Re: Mailing list filtering for debian-ctte
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Mailing list filtering for debian-ctte
- From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:01:26 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4C7E1666.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20100831204728.GB25725@dario.dodds.net>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100429171528.GO16821@decadent.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20100429192328.GB3883@rivendell> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100430062857.GC6029@rivendell> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100831204728.GB25725@dario.dodds.net>
On 31.08.2010 22:47, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:59:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
The debian-ctte list is a historically special case. I don't believe that
it should be; I'm on plenty of other Debian mailing lists and find the
common spam filtering more than adequate. But I know that Ian has strong
opinions on mail configuration, so we should be sure we have a consensus
among the TC before making a change here.
As a workaround for those trying to send mail to the TC, here is what I
understand is *supposed* to be the debian-ctte posting policy:
- mail sent via the BTS is accepted
- mail sent by list subscribers is accepted
- mail with a valid PGP signature is accepted
- all other mail is rejected
This has been the stated policy in the past; if it has changed since then, it
was done so without discussion on the debian-ctte mailing list, so I would
consider any divergence a bug. (Which would not be surprising, as this is
the only Debian list with so complex of a posting policy, and there have
been implementation bugs in the past.)
I understand the historical practice, but d-ctte is changed. I've just
look last mails: a lot of CC to other lists, to involved persons etc.
I find somewhat "rude" to CC people that cannot reply at the same way.
So IMO CTTE should either open more the list (at minimum allowing
replies), or enforce usage of BTS, using BTS fetures to forward mails to
lists and involved people (no direct CC to external list/peoples).