Re: (forw) [debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org: Re: Posting on the list [pasc@murphy.debian.org: Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]
Pascal Hakim 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]]"):
> Luckily for you, murphy leaves in the headers both the old
> envelope-sender, and the host it received the email from.
This is true, but not helpful in this particular case. But I don't
think this conversation is really about the technical details of
spamfiltering.
> You're already ignoring emails from people who want to contact the
> tech-ctte, what difference does it make if you simply drop their
> emails at your MTA?
No, we are _not_ _ignoring_ those emails. They are _bouncing_ with an
explanation, back to the sender, who has the opportunity to jump
through (admittedly annoying) technical hoops. This is quite
different from simply junking the mail. In particular, the behaviour
with false positives is quite different.
I think it's worth _bouncing_ quite a few mails to avoid a smaller
number of (other) mails erroneously _disappearing_. A lost mail is
much worse than a spurious bounce. I'm not sure how much worse, but
I'd guess for mails to the TC a factor of 10 wouldn't be unreasonable.
It's difficult to put an exact number on it because the actual
behaviour not independent for different messages from the same sender.
> How do the other people in the committee feel about this issue?
I would like to hear from them too.
So far Bdale has said little other than that he doesn't want me to
host the list, and I'll take that as a veto.
Raul says (if I understand him properly) that he would probably be
happy to unmoderate the list, but doesn't seem to advocate doing so.
Ian.
Reply to: