From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23389 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 19:13:09 -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 23360 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 19:13:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 19:13:08 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18tBeU-0005NH-00 for overseers@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:34 -0500 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJCSQ32397; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:28 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJCSV04385; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:28 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CJCSW19066; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:28 -0500 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6BB151C221; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:12:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:13:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: angela@wonderslug.com Cc: Mike Stump , overseers@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Mail refused: SPAM Message-ID: <20030312191237.GA19500@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: angela@wonderslug.com, Mike Stump , overseers@gcc.gnu.org References: <373AB8B8-54B9-11D7-B09F-003065A77310@apple.com> <200303121835.h2CIZDm03393@foam.wonderslug.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303121835.h2CIZDm03393@foam.wonderslug.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:35:13AM -0800, Angela Marie Thomas wrote: > >> Curious, the gcc machine is on the spam block lists... Hum... The >> cause seems to be the spam on the cygwin list. :-( > >This is not uncommon. Note that SpamCop says it should not be used >in production: > > This blocking list is somewhat experimental and should not be used in > a production environment where legitimate email must be delivered. It > is growing more stable and is used by many large sites now. However, > SpamCop is aggressive and often errs on the side of blocking mail ... > >There's little we can do if end-users block sourceware based on >faulty data. Actually, I had an agreement with spamcop owing to this very user who can't get it into his thick skull that spam "from cygwin.com" isn't really originating there. Probably the IP address change confused things, though. I've sent another message asking to be put back on whatever list we need to be on to avoid this type of thing in the future. It's a little strange that I didn't see any email to postmaster about this, though. Usually they notify the site when they institute a block. >Perhaps we should unsubscribe list members who forward mailing list >spam to rbl sites. I've just done that. >We do the best we can to block spam, but some of it is just going to >get through and adding sourceware to the rbl sites doesn't help anyone. Yeah, we are on one obscure list, though. Apparently the guy doesn't like Red Hat or something. That's a good reason for a block right? cgf