On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote: > reopen 356152 > retitle Messages being falsely identified as spam > thanks > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 06:04:22AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > >My messages to d-legal aren't being delivered, and I havn't seen > > any bounces. they have been identified as spam. > > This is a bug, since they are clearly not spam. Please don't close this > ticket when it's not fixed.
We all agree that the purpose of mail filters at lists.debian.org should be to stop the spam and let the good mail to pass. From this point of view, therefore, every spam mail which is distributed to the list would be a "bug", and every ham mail which is not distributed to the list would be a "bug" as well. However, I bet that if people cared to report each and every of these "bugs" using the BTS (specially, for every spam email which isn't stopped by the filters and it's distributed to the lists), the Debian listmasters would be completely unable to manage the huge amount of bugs that would result from this interpretation of what is a bug. I don't want to mean with this that you should not submit a bug for this. Quite the contrary: I think it's about time that Debian seriously reconsider the way mailing lists are managed and try some sort of semi-moderation scheme for the lists, instead of relying exclusively on automatic mail filters at lists.debian.org. > > [...] > > i suggest that you add all your posting addresses to out > > pseudolist 'whitelist', so you won't get penalized for not being > > subscribed to a list. I agree with this suggestion. > The lists have been dropping my mail, with no indication that it was > happening. This is a recent development, as I had been posting in this > manner for quite a long time. Mailing lists are the backbone of Debian > communication; the lists dropping legitimate messages (especially without > notification) is an extremely serious problem. Messages which are considered spam are silently dropped. This has been the case for a long time, and this is how it should be: Once a message has been accepted by the MTA, it's too late to bounce it, or reply to it, because the sender may be forged, and it would result in bounce-spam. The problem here is that most (if not all) the spam fighting is done by using filters, which work after the MTA has done his job. Therefore, the "feedback ratio" for messages which are considered spam is nearly 0%. As before, I think it is also time that Debian reconsider the idea of "filtering everything after it has been received" which is currently working at lists.debian.org. We could use a DNSBL which lists *just* open proxies, like cbl.abuseat.org, and we could reject a lot of spam at SMTP time. The "feedback ratio" would then be something like 50%, not the current 0%, which is seriously low. > > Your Spamassassinscore for all 9 messages i found is 4.6, which sums > > up from > > > > 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR > > 2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL > > These rules are incorrect. Please note that the rules are probably "correct" in the sense that they have been computed using a genetic algorithm (see the Spamassassin documentation for details). If they have the weights they have, it is almost sure that it's because such weights, combined with the weights for the other rules, produce the optimal ham/spam separation on a large corpora of email. So, it is reasonable that you ask for those weights to be lowered a bit as if it were a fine-tuning, because of your mails which were not distributed to the list, but it is not reasonable IMHO that you ask for those weights to be 0 and just say "the rules are incorrect". > It's ordinary and valid to send mail directly from a "dynamic" IP > address, and unacceptable to demand that people use a third-party > relay, reducing the reliability of their mail by introducing extra > points of failure. My IP address hasn't changed in over a year, and > this demand is an attempt to make my server a second-class citizen > due to overgeneralization. If those rules exist at all, it's because they are useful, and if they are useful it's because many spam emails get those flags, and many ham emails do not. We can discuss about sending email from a "dynamic" IP address being "valid" or not, but it is certainly not "ordinary" to send mail directly from a "dynamic" IP address, as most people relay their mail via a SMTP server having a "static" IP address (whatever that might mean). [ No, I'm not the listmaster of the day, I just happen to lurk the lists.debian.org package using the PTS ]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
