Closed lists as maintainers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Closed lists as maintainers

Ben Hutchings-3
I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
any legitimate sender.

However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
of a moderator).  The case I am painfully aware of is
[hidden email], listed as the maintainer for grub
and grub2.

I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
GRUB maintainers.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Reality is just a crutch for people who can't handle science fiction.

signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Frans Pop-3
On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> GRUB maintainers.

I agree, but it's hardly a new issue. For grub it's been this way for years
and there've been complaints and discussions about it many, many times.

Cheers,
FJP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Stefano Zacchiroli
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:48:07PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.
<snip>
> I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> GRUB maintainers.

I totally concur.

We are already treating as RC buggy packages whose maintainer address
bounce; usually corresponding bugs are filed by FTP masters upon upload
(probably because they see the bounce when dak tries to mail them).
I believe we should treat similarly (i.e. RC buggy) packages whose
maintainer address can't be mailed due to mailing list post
restrictions.

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

signature.asc (197 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort-4
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3
Ben Hutchings wrote:

> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.
>
> However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> of a moderator).  The case I am painfully aware of is
> [hidden email], listed as the maintainer for grub
> and grub2.
>
> I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> GRUB maintainers.

I agree.
Emilio


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Russ Allbery-2
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3
Ben Hutchings <[hidden email]> writes:

> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.

> However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> of a moderator).  The case I am painfully aware of is
> [hidden email], listed as the maintainer for grub
> and grub2.

> I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> GRUB maintainers.

I agree that automatic rejection is bad.  I do think that holding for
moderation is okay.

The configuration that I use for pkg-shibboleth-devel is to automatically
allow any message with X-Debian-PR-Package or X-Debian: DAK in the headers
and then hold everything else from non-subscribers for moderation,
expiring messages after seven days, and disabling the moderation
notification messages to the sender.  I then review every message held for
moderation through my own spam filters and go and approve anything that's
legitimate, whitelisting the sender at the same time.  I set an expiration
time of 7 days for things in the moderation queue so that I don't have to
keep going in there and cleaning it out.  I also always use discard for
things that time out or things that I reject.

This seems to minimize the annoying nag mail while still getting rid of
the spam (which, before I started doing this, caused several people to
constantly get unsubscribed from the list since their ISPs rejected spam
mail that Alioth let through).

I think it's particularly important to automatically let through BTS
messages (X-Debian-PR-Package) and messages from automated archive
processes.  Spam from those sources is extremely low.

--
Russ Allbery ([hidden email])               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Joerg Jaspert
In reply to this post by Ben Hutchings-3

> I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> any legitimate sender.

Yes.

> However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> of a moderator).  The case I am painfully aware of is
> [hidden email], listed as the maintainer for grub
> and grub2.

> I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> GRUB maintainers.

As soon as I see a bounce to a dak mail due to a broken maintainer
address, its an RC bug (or a reject from NEW). Granted, dak is
whitelisted pretty widely nowadays, but it happens often enough. Valid
mails to maintainer addresses should get through.

So in your case an RC bug sounds good. :)

--
bye, Joerg
I'm convinced that the ftpmaster team are ninjas -- they do their stuff,
but they do it quietly and behind the scenes, so everybody thinks
they're asleep at the wheel...)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closed lists as maintainers

Joey Schulze
In reply to this post by Russ Allbery-2
Russ Allbery wrote:

> > I hope we can agree that maintainers should be able to receive mail from
> > any legitimate sender.
>
> > However, some maintainer addresses point to mailing lists that
> > automatically reject mail from non-subscribers (without the intervention
> > of a moderator).  The case I am painfully aware of is
> > [hidden email], listed as the maintainer for grub
> > and grub2.
>
> > I believe this configuration is unacceptable, but would like to check
> > that there is a consensus on this before pressing the matter with the
> > GRUB maintainers.
>
> I agree that automatic rejection is bad.  I do think that holding for
> moderation is okay.
>
> The configuration that I use for pkg-shibboleth-devel is to automatically
> allow any message with X-Debian-PR-Package or X-Debian: DAK in the headers
> and then hold everything else from non-subscribers for moderation,
> expiring messages after seven days, and disabling the moderation
> notification messages to the sender.  I then review every message held for
> moderation through my own spam filters and go and approve anything that's
> legitimate, whitelisting the sender at the same time.  I set an expiration
> time of 7 days for things in the moderation queue so that I don't have to
> keep going in there and cleaning it out.  I also always use discard for
> things that time out or things that I reject.

With an active owner approving messages this sounds like a sane setup.

> I think it's particularly important to automatically let through BTS
> messages (X-Debian-PR-Package) and messages from automated archive
> processes.  Spam from those sources is extremely low.

ack.

Regards,

        Joey

--
Open source is important from a technical angle.             -- Linus Torvalds


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]