From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-70406-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417B3138CCF for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48A2FE0852; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from asona.a21an.org (asona.a21an.org [109.74.200.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4265DE07E6 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asona.a21an.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3lm6pH3dHlz2qY9 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:17:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at a21an.org Received: from asona.a21an.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (asona.a21an.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with LMTP id s1Cud0iE9AqD for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from angelfall (unknown [195.182.42.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asona.a21an.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3lm6pG2qNLz2qW0 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 05:19:34 +0000 From: Eray Aslan <eras@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail Message-ID: <20150512051934.GA2905@angelfall> References: <robbat2-20150511T030343-086083177Z@orbis-terrarum.net> <20150511072901.GB15066@angelfall> <555103A7.9030405@gentoo.org> <robbat2-20150511T194602-284906609Z@orbis-terrarum.net> <55511563.9040005@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55511563.9040005@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: bff8ace1-f12f-4e36-b3b5-dbc04de5b50f X-Archives-Hash: 7647fca7c25d102419771e32621da8b1 On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 04:47:31PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/11/2015 04:08 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > By drop, I will clarify that they should ideally be rejected at SMTP > > time, not silently dropped. > > I believe those logs show a rejection after the message has been > accepted initially (if I'm wrong, you can ignore the rest of this). The analysis is correct. Pre-queue filtering will help as we can safely -meaning without causing backscatter- lower the threshold we reject spam at. There will still be some spam making its way to gmail but perhaps it will be low enough to stay under gmail's radar. The correct solution is to stop forwarding spam and the easiest way is just stopping forwarding. There are valid policy reasons for not going that route but continuing forwarding because it is too difficult to configure gmail is, well, not something I'd be comfortable with. I do expect more from gentoo devs. In this case (in most cases?), infra should not be looking for consensus but rather do what is right. Anyway, I believe infra has all the info it needs at this point and I am fine with whatever decision they make. -- Eray