| Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 2006-11-02, 1:25 am |
| On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:51:16PM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> Ya. I generally don't like anti-spam techniques because they require
> either the sender or recipient to jump through hoops, or are prone to
> false positives... but limiting interaction with the BTS to
> pre-verified users (as requiring signed messages by DD's would do) is
> an even smaller (as in harder to jump through) hoop than requiring a
> specific, easily reproduced with any MUA, format for messages sent to
> the BTS.
When I have suggested that (sending signed messages to the BTS to be
accepted for processing) it was
a) for mails to -close or to control@b.d.o to prevent a spammer/malicious
person from closing all the bugs or mangling with the BTS in such a way
that would take us some effort to recover
b) restricted to providing a signed mail, not necessarily with a signature in
the DD keyring. (this could be added later on to prevent abuse, if needed
be and could still have a 'whitelist' of valid keys which could include
non-DDs)
If there's a non-DD playing with the BTS (closing bugs or using control@) I
guess it's not really too much to ask for them to use signed e-mails when
fiddling with it. Is it?
Regards
Javier
|