Re: Every spam is sacred, back the first message
> In either case, I'm not asking the BTS people that they reject
> messages from IPs in the DSBL, I would be happy if I'm just not
> forced to receive mails from such IPs directly sent to my
> @debian.org address.
>
> If you report a bug against any of my packages, the BTS will forward
> the report to me, and I will receive the message, because it will come
> from bugs.debian.org (master) which is one of our machines.
Correct.
As long as this policy is not extended to all @.*debian.org
addresses - which makes sense to me.
Filtering spam directly on mailing-list avoid each user to filter spam
by himself - one check by mail posted instead of a check for each user
that receive the mail.
> In short: This is not the big problem you are trying to make.
I'm not trying to make a problem but I questionned your proposal. Now
you tell me that DNSBL's are ok at 99%.
Maybe you should have started with this statistic at first. And not
with the following question:
"They have said "no" using (more or less) the following
reasoning: Since Debian machines have been listed in several
DNSBLs in the past, we should not use ANY of them ourselves
(which is like saying: since we have sent tons of spam in the
past via our mailing lists, we should accept ALL the spam we
receive). Does somebody understand this?"
I personally understand this. It means that they distrust DNSBLs
because they suffered in the past or their errors - and know what
troubles DNSBL errors may create.
If you are right when you said "the probability that a message sent
from an IP in the DSBL is spam is about 99.95%", it's an argument.
On 2000 messages (I receive about 2000 mails per month personally),
it's potentially 1 mail inappropriately blocked or tagged. Which is
not horrible.
(Any idea how many mails are delivered to @debian.org addresses?)
I would like also to remind everyone on the list that the first mail
from Santiago was clearly talking also about blocking mails in the
end, not only tagging.
"This would tag messages coming from IPs listed in the SBL and
DSBL (two well known DNS Blocking Lists) by adding a
X-RBL-Warning: header to them, which will serve to evaluate
whether or not using them in/reject mode would really produce
an unacceptable number of false positives, as debian-adamin
claims.
[...]
Even if using SBL and DSBL would produce false positives (we
could easily check this by using the /warn mode during a week
or two)"
[...]
Perhaps we like receiving the huge amounts of spam we receive
at our @debian.org addresses so much that we can't even think
of blocking some of it?"
Apparently the proposal is now only tagging. Which seems harmless to
me.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: