Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 22 July 2006 20:23:32 +0800 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> No point seen in looking at a 'yellow' list, of servers that sometimes >> send spam and sometimes do not. By definition, that should be most of >> the world. >> >> > > Yes, but knowing that a host has been seen sending good email is useful > information - it might make you less likely to reject. > > Perhaps more useful for bayesian analysis would be a result that encoded > the proportion of seen mail that was ranked as spam. For example, returning > an IP address 127.0.0.xxx where xxx varied from 0 for no spam to 255 for no > ham. > >
That's an interesting idea. It has crossed my mind. However some people forward email to accounts on my server and the server they forward from often has little or no spam filtering. That the forwarding server might appear to be more of a spam source than normal. For example, eff.org sends my 85% spam, but that's because they are against spam filtering and several people with eff accounts use my filtering service. Most people would see 100% ham from that source. One of the problems I have which could be fixed with more data is that most of my customers are in the US/Australia/and Northern Europe. So Italian servers that probably send lots of good email send me only spam. Thus Italian ISPs might get blacklisted. With more data from more sources this wouldn't happen. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
