Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam
Stephen Frost writes ("Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam"):
> Generally I think the spam filtering done for all the other lists is
> pretty decent and takes case of most of it. I've got my own filtering
> in case something gets through (and for non-debian lists that don't have
> much filtering at all).
Given the volume of spam, I don't think dealing with `most' of it is
enough. Many other Debian lists get enough spam that when you see a
message or two a day they're nearly always spam. For our lists to be
effective the mere presence of traffic on a usually quiet list ought
to be significant and encourage action.
> [ Raul: ]
> > Ian: perhaps we should split this list into two -- one for official
> > announcements (this one can be moderated, or only accept certain pgp
> > signatures or whatever) and one which is open for discussion. Would you
> > have any objections to that approach?
I don't have an objection to a separate announcement list, but I don't
think it helps as I do object to a laxer policy for the discussion
list. The problem is the discussion list getting spam.
> I think that'd be alright, a seperate lists for decision announcements
> is fine that requires DD/gpg-signed messages. Ian's concern seemed to
> be more that the committee is required to read all messages to the list,
> which I think would still be the case for the 'discussion' list, so I
> don't see how this addresses that concern.
Quite so.
Ian.
Reply to: