On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:46, Jeff Chan<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:40:34 PM, Justin Mason wrote: >> One useful factor of ham is that it's not time-sensitive; a mail that >> was ham in 2003 would still be ham today. So we can collect old ham >> mail archives, or submissions of relatively old mail, if necessary. > > This may be a false assumption. A spamvertised or spam sending > domain from 2003 could have expired and been re-registered by > a different organization. Same for ham. Both ham and spam > should have expiration times. 1 year would probably be good, > since spamvertised domains probably don't get renewed.
yep, I was talking with a SURBLer about this last week I think. we should probably add meta conditions ot the URIBL ruleset to ensure they don't fire at all on old messages. -- --j.
