[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tmda: Challenge-response is fundamentally broken

severity 207300 wishlist

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> severity 207300 grave
> quit

Sorry, Tore, but this is not a grave bug. The package does what it says
on the tin, even if you think that its goals are broken in the wider
picture (and I'd happen to agree there, personally, especially in light
of the recent Sobig.F fiasco; but that's neither here nor there as far
as bug severities go).

I express no opinion about whether the bug is wishlist, minor, normal,
or important; but it doesn't qualify for release-critical.

> * Karsten M. Self
>  > Briefly:  challenge-response (C-R) spam fighting systems are
>  > fundamentally broken by design.
>  > I am recommending that TMDA be dropped from Debian.
> * Adam McKenna
>  > I will not respond to this bug other than to state that I don't
>  > believe it meets the requirements for filing a grave bug, and I
>  > will not remove TMDA from Debian just because you and a few others
>  > don't like it, or don't like this particular class of software.
>  >
>  > I do not intend to play BTS games here; if you change the severity
>  > back to grave, or to any other RC state, I will consider it to be
>  > abuse of the BTS and report your actions to the BTS maintainer, and
>  > your ability to use the BTS will be taken away.

Speaking as a BTS maintainer, that seems unlikely to happen. We have a
high threshold for banning people, and it does not include isolated
arguments. If it did, very few people would be able to use the BTS any

Please don't deliberately escalate this argument.

>   Therefore I join the original submitter in the recommendation that
>  TMDA should be removed from Debian, or failing that, it should carry
>  a prominent notice in the description that it will send junk mail to
>  random third parties and will thus not remove the junk mail problem,
>  but simply transfer it (very rudely, I might add) to someone else.

Perhaps some compromise could be found here to improve the package's
description. Adam, I also think it would be helpful if you could respond
to at least some points from the original bug report. I do believe that
Karsten has thought about this in some thoroughness and is not simply
trying to antagonize you.


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: