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
Hi,
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 (see [1] for an example), in fact closing
bug report
20 matches
Mail list logo
