From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2317 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2007 05:07:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 2123 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2007 05:07:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-24.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO ednor.cgf.cx) (71.248.179.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:07:25 +0000 Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id A07DC2B352; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 01:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:07:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Posting from work/university addresses Message-ID: <20070805050748.GA12733@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <46B2101F.6060305@adacore.com> <20070805000352.GA11072@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <200708042355.23161.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708042355.23161.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:55:23PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote: >On Sat 4 Aug 2007 20:03, Christopher Faylor pondered: >>On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>>From: Ian Lance Taylor >>>>Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:32:44 -0700 >>>> >>>>As far as I can tell, you are requesting that we not do anything dumb, >>> >>>No, that's not it. My problem is that I don't see the motivation for >>>rejecting such messages spelled out anywhere. The URL you mentioned >>>_advises_ to do something, but, AFAIU, there's some policy issues >>>involved here, which are not explained anywhere. >> >>Actually, the words politely requires that confidentiality notices not >>be included. Since that was the best we could do until recently we >>relied, unsuccessfully, on people to do the right thing. I've been >>promising people for years that I'd modify the spam software enforce the >>policy and a recent discussion on the gcc channel prodded me into taking >>action. > >Is the concern of publishing the regex that people would modify things to get >around it? Or why not just publish it somewhere? No one ever said that there was a concern about publishing a regex. That is an ongoing fiction developing in this thread. The system isn't operational now. I said I'd send out more details when it was about to go live. I'm obviously not going to send a stream of consciousness here as I tweak things. If you want to look at the current spam-blocking regexes they are here: http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/infra/ml-data/?cvsroot=sourceware The 'bad_*' are the regexes which are the final defense triggered when spamassassin, qpsmtpd, and clamav have let spam/viruses through. The disclaimer regexes will eventually go in the "bad_keywords" file. Finally, if you want to find out about rationales for policy decisions then please use the overseers mailing list. cgf