester
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.littletux.ne
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:15:10AM +0200, Carlos Parra Camargo wrote:
> The user "packceo" has been adding spam to the next pages of the wiki:
...
> I've restored to the last revision all of them, is the first time that
> happens?
no, it was not the first time.
see http://wiki.debian.net/?De
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
