Re: Every spam is sacred
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do we > as a body consider it acceptable if some percentage of Debian > developers: > > 1) Don't receive a mail message from a fellow Debian developer > because they unfortunately got caught by a false-positive > (perhaps they got renumbered onto a bad SPAM address, or they > were roaming on a wireless from a conference or during > business travel) and important mail that related to Debian > business gets lost? There is no excuse for this. Access to servers that are not in spam lists is well available to Debian developers. I tunnel my outgoing mail through a server in Melbourne no matter where I am, this avoids all issues of spam blocking by IP address. I offered accounts on a choice of machines to be used for such purposes for any Debian developers who have no better options, but so far no-one has taken me up on this offer. The technical ability to perform such tunneling is assumed, compared to Debian development tasks tunneling TCP connections is trivial. Your point about mail from users is fair, but as every Debian developer has the ability to notice DNSBL's and work-around them there should be no problem in that regard. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Every spam is sacred: tagging mails because of their content or their supposed origin?
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 07:45:02PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Mathieu Roy wrote: > > But I definitely find spamassassin conceptually much better - because > > it really takes a mail for what it is. It cannot be trapped. > > Because if the DNSBL one day become a major problem to spammers, who > > knows what kind of methods they may use to attack them. > > A spamassassin rule is much easier to fool than an IP address. > Not a long time ago there were a lot of spam which was "PGP-signed". FWIW, the next version of spamassassin (2.60) will have no forgeable negatively scoring rules. (ETA early-mid July) -- Duncan Findlay pgpO8jKiZXc3t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#196800: flex mustn't assume stdint.h is available on allplatforms
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I can understand the unease. But consider this: POSIX is
> already over a decade old; and it standardized practices that were
SuSv3 aka POSIX was released one year ago.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
optional filtering and/or tagging is the perfect compromise
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 09:22:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > As I have said before, as long as the default is to not cause data loss for > everyone (since dropping emails may cause data loss), but allow people to opt > in to have their mail filtered, I would have no objection. Opt in filtering > is fine, and what other people do with their email is certainly no business > of mine. this is a more than reasonable compromise - so please let's do it. craig
