Re: Request: Limit LSM postings to subscribers!

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 16:44:24 PDT

  • Next message: Russell Coker: "Re: Request: Limit LSM postings to subscribers!"

    Greg KH wrote:
    >On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:50:10PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    >>It may just be a
    >>perception, but it seems like I get far more spam from lsm than lkml or
    >>other public lists to which I subscribe.  Perhaps that is just because
    >>there is sufficient legitimate volume on those lists to make the
    >>signal-to-noise ratio acceptable.
    >I think lkml has better filters and some more active list admins :)
    LSM had a perfect signal:noise ratio when we used a closed list, but 
    LKML politik forced the imperfect approach of "open/filter" on us :-/  
    We're doing the best we can to filter, but this has been a very bad month.
    >>One might argue that aside from major new directions for LSM, any
    >>LSM-related discussions should just occur directly on lkml anyway.  
    >I agree.
    Don't most other major subsystems have a mailing list, and it's actually 
    the minor discussion that happens on the sub-list and the major stuff 
    that gets cc'd to LKML? What do e.g. linux-usb and linux-hotplug-devel 
    do about spam?
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. 
    Chief Scientist, Immunix
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 16:47:00 PDT