On 8/24/12 5:58 AM, "Michael Monnerie" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 22. August 2012, 07:34:23 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail: >> Yup, that's exactly why we need more masscheck data, and we all know >> it. Basing most SA scores on fifteen people's email who are not >> representative of all email users (we're all computer geeks who mostly >> speak English) is *bad*. Please fix it > > Make an autoreporter in SA, sending e-mails with >15 or so points to a > central report address. Must be enabled, user must subscribe to get an > id, that id is reportet with the mail. You'll get a lot of reports if > subscription is made easy. No, auto-reporting is *bad*. Masschecks are done on human-verified ham and spam. If something is misclassified by SpamAssassin as spam, and then the rules are tuned to classify more things that look like that as spam, you end up with a cascade of FPs. Masschecks try to break that cycle by using humans. Also, ham is just a valuable (perhaps more so) as spam. -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
