> Brightmail is odd. I've never gotten a particularly good vibe from them.
> I'm in general very leery of commercial filtering services because in
> order to compete commercially they're pretty much out of necessity keeping
> their precise techniques secret, and that opens up more false positive
> risks and other related problems than I'd be comfortable with.
There's nothing particularly secret about Brightmail's approach -- they have
a network of thousands of spam trap addresses feeding spam to live people on
duty 24/7 tweaking their spam filters in real time.
It's a fantastically expensive and labor-intensive approach to spam
filtering, and the fact that it's economically viable should remind us of how
serious the spam problem is.
> They're also, from that article, again missing the point of the RBL.
Right. As recently mentioned, the point of the RBL isn't to block
today's spam, it's to prevent tomorrow's spam.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
