Javier == Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Javier If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the
Javier BTS then we should start thinking about implementing
Javier authentication checks in the BTS... like for example: do
Javier not allow control
Goswin von Brederlow escribió:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with no
attached (valid) GPG/PGP
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reopen 209891
thanks
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close
On 7/21/05, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with no
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:31:48 +0200]:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the
BTS... like for example: do not allow control messages or -close
messages with no
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:31:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
Start? It used to happen a lot; it's much less common nowadays.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:36:15AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
And such header is now needed to make a versioned closes, so it
doesn't sound too disruptive to require it for every mail to -done (at
least the Source: one, Source-Version could be optional).
It's possible this may happen in
On 21/07/05, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:31:48 +0200]:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the
BTS... like for example: do
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:16:45PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
And how about a nice header for -done which is something to the effect
of 'mark as spam archive now prevent replies etc unless reopened',
I think that's far more prone to abuse than spams closing bugs.
Archiving is deliberately
attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid developer?)
-- valid GPG signature present on public servers, not necessarily from a
valid DD seems to be a valid scheme. I haven't seen any spam GPG signed
yet
-- another idea would be to use the same authentication as used by most
of the
Le Jeu 21 Juillet 2005 15:22, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid developer?)
-- valid GPG signature present on public servers, not necessarily
from a valid DD seems to be a valid scheme. I haven't seen any spam
GPG signed yet
that sucks, I want to
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
that sucks, I want to be able to close bugs, even if I'm using a M$
computer with no gpg plugin on it (on from an unsecure machine where I
don't want to unlock my gpg key).
Well - we need to give up something so it becomes 1 click
Thunderbird+Enigmamail+keys on a USB flash drive (ie it can be your ipod
just a link FYI
http://dev.weavervsworld.com/projects/ptbirdeniggpg/
--
.-.
=-- /v\ =
Keep in touch// \\
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
that sucks, I want to be able to close bugs, even if I'm using a M$
computer with no gpg plugin on it (on from an unsecure machine where I
don't want to unlock my gpg key).
Well
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
-- another idea would be to use the same authentication as used by most
of the mailing list servers -- verification of intent: confirmation
email sent to the originating email address and reply to it keeping
A slightly better
The only reason it is easy for spammers to close a bug is that the bug
has been already closed before (and reopened again) and the spammers
have harvested the -done address for that bug from the web pages.
A very valid point... I took the task more general - to infiltrate bug
reports (and may
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:31:48AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
Start? It used to happen a lot; it's much less common nowadays.
Well, it's the first time I've seen spam closing one bug reported by me.
I
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:25:09AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
The only reason it is easy for spammers to close a bug is that the bug
has been already closed before (and reopened again) and the spammers
have harvested the -done address for that bug from the web pages.
A very valid
reopen 209891
thanks
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages or -close messages with no
attached (valid) GPG/PGP signatures (from a valid
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 06:31 pm, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
reopen 209891
thanks
If spam e-mail is going to start closing our Bugs in the BTS then we
should
start thinking about implementing authentication checks in the BTS...
like
for example: do not allow control messages
21 matches
Mail list logo
