Re: spam (Re: Bug#202373: traitor offstage)
> I'm still not understanding what you're asking; if you mean do the
> cases of spam reaching the lists after traversing the BTS indicate a
> failure of both filters to correctly identify spam, the answer is yes.
It is, thanks.
>> I'm also asking this because of thoughts, i've posted in debian-devel.
>> Mainly adding package name after bug# and bug title (in separate header)
>> to forwarded reports from bts to mailing lists.
>
> There's little point of including the title of the bug, because that's
> extreemly plastic. However, we do include the package name in the
> X-Debbugs-*; headers.
When i looking trough say 1024 messages in bug-dist, all i have are lines
with author, subject, data. The Subject have bug number and what was set
in it by author. Sometimes wordings there are not attractive without context.
And the big one will be the package name there. E.g. i don't care for
"Subject: Bug#OMEGA patch" for ncurses, but care for SLang, etc.
Again, this is optimization thing, not necessarily suitable for skilled
developers with bts tool and by-package MLs with less traffic. But
i've found more efficient to check one place for bugs reports. Other
on-topic MLs are for discussions like this one.
Also reducing size of header "X-Debian...: pkgname" to just pkgname in
Subject is a little size optimization.
One more thing about size, if you permit. Why empty headers are added?
It's a waste IMHO.
____
Reply to: