Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> should
> start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
> like
> for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with no
> attached (valid) GPG/PGP si
Goswin von Brederlow escribió:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close
> "Javier" == Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Javier> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the
Javier> BTS then we should start thinking about implementing
Javier> authentication checks in the BTS... like for example: do
Javier> not a
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:25:09AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > The only reason it is easy for spammers to close a bug is that the bug
> > has been already closed before (and reopened again) and the spammers
> > have harvested the -done address for that bug from the web pages.
> A very vali
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:31:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
Start? It used to happen a lot; it's much less common nowadays.
Well, it's the first time I've seen spam closing one bug reported by me.
I ofte
> The only reason it is easy for spammers to close a bug is that the bug
> has been already closed before (and reopened again) and the spammers
> have harvested the -done address for that bug from the web pages.
A very valid point... I took the task more general - to infiltrate bug
reports (and may
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> -- another idea would be to use the same authentication as used by most
> of the mailing list servers -- verification of intent: confirmation
> email sent to the originating email address and reply to it keeping
A slightly better
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > that sucks, I want to be able to close bugs, even if I'm using a M$
> > computer with no gpg plugin on it (on from an unsecure machine where I
> > don't want to unlock my gpg key).
> Thunderbird+Enigmamail+keys on a USB flash drive (ie it can be your ipod
just a link FYI
http://dev.weavervsworld.com/projects/ptbirdeniggpg/
--
.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch// \\
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> that sucks, I want to be able to close bugs, even if I'm using a M$
> computer with no gpg plugin on it (on from an unsecure machine where I
> don't want to unlock my gpg key).
Well - we need to give up something so it becomes 1 cli
Le Jeu 21 Juillet 2005 15:22, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
> > attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid developer?)"
>
> -- valid GPG signature present on public servers, not necessarily
> from a valid DD seems to be a valid scheme. I haven't seen any spam
> GPG signed yet
that sucks, I w
> attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid developer?)"
-- valid GPG signature present on public servers, not necessarily from a
valid DD seems to be a valid scheme. I haven't seen any spam GPG signed
yet
-- another idea would be to use the same authentication as used by most
of the maili
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:16:45PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> And how about a nice header for -done which is something to the effect
> of 'mark as spam & archive now & prevent replies etc unless reopened',
I think that's far more prone to abuse than spams closing bugs.
Archiving is deliberately i
On 21/07/05, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:31:48 +0200]:
>
> > If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> > should start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the
> > BTS... like for examp
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:36:15AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> And such header is now needed to make a versioned closes, so it
> doesn't sound too disruptive to require it for every mail to -done (at
> least the Source: one, Source-Version could be optional).
It's possible this may happen
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:31:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
Start? It used to happen a lot; it's much less common nowadays.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:31:48 +0200]:
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> should start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the
> BTS... like for example: do not allow control messages or -close
> messages with no a
On 7/21/05, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> should
> start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
> like
> for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reopen 209891
> thanks
>
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> should
> start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
> like
> for example: do not allow control messages or -clos
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:31 pm, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> reopen 209891
> thanks
>
> If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
> should
> start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
> like
> for example: do not allow control mes
reopen 209891
thanks
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with no
attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid develo
21 matches
Mail list logo
