optional filtering and/or tagging is the perfect compromise

2003-06-15 Thread Craig Sanders
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 filter

Re: Bug#196800: flex mustn't assume stdint.h is available on allplatforms

2003-06-15 Thread Herbert Xu
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: Herbe

Re: Every spam is sacred: tagging mails because of their content or their supposed origin?

2003-06-15 Thread Duncan Findlay
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 > >

Re: Every spam is sacred

2003-06-15 Thread Russell Coker
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 unfortun