From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24847 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2005 23:09:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24804 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2005 23:09:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bluesmobile.specifixinc.com) (64.220.152.98) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Apr 2005 23:09:06 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.corp.specifixinc.com [192.168.1.2]) by bluesmobile.specifixinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B617169B8; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: rms asking about badspammer.html From: James E Wilson To: Christopher Faylor Cc: overseers@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20050401145623.GD25636@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> References: <1112316742.3679.39.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <20050401145623.GD25636@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1112656145.10291.13.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:09:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 06:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Check out /www/conf/spamblock. Thanks for the info. rms has asked that we improve the text on the badspammer.html file to make it clear what is going on. He isn't objecting to the blocking, only the fact that we claim to have detected a spambot, when all we have detected is that a download accelerator is being used. For instance, adding text that says we disallow the use of download accelerators because they place too much load on our servers. If we do that, then an end user has a better chance of understanding why they ended up on the badspammer page. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com