* Neil McGovern , 2014-03-04, 18:19:
The review interface offers more than binary spam/ham classification.
These are the choices you have:
Out of interest, is the interface available to general DDs?
Yup, every DD can participate:
https://lists.debian.org/archive-spam-removals/review/
--
Jaku
Hi Jakub,
On 4 Mar 2014, at 17:40, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages are
>>> not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of our
>>> mailing lists
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these
messages are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our
views of our mailing lists, this is true. Perhaps it is appropriate to
use the spam architectur
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:13:06AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> [ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
> Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
> are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views
Hi Christian,
[ moving to -project which might be more appropriate for follow-ups ]
Thanks for the suggestion. I hate to be *that guy*, but, these messages
are not spam. They are damaging, time wasting and clutter our views of
our mailing lists, this is true. Perhaps it is appropriate to use the
Charles Plessy writes:
> the current draft of DEP 5 contains the following instruction:
> “There are many versions of the MIT license. Please use Expat instead,
> when it matches.”
> This recommendation predates the achievements of the SPDX work group,
> which assembled a reference list of
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:13:22PM +0500, ktauhidu wrote:
> Good day! I have a laptop Acer Aspire 5520g on it does not work the
> microphone. Tell me how to fix the problem. Installed debian 2.22.2 build
> 18/09/2008
Please contact the user support list, debian-u...@lists.debian.org (and
incl
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Actually, I am starting to think that maintaining a long list of license
> shortnames in DEP-5, many of which refer to rarely used licenses, is
> perhaps too much effort. Since the list really should be shared with
> other projects (SPDX and Fedora especially), it would p
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 09:15:38PM +0200, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña) hast geschrieben:
>
> >If there any concerns from listmasters related to this patch I would really
> >like to hear them and would try to give a hand to make these improvements get
> >used in
Cord Beermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/07/msg00011.html
> Especially the listarchive-part is currently nearly without manpower.
Yeah, how's that going? Please send a second call if you don't find
enough non-European help.
Regards,
--
MJR/sl
Hallo! Du (Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña) hast geschrieben:
>If there any concerns from listmasters related to this patch I would really
>like to hear them and would try to give a hand to make these improvements get
>used in our web archives.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/07
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:32:19PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > If the one thing keeping us from deleting list spam (which I found out
> ...we don't...
> > after reporting entire months of d-devel spam) is the indexing and thus
> > linking, I'd happily try to come up w
Hi!
* Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060303 16:15]:
[ merchandising stuff for events ]
> The problem with that page is that most of the material is quite old. Even
> up to six years old!
> Debian tends to have quite a bit of old unmaintained stuff lying around.
> That said, this is not a proble
"Alexander Schmehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060302 22:40]:
wow, those were cool. Any others? Ones that look more like
advertising/marketing/promotional?
Like those?
http://www.debian.org/events/material#posters
Hi!
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060302 22:40]:
> wow, those were cool. Any others? Ones that look more like
> advertising/marketing/promotional?
Like those?
http://www.debian.org/events/material#posters
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
--
http://learn.to/quote/
http://www.catb.org/~e
wow, those were cool. Any others? Ones that look more like
advertising/marketing/promotional?
> Original Message
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Debian Wall Posters
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, March 02, 2006 3:31 pm
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: debian-projec
Em Seg, 2005-07-25 às 18:23 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> Even if this organization is called "Debian Core Consortium", it *is*
> referring to Debian itself, isn't it?
Just to make clear what I mean:
"The DCC, however, is not an attempt to create a new version, or
upgraded version, of Debian."
Em Dom, 2005-07-24 às 10:44 -0500, Ian Murdock escreveu:
> But I don't see anything in here that's incompatible with what
> we're doing--for one, this isn't a business (it's not even really a
> consortium, since there won't be any formal organization behind
> it--the best way to describe it is that
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
the
difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
is a
'includin
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, this is the easy part, and also what the vancouver-proposal included,
> >the
> >difference comes in how the minority-arches are handled, and my proposal
> >is a
> >'including' proposal, while the vancouver-
Em Qua, 2005-03-16 às 14:29, Martin Michlmayr escreveu:
> * Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 14:20]:
> > Now that Joey posted a patch to debbugs implementing the
> > dependencies between bugs, could we think in creating a virtual
> s/virtual/pseudo/ A virtual package is something else.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Could you please assist me by removing message 00129 SPAM, the e-mail of
complaint was not intended for publication.
Thank you
Mr. Steve Webb
Cc: Mr. Swift for reference purposes.
On 2004-02-23 15:43:21 + Pascal Hakim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And trust me, you probably don't want to see the emails that
are getting blocked
No, hence "summaries of". If we start seeing 99 messages from one
sender with an ostensibly sensible subject are blocked, someone may
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 02:32:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-23 13:49:58 + Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Should we handle this technically by blocking further posts from
> >abusers, as the listmasters proposed?
>
> Blocking or further moderation only if periodic summar
On 2004-02-23 13:49:58 + Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should we handle this technically by blocking further posts from
abusers, as the listmasters proposed?
Blocking or further moderation only if periodic summaries of refused
posts, including sender addresses, were made to an
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:41:22PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that you (listmasters) would have your
> priorities slightly reversed if you cared much more about a GPG-signed
> message in a moderated mailing list for being off-topic than about the
> hundreds of s
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:14:15PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Many of our mailinglists are virtually unuseable due to the spam volume.
>
> BTW, just in case anyone's wondering about the recent spam flurry, that's
> due to a bug on lists.debian.org that's still being worked on.
On the same note
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:14:45AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:14:15PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > BTW, just in case anyone's wondering about the recent spam flurry, that's
> > due to a bug on lists.debian.org that's still being worked on.
>
> Wouldn't most spam
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:14:15PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:35:27PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Many of our mailinglists are virtually unuseable due to the spam volume.
>
> BTW, just in case anyone's wondering about the recent spam flurry, that's
> due to a bug on l
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:35:27PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Many of our mailinglists are virtually unuseable due to the spam volume.
BTW, just in case anyone's wondering about the recent spam flurry, that's
due to a bug on lists.debian.org that's still being worked on.
--
2. That which c
Marco d'Itri writes ("spam sent to debian.org addresses"):
> What's wrong with our mail system? Why can't the debian admins blacklist
> a well known spammer, or even better use a reputable DNSBL like SBL?
I too find that the amount of spam I get via Debian systems is quite a
problem. Many of our
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:57:27PM +0200, Michael Jacob wrote:
> However, as far as I see, your bounce should [not] have been addressed to
> [me].
Indeed, the spam really originated at 66.191.246.16. whois says that this
range of addresses belongs to "Charter Communications".
This paragraph from
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm not quite sure how to read the attached message. Which part of it
is the original message your system found?
However, as far as I see, your bounce should have been addressed to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and maybe
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]", not me.
I send this cc to all involved partie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
>> >is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
>> No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lot" of legitimate mail.
>in some cases it does. using SPEWS for example would lead
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:27:42PM +, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > >A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
> > >is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
> > No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lo
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:27:42PM +, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
> >is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
> No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lot" of legitimate mail.
in some cases it does. us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
>is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
No. Using SBL definitely does not block "a lot" of legitimate mail.
--
ciao,
Marco
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
>
> > A big part of the spam can be trivially blocked at the point where
> > it enters the Debian servers, using DNSRBLs and other sensible
> > restrictions. When it enters my mailer, it can not be trivially
> > blocked as it come
On Thursday 01 May 2003 15:36, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:53:31AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
> > A big part of the spam can be trivially blocked at the point where it
> > enters the Debian servers, using DNSRBLs and other sensible restrictions.
> > W
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:53:31AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
> Bidder wrote:
>
> > A big part of the spam can be trivially blocked at the point where it
> > enters
> > the Debian servers, using DNSRBLs and other sensible restrictions. When it
> > enters my ma
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 08:53:31AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> A big part of the spam can be trivially blocked at the point where it enters
> the Debian servers, using DNSRBLs and other sensible restrictions. When it
> enters my mailer, it can not be trivially blocked a
On Wednesday 30 April 2003 22:50, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 08:50:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > What's wrong with our mail system? Why can't the debian admins blacklist
> > a well known spammer, or even better use a reputable DNSBL like SBL?
> > I asked the same question
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 08:50:43PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> What's wrong with our mail system? Why can't the debian admins blacklist
> a well known spammer, or even better use a reputable DNSBL like SBL?
> I asked the same questions to the debian admins but nobody ever replied,
> I'm sick of r
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Martin Schulze wrote:
> ellipses wrote:
> > Im kinda of new to the lists... been on for about three weeks, But noticed
> > something strange start this week.
> > There has bee a bunch of different spam show up and stuff on the list.. Is
> > this normal?!?!
>
> Unfortunately,
ellipses wrote:
> Im kinda of new to the lists... been on for about three weeks, But noticed
> something strange start this week.
> There has bee a bunch of different spam show up and stuff on the list.. Is
> this normal?!?!
Unfortunately, yes. We are keeping the lists open for anybody, especia
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know our listmasters are fairly busy, I *really* urge someone to write
> up a script that can implement this. I'd envision it being fairly simple,
> runnable as a pipe from procmail and return OK, DROP or DEFER. The mailer
> queue can be used to hold
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 02:14:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:00:55PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > In any case, I think AJ's solution is pretty good and is worth
> > pursuing.
>
> For those on the list who don't follow -private, it was something to the
> effect o
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The challenge/response should probably be the same sort of thing you get
> for subscriptions. This'd allow people who send mail from an address
And observation I've made is that the majority of true spam is sent to a
large number of lists without using
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:00:55PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> In any case, I think AJ's solution is pretty good and is worth
> pursuing.
For those on the list who don't follow -private, it was something to the
effect of:
When a new mail comes in:
if from/sender is a subscriber:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:54:04PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> If debian moderates its lists, I _will_ leave the project.
HEH: Hit! (10 points) BODY: Claims they will quit Debian if something is done
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 08:23:30PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:47:10PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > How do we solve the problem then? I think the answer is easy, just
> > make some good law against spam. Punish the people who send spam. That
> > would *solve* the
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:47:10PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> How do we solve the problem then? I think the answer is easy, just
> make some good law against spam. Punish the people who send spam. That
> would *solve* the problem, not work around it. So instead of just the
> next message discus
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 05:07:26PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And what if an e-mail address of the whitelist is included in the
> > From: address? If you take a mail archive for example, the address
> > of the mailinglist and addresses in the w
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:59:48PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That's all true, but not unsolvable. I don't know if you mean with
> > "our lawmakers" the US lawmakers,
>
> Well, since the internet is global, you have to get everyone to pass
> a
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what if an e-mail address of the whitelist is included in the
> From: address? If you take a mail archive for example, the address
> of the mailinglist and addresses in the white list can be on the
> same page. And closing mailinglist archives isn't
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's all true, but not unsolvable. I don't know if you mean with
> "our lawmakers" the US lawmakers,
Well, since the internet is global, you have to get everyone to pass
anti-spam laws. That is going to take you a long, long time.
> but the situati
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:27:07AM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > How do we solve the problem then? I think the answer is easy, just
> > make some good law against spam. Punish the people who send spam. That
> > would *solve* the problem, not work around it. So instead of just the
> > next messag
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 04:00:55PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:23:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > > Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > No. I _hate_ it when somebody cross-posts to a moderated
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:47:10PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Delaying a message unnecessary is invoncenient IMHO. But the most
> inconvenient thing is that a moderator should approve the mail. That
> costs time people could spend hacking or doing other nice thin
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:23:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > No. I _hate_ it when somebody cross-posts to a moderated list
> > > I'm not a member of. I have flamed everybody involved in the
> >
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:23:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No. I _hate_ it when somebody cross-posts to a moderated list I'm
> > not a member of. I have flamed everybody involved in the past for
> > doing this stupid shit. If debian mode
"David N. Welton" wrote:
>
> [ This discussion is better suited to debian-project, and you can
> quote me publically on what I state below ]
>
> The answer is to moderate the list, as the Apache Software Foundations
> successfully does.
>
> 1) by default, subscribed addresses can post.
>
> 2) n
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The answer is to moderate the list, as the Apache Software
> > Foundations successfully does.
> No. I _hate_ it when somebody cross-posts to a moderated list I'm
> not a member of. I have flamed everybody involved in the past for
> doing this stup
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:54:04PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> [moved to debian-project as requested]
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:50:52PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> >
> > [ This discussion is better suited to debian-project, and you can
> > quote me publically on what I state below
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:54:04PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> [moved to debian-project as requested]
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:50:52PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> >
> > [ This discussion is better suited to debian-project, and you can
> > quote me publically on what I state below
[moved to debian-project as requested]
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:50:52PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
>
> [ This discussion is better suited to debian-project, and you can
> quote me publically on what I state below ]
>
> The answer is to moderate the list, as the Apache Software Foundations
66 matches
Mail list logo
