From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: The Amazing Dragon (Elliott Mitchell) <ehem@cs.pdx.edu>
Subject: Re: Recent spam
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 00:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <200306020728.h527SoUA002747@sirius.cs.pdx.edu>
References: <no.id>
Reply-To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-14365-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "Manuel Krause" at Jun 02, 2003 08:29:18 AM
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com

> From: Manuel Krause <manuelkrause@netscape.net>
> Whats up with these rows of spam mails I receive from reiserfs list the 
> last days/weeks? Does this list spam itself now or what new anti-spam 
> algorithm did I miss?

I'd vote for it being time to start rejecting rather than merely marking
spam. At the least if the score is double the mark threshold it should be
safe (I haven't noted any errors yet though).

The recent ones actually look like a loop given the quantity...  (I'd
*hope* the spammers weren't stupid enough to think that eight copies of
the spam would be more effective than one)


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \   (    |         EHeM@cs.pdx.edu      PGP 8881EF59         |    )   /
  \_  \   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
    \___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 4C 40 E6\_|_/___/