Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:54:57PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:01:07AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:04:09PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > * All machines which are MX for the debian.org domain MUST reject
> > > messages coming from IPs in the xbl.spamhaus.org DNSBL.
> > What if spamhaus goes the way of one or more previous DNSBLs and goes
> > out of business by placing all IP addresses on it's list? We'd need
> > to draft, vote on, and pass another GR in order to countermand the
> > first.
> Is Debian really so bureaucratic that we would need to pass a GR to do
> something that is common sense? Are we so bureaucratic that we would need
> to pass a GR to use DNSBLs in the first place?
I wouldn't imagine so in this case, but when one person or group within the
Project wants something done that another group doesn't want done, the
ultimate decision maker is a GR. Some people *really* want DNSBL checking
on Debian's mail servers. If they're going to go ahead with a GR to force
that to happen, I at least want a GR that isn't going to totally screw the
pooch if it passes. We've all seen what happens when GRs are passed which
don't actually do what the electorate thinks they do.
> What happened to common sense and consensus?
There can be no consensus when the parties do not even agree on basic terms.
As for common sense, well, I've concluded that it is fairly uncommon.