at every message going through the spam queue to make sure it's not someone
asking for support or berating us for the fact that SA missed one and was overenthusiastic
about another.
We do keep a big directory of spam and a somewhat smaller directory of
non-spam to prime the learning filter, we also let SA adjust the weights of various tokens, to adapt to the stream it's getting, unfortunately we don't have the resources to close the feedback loop and make sure that every classification is verified.
As far as the political ramifications of Spam Filtering in general, I don't think
it's nearly as big of a problem as some have suggested. At this point abuses are too easy to spot, and if a (bipartisan) group were to issue a list of MX's that could be used as a whitelist, we would probably use it.
Overall filtering is a losing proposition, I think it's much more effective
to close the the gaping holes in the smtp protocol, even if it's somewhat inconvenient.
Some RFC's that are useful for this: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2554.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt
if mail relays authenticated each other and required valid certificates before passing or accepting mail spam would be a minor problem, easily dealt with.
To get to that point is going to take a LOT of doing.
l8r
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 09:59 AM, Edward Craig wrote:
I get the impression that when I forward a message (headers"Microsoft has resolved this issue. We have put processes in place to ensure there is no recurrence of this eventuality." -Microsoft
expanded) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it sets my Baysian filter up, and anything it
sees that looks like this message gets a spam rating based on its
similarity to the forwarded message. Do repeated messages which fail the
test add to the negative effect on subsequent similar messages?
Now, because efn users are way too human, they're fully capable of
mistaking somebody's legitimate email with a "Subj: Hi" with spam, sight
unseen, for some reason (like maybe seeing way too many spams with a
"Subj: Hi" but instead of an introduction to someone or something of
interest, an illustrated discussion of attribute enhancement. Graphic
illustration, abbreviated discussion.).
So the opposite of spam is tofu, thus the counter-spell to a
false spam is to send it, headers expanded, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This should
take the bad luck off, but you may need to repeat, and repeat again and
again as necessary.
Given the amount of spam coming at us, and how automated I can get
about forwarding spam, I'm surprised I notice as few false positives as I
do for spam from SpamAssasin and what I'm beginning to regard as my
Baysian filter. My conjecture is a similar process for you, so forward the
Dean stuff to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as you would spam to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Ed Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Taxi (I need an income) GNU/Linux (I can afford a Free OS) Think this through with me, let me know your mind... Hunter/Garcia _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
"You are the eventuality of an anomaly , which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. " -The Architect
_______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
