Re: Posting from work/university addresses

Christopher Faylor
2007-08-05T05:07:28Z

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