On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Stephen Frost wrote:
Generally I think the spam filtering done for all the other lists is
pretty decent and takes case of most of it. I've got my own filtering
in case something gets through (and for non-debian
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Compared to spamassassin it should be quite low-weight, and we can
always throw more hardware at the problem (Debian has plenty of offers).
It would make a lot more sence to throw the hardware at spam-filtering
algorythims are already known
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:45:56AM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
It would make a lot more sence to throw the hardware at spam-filtering
algorythims are already known to work and don't cause hassles to the
mail senders.
Hardware isn't application specific.
I agree that 99.99% accurate spam
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
Do you want to store the original message on the server? That might grow
to become a large database. It could be pruned daily of course.
Indeed. The original message wouldn't have to be kept very long.
Perhaps we should support
Stephen Stafford writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
This looks like a fairly good plan, however it will mean that
virtually all the spam (which the point is to try to minimise) gets
bounced back to the (probably) forged return-path, thereby sending
spam to some poor unfortunate
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
Post arrives, and there are a number of reasons it might be
accepted:
- Poster (`From:') on subscription list (per list[1])
- Message body is PGP signed[2]; key is in one of several PGP
keyrings[3] (same keyring for all lists)
- Poster's
BAH!!!
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:40:06 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
Is there any reason not to just accept *any* gpg/pgp signed mail? At the
moment
I've never seen a spammer signing mail, so *any* mail received that is signed
is
likely to be ham. If it turned out they were going to start
Pascal Hakim writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
I take back what I said actually. The signature checker is very brittle,
and it already stops a number of valid messages from people who want to
post on the gpg-restricted lists such as debian-devel-annouce or
debian-security
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
As I say, I'm quite willing to help write/maintain software for this
kind of thing. If you tell me what the interface should look like
(ie, how it should expect to receive incoming mails and how it should
send them on for actual posting) I'll get started straight
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
As I say, I'm quite willing to help write/maintain software for this
kind of thing. If you tell me what the interface should look like
(ie, how it should expect to receive incoming mails and how it should
Wichert Akkerman writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
It runs from procmail, so basically:
* receive the post on stdin
* return accept/bounce flag via returncode
Blars Blarson writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
* the system being used is heavily overloaded, so few
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
I deal with spam on about a dozen debian mailing lists, and I
see this list as little different. I heartily recommend crm114 to
people who want to eliminate spam from their inboxes.
Presumably crm114 is a spamfilter
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:00:25PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Pascal Hakim wrote:
Speaking with my listmaster hat on, that's certainly possible, but I
don't believe it will help non-subscribers or subscribers posting with a
different address all that much. I guess every
(Replaced debian-admin with listmaster since they are the only ones who
can make this change)
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
Raul Miller writes (debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
I also don't know how the other committee members would feel about this
mechanism. [Currently, little traffic
Previously Stephen Frost wrote:
Generally I think the spam filtering done for all the other lists is
pretty decent and takes case of most of it. I've got my own filtering
in case something gets through (and for non-debian lists that don't have
much filtering at all).
I'm on debian-deity and
Pascal Hakim writes (Re: debian-ctte mailing list and spam):
Speaking with my listmaster hat on, that's certainly possible, but I
don't believe it will help non-subscribers or subscribers posting with a
different address all that much. I guess every little bit helps however
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
Is it straightforward to make the list software use a different
keyring for certain lists ?
It's been a while since I looked at that tool but iirc it has a
commandline option you can just point at a keyring file.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:12:42 -0400, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Personally, I think we need a better heuristic.
I agree.
My ideal would be a combination of:
If the email is signed by some pgp key that we can validate, it's
OK.
Otherwise, send the user some token
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:56:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
There are other heuristics in place to fight SPAM on the Debian lists
already. I'm on quite a few of them and I see an occational SPAM, but
not much, really. I've also got my own spam-filtering in place, of
course, which I
20 matches
Mail list logo
