RE: spam closes Debian bugs!
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Of course the control messages would need to be signed by recognized
> > keys. That was implicit in my suggestion [...]
> There are two ways to fix your proposal:
> * Use non-standard signatures that verify the header, too. (They are
> used in usenet but no mail-client supports them.
> * Abolish email@example.com or require a magic
> keyword/header to make it effective
The latter was also implicit in my suggestion -- of course, the
authoritative controlling aspect of a control message would need to be
signed. I absolutely agree that the mere arrival of a message with some
signed random body wouldn't be sufficient to actually induce any control
actions by the BTS.