On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 16:00, Warren Togami<[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
if we had enough ham to get useful results with that limit, sure. As it is, I'm not sure that's the case. -- --j.
