Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a
Santiago privilege, not a right.
I strongly disagree. We are vendors who provide an OS. I know
we do not treat users as customers, but being a debian user is not a
privilege.
Of course not,
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
Sven after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
Sven expensive modem connection.
Quit. So th solution is to apply spam filtering
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven To avoid spam in debian lists:
Sven - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
Sven obtaining this privilege, for so called open lists, is by
Sven subscribing
Sven to them and using the same address in
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and
force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is
never the address I post from).
No, you could subscribe the address you post from to the white list.
Smartlist then
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven What about the filtering mails crossposted to lots of list, these
Sven are the one that escape my own spamassassin setup mostly, and i receive
Sven 12+ copies of them. Can spamassassin, or another spam killer do such a
Sven test ?
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a
Santiago problem for you, Manoj.
I change ISP's several times a month, and, indeed, sometimes
use more than 2 a week.
Well, but most people don't do that.
Can you
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago Well, but most people don't do that.
Where is the survey?
Santiago My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a
Santiago privilege, not a right.
I strongly disagree. We are vndors who provide an OS. I
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
Sven after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
Sven expensive modem connection.
Quit. So th solution is to apply spam filtering
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven To avoid spam in debian lists:
Sven - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
Sven obtaining this privilege, for so called open lists, is by
Sven subscribing
Sven to them and using the same address in
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:24:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
Sven after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
Sven expensive modem
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and
force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is
never the address I post from).
No, you could subscribe the address you post from to the white list.
Smartlist then
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven What about the filtering mails crossposted to lots of list, these
Sven are the one that escape my own spamassassin setup mostly, and i receive
Sven 12+ copies of them. Can spamassassin, or another spam killer do such a
Sven test ?
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The answer is not to treat legitimate users like dirt, and
force them to use the subscribe address (my subscribe address is
never the address I post from).
Santiago No, you could
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago Unless you change ISP several times a week, this would not be a
Santiago problem for you, Manoj.
I change ISP's several times a month, and, indeed, sometimes
use more than 2 a week.
Well, but most people don't do that.
Can you
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago Well, but most people don't do that.
Where is the survey?
Santiago My points is that posting to a mailing list should be a
Santiago privilege, not a right.
I strongly disagree. We are vndors who provide an OS. I
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
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of
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
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through
spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
It does not work. What about those italian spams we
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:48:26AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through
spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for
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
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
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through
spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
It does not work. What about those italian spams we
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:48:26AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:23PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through
spamassassin your daily dose of canned meat should drop
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:04:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
[...]
[1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
like to play constitutional lawyer, please
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
who still have
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
your
daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
yesterday and today? If the debian server only
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For
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
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
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
who still have a problem should investigate
http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:04:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
[...]
[1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
like to play constitutional lawyer, please
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
who still have a
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.
Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brilliant
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
collateral damage in the war
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
things harder for legitimate users,
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
your
daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
yesterday and today? If the debian server only
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.
Most of the times you use pop3 then. For
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
your
daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
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
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
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
If you
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
democracy in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
- The public web archives
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
If you want
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want something done, do it yourself.
Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
sorry for replying to the wrong list
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
===
= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
AOLme too/AOL
yours,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I also object to this in its entirety.
Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
How about giving arguments?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Santiago,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Ditto.
Enough comments.
I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).
Thanks everybody.
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
That is completely insane.
Hi Branden!
You wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I object to this proposal in its entirety.
Me too.
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
[subscribers automatically whitelisted]
No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.
Pete
A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
to be the type of project which I
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
democracy in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.
78 matches
Mail list logo
