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 -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ Chief Scientist, Immunix http://immunix.com http://www.immunix.com/shop/ _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 16:47:00 PDT