Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
> These days, the only sensible way, if any, to "inform" a user that his
> email has not been accepted is by giving a SMTP REJECT to the incoming
> SMTP connection, and we would not be sending any email by doing that.
>
> If the email is sent by a true
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote:
> if we send out a notification for each of those, [...]
No, no, no. Obviously, I have not explained myself well enough.
Sorry for that.
I have never, ever, proposed that we send email notifications of
any kind, that would be crazy for a lot of reasons,
Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
> What I propose, mainly, is that you do something about the 0% feedback
> ratio problem.
we silently dropped about 25000 Mails yesterday, so if we send out a
notification for each of those, we would produce:
* Mails that bloat our mailq, because the D
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote:
> > Except that, in some sense, we are already in the hands of non-Debian
> > parties. Just take a look at the spam stored in the list archives.
>
> No. all filters are is in the Hand of Debian listmasters. It's our
> decision how we weight suggestions fr
Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
> > one day every RBL goes away, and how it does this isn't predictable. i
> > remember at least one RBL, which started to respond for every request with
> > 'Spamrelay' to get rid of the users. That day (weeks) some people
> > didn'T get any spam. (they
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
>
> > I'm sorry about your bad experiences with some DNSBLs, but we should
> > judge a DNSBL by their own merits, not by the pitfalls of the others.
>
> one day every RBL goes away, and how it does this isn't
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:29:31PM -0600, Cord Beermann wrote:
> one day every RBL goes away, and how it does this isn't predictable. i
> remember at least one RBL, which started to respond for every request with
> 'Spamrelay' to get rid of the users. That day (weeks) some people
> didn'T get any s
Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
> I'm sorry about your bad experiences with some DNSBLs, but we should
> judge a DNSBL by their own merits, not by the pitfalls of the others.
one day every RBL goes away, and how it does this isn't predictable. i
remember at least one RBL, which starte
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
>
> > 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
Hallo! Du (Santiago Vila) hast geschrieben:
> 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, an
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:38:27PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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 c
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
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
Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: normal
My messages to d-legal aren't being delivered, and I havn't seen any bounces.
It looks related to the fact that I'm posting from a different address
than I'm subscribed--"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and I'll
work around it on my end by not
14 matches
Mail list logo
