From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Spammers are now closing bugs Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:27:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20090421072756.GB1082@muc.de> References: <87ab6cphof.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> <49EBB69F.4050704@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1240302556 31526 80.91.229.12 (21 Apr 2009 08:29:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Don Armstrong , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 21 10:30:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LwBMx-0002wd-RP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:30:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LwBLY-000755-9R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:28:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LwBKo-0006s2-NC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:28:06 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LwBKj-0006rB-HL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:28:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51763 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LwBKj-0006r4-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:28:01 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1448 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LwBKi-0003AG-Hs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 9415 invoked by uid 3782); 21 Apr 2009 07:27:58 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E5333A.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.51.58]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:27:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1681 invoked by uid 1000); 21 Apr 2009 07:27:56 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:110386 Archived-At: Hi, Glenn, On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:18:21PM -0400, Glenn Morris wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > The incoming messages should be filtered the same way that messages to > > emacs-devel get filtered (i.e. they need to be moderated). > The moderation must already be being done, but at the wrong point. > gnu-emacs-bug is moderated (many thanks to those who do so), and > almost no spam gets through to the list. All the spam that gets sent > to the bug tracker gets passed on to the bug list, but does not appear > there, so people must be moderating it out. But at this stage, it's > already entered the tracker. > The moderation step should be shifted to be _before_ things reach the > tracker, rather than after. (Though this found no favour the last time > I suggested it; > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-08/msg00889.html) I missed that thread last August. The argument (from Eli) was that having the bug-gnu-emacs moderators also moderate the bug tracker email would be too much of a burden for them. As one of the bug-gnu-emacs moderators, I don't believe this would be the case. To me, it is scarcely more effort to moderate 10 messages than 1; indeed, finding only 1 message is an anti-climax, and finding none at all is a major let down. ;-). At least one of my colleagues on b-g-e is super efficient, since I rarely see much on the moderation page. So, yes, let's moderate the bug-tracker. How easy is this to set up? What does Don say? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).