Re: spam closes Debian bugs!
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 02:25:30PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann writes:
> > If you had maintained a package or helped out with maintenance, you
> > could assess how much limiting the bts control access would impact
> > you. That'd be one datapoint, not much, but certainly more than
> > zero.
> I'm about to close a bug on one of my packages because it is now
> getting several spams a day. Perhaps I should just let the spammers
> do it for me.
> I don't think that the BTS should require GPG signatures, but
> something like a required pseudo-header might be a good idea.
A required pseudo-header may happen at some point in the future, but it
will certainly not be done in a hurry or without due thought.
I heartily agree with those people who have observed that requiring a
GPG signature would be an excessive burden.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]