Re: [sniffer] My issues with the General category, looking forabettersolution

2004-12-17 Thread Matt




Greg,

Yes, I should have inserted a "probably" or otherwise taken more care
with my words. I didn't mean for my reply to be contentious.

Anyway, here's a sample of what I am talking about. I've isolated most
major bulk-mail providers from the rest of my Hold E-mail which
constitutes about 2% of all blocked mail on my system. From midnight
though 7 a.m. (7 hours) I had 49 messages held that were from these
providers. Of those 49 messages, 42 were false positives, partly due
to my own fault in weighting Big Foot Interactive to auto-hold, but of
the 42, 26 were tagged by Sniffer-General. Those were from the
following companies:

 Circuit City
 Sur La Table (a wine shop)
 eWEEK
 Daily Inbox
 Harry and David
 Things Remembered

What I think is happening is that people buy something online at
Circuit City, and then Circuit City automatically adds them to their
E-mail list, and then someone that doesn't like the practice of default
opt-in reports it to Sniffer and it is added to the General category.
The same thing probably happened to most of the list above except for
Daily Inbox which is not related to commerce. There is also a
possibility of some harvesting or not honoring opt-outs, but the sample
above is not nearly as bad or suggestive of such as most
Sniffer-General hits.

I have also found that SpamCop and SenderDB-Block have similar issues,
often having what I personally consider to be false positives on
first-party advertising such as the list above (at least one of the
three paid a role in virtually all of the 42 false positives this
morning). I get the feeling that SpamCop has either dirty spamtraps
(old dead accounts or catch-alls used as spamtraps) or there are enough
submissions of this stuff for them to tag these sources, and I have a
feeling that Alligate which powers SenderDB has bayesian filtering that
isn't friendly to advertising content or is triggered by other things
like SpamCop, or shared IP's are causing the hits on some of it.

Am I just one of a few that considers these things to be false
positives? Do others just not really care if this stuff gets blocked?
I'm not sure, but I don't want to keep reporting these things as FP's
only to piss off the people that are reporting them, and I don't wish
for the people that consider them to be spam to impact my system in the
way that it is currently if I can help it, and I hope there is an
easier way to approach this. Note that I expect no miracles, I just
thought this was something that might be fruitful to discuss.

Matt






System Administrator wrote:

  on 12/16/04 5:36 PM, Matt wrote:

  
  
The reason why you aren't seeing these is because you aren't weighting Sniffer
General at your subject tagging or hold weight, so it takes multiple hits for
the false positives to show up on your system.

  
  
Wow, I didn't realize you knew so much about my system. By the way, is 33
more or less than 30? I've always thought 33 (sniffer-general weight on my
system) was more than 30 (subject tagging weight), but if you are telling me
it is less, ...

Greg


This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html


  


-- 
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=




Re: [sniffer] My issues with the General category, looking forabettersolution

2004-12-17 Thread Scott Fisher



I would tend to agree with you that these are false 
positives. Eweek, Infoworld, Birthday Express, Best Buy, Chadwicks cause regular 
spam tagging here.

If it is a company I've heard of and the links and 
such point back to that company, I usually give it the benefit of the 
doubt.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Matt 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 6:35 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [sniffer] My issues with the 
  General category, looking forabettersolution
  Greg,Yes, I should have inserted a "probably" or 
  otherwise taken more care with my words. I didn't mean for my reply to 
  be contentious.Anyway, here's a sample of what I am talking 
  about. I've isolated most major bulk-mail providers from the rest of my 
  Hold E-mail which constitutes about 2% of all blocked mail on my system. 
  From midnight though 7 a.m. (7 hours) I had 49 messages held that were from 
  these providers. Of those 49 messages, 42 were false positives, partly 
  due to my own fault in weighting Big Foot Interactive to auto-hold, but of the 
  42, 26 were tagged by Sniffer-General. Those were from the following 
  companies: Circuit City Sur La 
  Table (a wine shop) eWEEK Daily 
  Inbox Harry and David Things 
  RememberedWhat I think is happening is that people buy something 
  online at Circuit City, and then Circuit City automatically adds them to their 
  E-mail list, and then someone that doesn't like the practice of default opt-in 
  reports it to Sniffer and it is added to the General category. The same 
  thing probably happened to most of the list above except for Daily Inbox which 
  is not related to commerce. There is also a possibility of some 
  harvesting or not honoring opt-outs, but the sample above is not nearly as bad 
  or suggestive of such as most Sniffer-General hits.I have also found 
  that SpamCop and SenderDB-Block have similar issues, often having what I 
  personally consider to be false positives on first-party advertising such as 
  the list above (at least one of the three paid a role in virtually all of the 
  42 false positives this morning). I get the feeling that SpamCop has 
  either dirty spamtraps (old dead accounts or catch-alls used as spamtraps) or 
  there are enough submissions of this stuff for them to tag these sources, and 
  I have a feeling that Alligate which powers SenderDB has bayesian filtering 
  that isn't friendly to advertising content or is triggered by other things 
  like SpamCop, or shared IP's are causing the hits on some of it.Am I 
  just one of a few that considers these things to be false positives? Do 
  others just not really care if this stuff gets blocked? I'm not sure, 
  but I don't want to keep reporting these things as FP's only to piss off the 
  people that are reporting them, and I don't wish for the people that consider 
  them to be spam to impact my system in the way that it is currently if I can 
  help it, and I hope there is an easier way to approach this. Note that I 
  expect no miracles, I just thought this was something that might be fruitful 
  to discuss.MattSystem Administrator wrote: 

  on 12/16/04 5:36 PM, Matt wrote:

  
The reason why you aren't seeing these is because you aren't weighting Sniffer
General at your subject tagging or hold weight, so it takes multiple hits for
the false positives to show up on your system.

Wow, I didn't realize you knew so much about my system. By the way, is 33
more or less than 30? I've always thought 33 (sniffer-general weight on my
system) was more than 30 (subject tagging weight), but if you are telling me
it is less, ...

Greg


This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html


  -- 
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=