Spam

[Greg Grossmeier]

On a related note:

To those who see messages like the one at the bottom of this bug report:
https://launchpad.net/bugs/177966  (pleas to stop receiving bug mail "spam")

I have seen a few and responded personally to the people wanting to be 
removed with an email message similar to this:
======
Hello,

I hope no one else has already sent you an email in response to your 
plea to be removed from the mailing list.  If so, sorry for the duplication.

You responded to this bug report: 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/177966

That bug report is about the package Update-Manager.  It appears as 
though you are subscribed to all bugs for that package, as you can see 
on this page: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/   (on 
the left, under "Bug Subscriptions."

To stop receiving those emails but continue to have an account on 
Launchpad, you can go to that page and click on the Unsubscribe link.

To stop receiving emails AND cancel your Launchpad account, you can go 
to this page: https://launchpad.net/~djmikesolo   and click on Change 
Details, then there is a link at the bottom that says "Deactivate your 
account" which, deactivates your account.

All the best,

Greg
======

Feel free to use that as a template for your own messages.

Best,

Greg



Tom Haddon wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 15:10 +1300, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Daniel wrote on 15/03/08 23:27:
>>>> I think the spam should stay on a page that's not indexed by any
>>>> search engine. Before that, is there something similar to the Akismet
>>>> plugin in Wordpress that could mark comments and reports as spam
>>>> automatically? It could ease the work of the teams, by storing - on a
>>>> non-indexed page - the suspicious messages and announcing one of the
>>>> team members, or all, about the problem and fix it.
>>>> ...
> The first step is to implement spam removal in Launchpad.
> <http://launchpad.net/bugs/45419>
> 
>> Speaking as one of the main people removing spam currently in a very
>> laborious and error prone way, +1 to that!
> 
>> Thanks, Tom
> 
> Once we've done that, we'll have a much better idea of whether it's
> necessary to automate spam detection at all.
> 
> Cheers
>>