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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:23:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> > > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> > > issue.
> > agreed.  However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the 
> > amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly.  That said the 
> > debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails 
> > a day we receive that are spam really impact that much.  On a slow day that 
> > equates to something like 10%.
> Spam delivered via the Debian mailing lists is a separate issue from spam
> delivered using addresses *gleaned* from Debian mailing lists.  Isn't
> this thread about the latter?

No, look :

  To avoid spam in debian lists:

  - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
  obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by
  to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
  an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
  white list.

  No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
  If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
  /dev/null (so to speak).

This was the last item of the proposal, and maybe one of the most
strongly objected too, both now and in the past.

The debian mailing lists are open, and we want them to stay that way.
Using spamassassin on the lists, will lower the quantity of spam a lot
(just check your spamassassin cache and count the mail in it, and you
will be convinced), and thus satisfy the people wanting this kind of
extreme measures.

All this may well be off-topic for debian-vote though, altough since it
is the discution following a GR, it is ok, i think


Sven Luther

Reply to: