On 2016-08-20 09:07 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 18/08/16 10:48, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>>
>>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>>> address (bug-numb
On 18/08/16 10:48, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>
>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>> address (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
> [...]
>> Maybe time to star
Daniel Pocock dijo [Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:38:35PM +0200]:
> I was only talking about control emails (e.g. the -done address and
> control@). The requirements for opening bugs or submitting comments
> (without pseudo-headers) could remain as they are.
>
> Maybe it could insist that emails from a
On 2016-08-18 16:13:29 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
>
> Am 18.08.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > Reject mail with "X-PHP-Originating-Script:", at least for -done?
> > I quite often see this in spam not caught by the filters, and I
> > suppose that PHP scripts do not send mail to the BT
Am 18.08.2016 um 15:48 schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> Reject mail with "X-PHP-Originating-Script:", at least for -done?
> I quite often see this in spam not caught by the filters, and I
> suppose that PHP scripts do not send mail to the BTS; well, this
> should be easy to see with the archives.
Then y
On 2016-08-17 14:47:24 -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> All of that said, we certainly do appreciate better anti-spam SA rules
> for the BTS, and we do already give negative scores for messages which
> have things which look like PGP signatures and/or come from an address
> which is in the whitelist.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
[...]
> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to t
Daniel Pocock writes:
> I was only talking about control emails (e.g. the -done address and
> control@). The requirements for opening bugs or submitting comments
> (without pseudo-headers) could remain as they are.
I don't believe the spammer intended to close the bug. The bug
had already been
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>
> Maybe time to start requir
On 17/08/16 18:34, Stéphane Blondon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 17/08/2016 à 18:14, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>>
>> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to
>> the BTS?
>
> Requiring signature will increase the level
On 17/08/16 18:29, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>>
>> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the
>> address (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>>
>>
>> https:/
Hello,
Le 17/08/2016 à 18:14, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
>
> Maybe time to start requiring PGP signatures on control emails to the BTS?
Requiring signature will increase the level to send bugs to the BTS for
external people. And spammers co
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:14:38PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I received a notification that a bug was closed.
>
> The email that closed the bug was a spam email sent to the address
> (bug-number)-d...@bugs.debian.org
>
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737921
It w
13 matches
Mail list logo
