On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 15:32, Michael Parker<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Justin Mason wrote: > >> 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. > > This is a patch to the Reuse plugin I'd like to see, if someone has any > ideas please speak up.
it'd work well there. Pretend to be able to reuse previous hits, but the actual effect would be to inhibit the rule entirely on old mails. -- --j.
