Matthew Burgess matthew at
Sun Jan 11 13:34:12 PST 2004

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:23:09 -0500
Billy O'Connor <billyoc at> wrote:

> Matthew Burgess <matthew at> writes:
> >> Far more noise is generated talking about spam than the spammers
> >> could ever dream of.
> >> 
> >> We rely on bug reports from all comers
> >
> > Point them to bugzilla then from the website, FAQ or the book
> > itself (or a combination thereof as deemed necessary).  Bugzilla
> > should be *the* tool for tracking/monitoring bugs.  As was pointed
> > out by Bill earlier on, some bug reports/request for comments have
> > been lost in the black-hole that the mailing-lists can turn into.
> No, we point them to the mailing lists and bugzilla, whichever is
> more convenient for *them*, not us.  This is the method that we use
> to gather bug reports.
> BTW, this issue has been raised before, and as you can see, the
> mailing lists(and bugzilla) are still open to anyone.  Because this
> is still the way we want it.

Until when?  Until the number of spams is greater than the number of
valid/acceptable emails, or comprises 50%, 40%???  Have a look at the
bug-grub archives to see what happens when nothing is done.  IMNSHO we
have to do something now before things spiral out of control.  This may
just involve slightly tweaking spamassasin or other email-related tools,
or it may be something more radical, maybe only the server-admins are
the ones who can really comment on what is doable.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list