On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I suppose an alternative is to have the BTS ignore the special effect
> for -done messages which don't have a Version:, Package:, or other
> appropriate pseudoheader from a message which looks signed, a mailing
> address which is not the submi
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 09:59:56AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I suppose an alternative is to have the BTS ignore the special effect
> for -done messages which don't have a Version:, Package:, or other
> appropriate pseudoheader from a message which looks signed, a mailing
> address which is not
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Spam targeting nnn-done@bugs.d.o"):
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> > > Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> > > to close the
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Spam targeting nnn-done@bugs.d.o"):
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> > Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> > to close the bug? That would protect against both spam and typos.
>
>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Georg Faerber wrote:
> On 18-02-21 10:53:49, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking more assistance in
> > creating better SA rules. Our configuration is publicly available.[1]
> > [I've just started moving it from alioth to salsa, so the gi
Hi Don,
On 18-02-21 10:53:49, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking more assistance in
> creating better SA rules. Our configuration is publicly available.[1]
> [I've just started moving it from alioth to salsa, so the git urls will
> change slightly.]
Thanks f
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Steve Cotton wrote:
> Maybe the Package: pseudo-header should be mandatory for a nnn-done@ email
> to close the bug? That would protect against both spam and typos.
That sounds best to me, but I can see it could get tedious.
It probably would also need to suppor
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:06:04PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I am not asking for a valid signature. It could but also just an
> additional header field or something. It does not happen very ofter but
> it gets more annoying each time it happens.
> In the end it is just the submitter
On 2018-02-25 09:32:32 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Would it work to rescrict the done/close-@ even more? Like to
> > pgp-signed messages only? I'm not asking for a valid DD signatures or
> > so - just any signature will do.
>
> This has
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Would it work to rescrict the done/close-@ even more? Like to
> pgp-signed messages only? I'm not asking for a valid DD signatures or
> so - just any signature will do.
This has been proposed previously, but because we don't get that many
spa
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 10:53:49 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> > We basically already do this with our ZIPFILE, MSWORD, and ZIPCOMPRESSED
> > rules:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debbugs-team/antispam/spamassassin_config/blob/master/common/virus_
On 2018-02-21 10:53:49 [-0800], Don Armstrong wrote:
> We basically already do this with our ZIPFILE, MSWORD, and ZIPCOMPRESSED
> rules:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debbugs-team/antispam/spamassassin_config/blob/master/common/virus_spam#L115
>
> Speaking on behalf of owner@, we're always looking
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Sven Joachim wrote:
> In fact, I am quite surprised that the current spam wave has been
> lasting for so long, those messages should be quite easy to filter
> out.
I dropped in a filter for these messages on Saturday; I personally
haven't seen any since I dropped in the filter
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:31:46PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
>
> Apart from restricting access to the BTS (which I think nobody really
> wants), the answer is to train the spam filters. In fact, I am quite
> surprised that the current spam wave
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Another question came to my mind: When I use the "this bug log
> contains spam"... Where does it end? Is it then manually filtered or
> used as input for better rules? If there is something manually
> involved, how can someone help here? Couldn't find docs
On 2018-02-21 19:36 +0100, Tobias Frost wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:31:46PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
>>
>
>> Apart from restricting access to the BTS (which I think nobody really
>> wants), the answer is to train the spam filters. In f
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:53:49AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > In fact, I am quite surprised that the current spam wave has been
> > lasting for so long, those messages should be quite easy to filter
> > out.
>
> I dropped in a filter for these messag
On 18-02-21 18:31:46, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> > Just to let people know: Recently, there has been quite some spam
> > with identical content sent to different bugs, project and team
> > mailing lists, etc. That's bad, but what's even more worse is tha
On 2018-02-21 17:48 +0100, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Just to let people know: Recently, there has been quite some spam with
> identical content sent to different bugs, project and team mailing
> lists, etc. That's bad, but what's even more worse is that this spam now
> gets send to nnn-done@bugs.d.o
19 matches
Mail list logo
