-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Well, AFAICT razor seems to derive keyword
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Well, AFAICT razor seems to derive keyword
> "Sven" == IT <- Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
[...]
>> Scenario 1.
>>
>> You are a debian user, but you don't subscribe to any debian lists.
>> Suddenly you suspect you have a security issue. You immediately dash
>> off an email to the debian-security list hoping someone ther
> "Sven" == IT <- Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
[...]
>> Scenario 1.
>>
>> You are a debian user, but you don't subscribe to any debian lists.
>> Suddenly you suspect you have a security issue. You immediately dash
>> off an email to the debian-security list hoping someone ther
Raymond Wood wrote:
> Alright, based on what you say then, I will assume that it is
> fine to *manually* forward obvious Spams received via the debian
> lists to Razor via the 'spamassassin -r' command. I only report
> the definite Spams that are not already being caught by
> Spamassassin.
>
> If
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:52:27PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to
> > Razor; rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting
> > legitimate email as Spam to Razor?
> Right! And,
Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Aside: I do that by having a line href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> in many web pages, and that
> works excellently, this address is harvested and spammed, and when that
> happens, the intention is that subsequent mail is stopped. This markup
> may no
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Right! And, if they are not spammers who do this (see my other mail),
then it might well
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Nathan E Norman remarked:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> > through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> > though is the recent post from som
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:11, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Some people[1] report non-spam as spam to razor. For example,
> several security announcements from Debian have found their way into
> the razor database. This is obviously stupid.
>
> [1] At least, we think they are people, but the leve
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> though is the recent post from someone who requested that people
> *not* report Spam received through the debia
Raymond Wood wrote:
> Alright, based on what you say then, I will assume that it is
> fine to *manually* forward obvious Spams received via the debian
> lists to Razor via the 'spamassassin -r' command. I only report
> the definite Spams that are not already being caught by
> Spamassassin.
>
> If
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:37:54PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of
> > > users is allowed to post here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed
> > to post here. A pointer to a previous discussi
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:52:27PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to
> > Razor; rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting
> > legitimate email as Spam to Razor?
> Right! And,
Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Aside: I do that by having a line href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";> in many web pages, and that
> works excellently, this address is harvested and spammed, and when that
> happens, the intention is that subsequent mail is stopped. This markup
> may n
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:54:34PM +0100, "Janßen, Dirk" wrote:
> Ich bin erst am 03.12.2002 wieder im Haus. Bei dringenden dienstlichen
> Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich bitte an Herrn Igor Spanz
> (mailto:), Tel. -368.
> ===
> I am absent ti
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Right! And, if they are not spammers who do this (see my other mail),
then it might well
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed to
> post here. A pointer to a previous discussion would be enough for me, but I
> couldn't find one in the archives (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords in
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Nathan E Norman remarked:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> > through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> > though is the recent post from som
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:11, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Some people[1] report non-spam as spam to razor. For example,
> several security announcements from Debian have found their way into
> the razor database. This is obviously stupid.
>
> [1] At least, we think they are people, but the leve
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> though is the recent post from someone who requested that people
> *not* report Spam received through the debia
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:37:54PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of
> > > users is allowed to post here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed
> > to post here. A pointer to a previous discussi
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 23:48, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[why non-subscribed users are allowed to post to the list is a FAQ, but
there is no compiled FAQ on this list which covers that question]
> > > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > > not find a FAQ for t
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:54:34PM +0100, "Janßen, Dirk" wrote:
> Ich bin erst am 03.12.2002 wieder im Haus. Bei dringenden dienstlichen
> Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich bitte an Herrn Igor Spanz
> (mailto:), Tel. -368.
> ===
> I am absent ti
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed to
> post here. A pointer to a previous discussion would be enough for me, but I
> couldn't find one in the archives (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords in
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 23:48, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[why non-subscribed users are allowed to post to the list is a FAQ, but
there is no compiled FAQ on this list which covers that question]
> > > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > > not find a FAQ for t
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:50:16PM +0100, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> hi Ted
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:19:43AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> > Hmmm, my bad
> >
> > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
> >
>
> not a faq, but i
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:50:16PM +0100, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> hi Ted
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:19:43AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> > Hmmm, my bad
> >
> > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
> >
>
> not a faq, but i
hi Ted
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:19:43AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> Hmmm, my bad
>
> No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
>
not a faq, but i think solutions disscussed here go there:
http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#secu
hi Ted
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:19:43AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> Hmmm, my bad
>
> No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
>
not a faq, but i think solutions disscussed here go there:
http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#secu
Hmmm, my bad
No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
I have been on this list for a few months now and I
find it informative enough to stay subscribed but I
have to admit there is a fair amount of noise to which
I am now adding. :(
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:08:40AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> This is a test to see if a non-subscribed user can
> post to the debian security list.
>
> This is only a test. If you are reading this, then
> the answer is yes and that just doesn't seem
> right.
*plonk*
This has been discusse
This is a test to see if a non-subscribed user can
post to the debian security list.
This is only a test. If you are reading this, then
the answer is yes and that just doesn't seem
right.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affor
Hmmm, my bad
No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
not find a FAQ for this list? Does one exist?
I have been on this list for a few months now and I
find it informative enough to stay subscribed but I
have to admit there is a fair amount of noise to which
I am now adding. :(
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 08:08:40AM -0800, Ted Parvu wrote:
> This is a test to see if a non-subscribed user can
> post to the debian security list.
>
> This is only a test. If you are reading this, then
> the answer is yes and that just doesn't seem
> right.
*plonk*
This has been discusse
This is a test to see if a non-subscribed user can
post to the debian security list.
This is only a test. If you are reading this, then
the answer is yes and that just doesn't seem
right.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affor
38 matches
Mail list logo
