On 08/13/2009 07:26 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.
IMHO, none of the network tests should be used during masscheck for ham
older than 4 weeks. Thoughts?
Warren Togami
[email protected]
