Re: (forw) [debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org: Re: Posting on the list [pasc@murphy.debian.org: Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: (forw) [debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org: Re: Posting on the list [pasc@murphy.debian.org: Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]"):
> The TC isn't the only committee in Debian. [...]
FSVO `committee', this is true. But the TC is the only one that's
formally established and can't really be worked round if it breaks.
It's also at the top of an `appeal pyramid', if you see what I mean.
That means it tends to have the most experienced (and so busiest)
people on it.
> As tbm (I think?) mentioned, Debian spamfiltering will be getting an
> upgrade soon as well. As for your own spamfilters, I'm not really
> expecting alot of people to jump up and down and bitch if they're in
> place for the mailing lists you're on. [...]
I'm afraid I didn't make myself. My spamfilter doesn't _throw away_
mails that it doesn't like, it rejects them at the SMTP level. It
uses criteria that are really only available during the _initial_
connection from an untrusted host. Both of these things mean that it
doesn't work to run it on mail once it has been `laundered' by
Debian's machines: firstly, the false positives would just vanish
rather than bouncing, and secondly, its hitrate is hugely reduced.
> Do other people on the committee feel this way? What about people who
> have to monitor other lists (Manoj?)? Honestly, this seems kind of
> silly to me as a reason to differentiate debian-ctte from the rest of
> the mailing lists Debian hosts when, really, pretty much all of them
> fall into much the same category.
Perhaps I should offer to host the TC list myself. I could get the
admins to delegate a mail domain under debian.org, and we could make
mail to the old addresses bounce.
Ian.
Reply to: