My apologies to Andre then.
Even if he's not making a statement as a Nokia employee, he's still a representative for the maemo.org community. Comments such as his (even though it was ultimately in jest) are not very professional when people are bringing up real concerns.

For the 'record', spam RARELY made it to my inbox before I joined in on the Maemo bugzilla fun, now I get several a day that make it past the gmail spam blocker..

*sigh*.....

Bugzilla 3.4 does not show user account email addresses to people not authenticated. If it does somewhere, it is a bug.
Don't know of any Maemo/MeeGo policies about this.

Yes. See comment 5 in that report.

Heh, no problem.

Well, I could add a footer to each of my postings here:
"It should be obvious but in case it isn't: the opinions reflected here are my own. They are not the views of my employer, the Queen of England, George W. Bush or anyone else." (copied from mezcalero's blog).
However I have no plans to do that.
Plus I could also simply stay away from talk.maemo.org.
But I have no plans to do that either.

True. However I don't manage to be serious the entire day as work and open source communities should also be fun, and I can live with the fact that sometimes my specific sense of humour is confusing, not understood, or not well-received.
That's the collateral damage I am more than willing to accept as egoistically speaking I have a way better life by that.

Plus I get more hatemail (being the evil guy closing some unbelievably important bug reports/requests that will make the world collapse tomorrow if not getting fixed ASAP) that I collect and later on publish as a book to make lotsa $$$$!!!!

(Disclaimer: This was a bloody serious posting, as always.)

Thanks - I thought it best to ask as your boiler plate text confused me. No doubt it will confuse new bug reporters too, many of whom may decide not to bother signing up as a result.

It might be worth clarifying that before we all pile headlong into the new meego.com defect tracking system. All organisations should at least decide and agree publicly that the privacy of their members/community is of paramount importance, even if they can't decide in a month of Sundays what fracking forum software to use (joke).

Thanks.

Put me down for a copy!

bugs.maemo.org refuses to open new accounts for users who protect themselves with disposable email addresses. Then the db admins have the nerve to publicize everyones email address! This is totally reckless and irresponsible.

bugs.maemo.org is being harvested by spammers, who are then attacking these accounts chronically.

Has anyone discovered a type of disposable email address that bugs.maemo.org does not know about?

Gmail keeps the spam out.

Spam is a fact of life, you just have to deal with it. Having an email address that can't filter spam is like having a car with no roof - it's not practical for everyday use.

True that. I already got to my GMail account before I signed up here, so I never thought about that.

Sure, as well as the legit email. Gmail is for simple users. Advanced users certainly do not depend on gmail accounts. It has false positives and in terms of capability it's too limiting. It's also weakly secured and far too inadequate to win support from any street wise users.

Know your audience. A bug tracking system needs to cater to advanced users. By accepting disposable addresses, this would not prevent basic users from supplying their gmail addresses if they want access.
Of course. You are stating my case.
Exactly my point. So why limit yourself to one lousy mechanism for protection? You don't force everyone to adopt the lowest common denominator. It makes no sense from a security standpoint. The rule of least privilege trumps here. You don't disclose more sensitive information than needed for the job - even in your hypothetical world where there are no false positives, and all spam is detected as a true positive.
Insisting that users rely on one instrument for protection is like having a car with a roof but no windows, and claiming the roof will protect you from the rain. It's not a complete solution. Nor is filtering.

Of course you still filter. But you do it based on content, not IP address. Gmails filtering is not sophisticated enough to rely wholly on content analysis. Gmail takes that crude and error prone step of blackballing IP addresses. Gmail also has blocks in place to prevent dynamic outbound FROM header fields. They overzealously try to stop their own users from sending spam, and as a result they restrict users from using the more effective self-defensive mechanisms.