I'll second this motion. A good proportion of the traffic I get from debian-security is simply silly people trying to unsubscribe themselves from debian-security-announce by replying to DSAs. And while most of them do not respond with empty threats of spam, the policy of setting the "Reply-To" mail header in DSAs to "debian-security@lists.debian.org" has certainly generated it's share of garbage. So I have to ask: Why *are* the lists set up this way? Does anybody know? If nobody knows, or if the reason no longer makes sense, what is the opinion of the list in general about changing the policy? Any comments from listmaster@lists.debian.org? On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:41:32AM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote: > Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> wrote: > > > He replied to a post to debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org yet > > everybody who replied to him how to unsubscribe from > > debian-security@lists.debian.org. Amazing how he's still on the list, > > isn't it? > > Yup. Wouldn't it be possible to set the Reply-To, Mail-Followup-To and > whatnot for debian-security-announce to some address in ending with > @invalid or @example.com? 'cause replying to an announce list without > even checking the destination address is ill-minded behavior in the > first place if you ask me... > > -- > Florent -- Attached is my PGP public key. Primary key fingerprint: B7C7 AD66 D9AF 4348 0238 168E 2C53 D8FA 55D8 9FD9 If you have a PGP key (and a minute to spare) please send it in reply to this email. If you have no idea what PGP is, feel free to ignore all this gobbledegook.
Attachment:
binEIA7RTMEJU.bin
Description: PGP Key 0x55D89FD9.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature