On Tuesday 03 May 2005 13:00, Pascal Hakim wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:04:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > On Tue, 3 May 2005, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > We are not accepting this on the debian-* lists normally, [...] > > > > I disagree. We *are* accepting it on the debian-* lists normally. > > Do you want some random sample from my debian-lists-spam mbox > > folder? > > > > What is commonly called "Debian mailing list advertising policy" is > > currently a bad joke. IMHO, we should either: > > > > a) Be serious and remove such joke from lists.debian.org web pages. > > Just because no one is enforcing it at the moment, doesn't mean that > it will never be enforced. If you wish to start chasing people to > collect payment, then feel free to start doing it. > > > b) Be serious and prevent spam from reaching our lists *much* more > > effectively. What we are doing to fight spam in the lists is > > clearly not enough. > > What we are doing is mostly what the listmasters believe is > appropriate. I'm at the point, where I believe that having much > stricter spam checking results in too many false positives, or causes > our users more trouble than its worth. > > If there was a perfect solution to spam, we'd all be using it > already.
The filtering on the Debian lists can certainly be much better. I'm using bayesian SA on my own server and for the past 4-6 months I've seen a >99% result with only 1 or 2 spam mails getting through per month and zero ham mails incorrctly getting marked as spam. And this is done without much effort. I spend as little as 2-3 minutes per week feeding/training it with new spam/ham. Best regards, -- Frederik Dannemare | http://sentinel.dk | http://linuxworlddomination.dk http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=Frederik+Dannemare http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/FrederikDannemare Key fingerprint = 30CF 7AD3 17D9 1A63 A730 ECA6 0D4C 2C97 9D9A 238E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
