http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4505
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-30 17:49 ------- Bob, It's tricky getting a good corpus: There are spammy looking mails from sources that follow the rules. There are people who are so clueless that they label something spam rather than unsubscribe. There are people who do the same not because they are clueless, but if they don't recognize that something comes from a subscription or just aren't sure, know better than to take a chance on using a spammer's unsubscribe link. And there's Constant Contact who may have found a way around what at first glance appears to be a good defense against spam. So how do you have a clean corpus when it could contain edge cases that are classified wrong? What is the "correct" score for such mail? If the only difference between a piece of spam and a piece of ham is whether the recipient subscribed to it, how do you call either one an FP or an FN for the purpose of the rule scoring program? I don't have answers to that. By the way, if Constant Contact really is doing that, they must be counting on low numbers of complaints. That link I posted to Ironport's site listed the Bonded Sender fees as of two years ago. It makes it risky for a single customer to spam. But I can see how Constant Contact could have a business model based on getting paid by a mix of spammers and hammers. The Bonded Sender fines are based on number of complaints per million mails. If you want to nail them, get aggressive about reporting the confirmed RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED spam. Once the numbers of complaints reach the threshold where it costs Constant Contact $1000 per spam mail they are going to have to clean up their act if it really is that sleazy. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
