[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: AM_*FLAGS and autoconf

From: Norman Gray
Subject: Re: AM_*FLAGS and autoconf
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:10:50 +0000

Stepan and all,

On 2005 Feb 22 , at 11.54, Stepan Kasal wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 04:30:13PM +0000, Norman Gray wrote:
Sorry for taking a while to respond -- my list subscription had been
suspended by _again_, because of the proportion of
thus-delivered spam our boundary mailhosts had rejected.

this is interesting, as there should no longer be so much spam delivered via lists. Several lists have been secured so that they distribute
only a very limited amount of spam, eg. address@hidden
(The filtering is semi-manual.)

Apologies: when I grepped the appropriate logs to send Stepan the off-list details, I discovered that it was indeed bug-automake and automake-patches that were being bounced (the suspension happens so often I don't read the message any more, so the list name doesn't sink in). There doesn't appear to have been a spam problem on this list.

The list bug-automake is not subject to this filtering, though.
The reason is that it's important that a delayed bug report just before
a release can be disastrous.

Is this an actual problem rather than a theoretical one? The spam scores in the bounces I saw were pretty high: spamassassin scores of 10 to 15, where 5 counts as `probable' and 8 is enough for an unequivocal rejection, here. That's clear blue water as far as false positives go.

I'd be glad to hear the deatils, perhaps off the list, as we are getting

Indeed: I'm replying on-list just to correct my initial thinko. If anyone wants to carry on discussing this we should at least change the subject line.

Best wishes,


Norman Gray  :  Physics & Astronomy, Glasgow University, UK  :

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]