On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 12:59 +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Thats really nice, but it seems a little strange to have everyone > subscribed to list all devoting cpu cycles to filtering if a single > filter on the list input would serve the same function.
The filters on a centralised server will always be behind current SPAM trends, as far as I can see because it's more difficult to train than your local SPAM solutions. Yes, we should have a centralised SPAM filter (and probably do) but without someone training it it's going to lag and more SPAM will get through. If you keep your own filters trained and working properly, you'll not see the ones that do creep through. My main point in short, is that if people kept their own SPAM solutions working properly, they wouldn't notice the odd one that slips through SLUG's SPAM processing. They would also have more appreciation for the work involved in keeping SPAM filters up to date. -- Peter Reith is told in Darwin by Brigadier Silverstone that the video does not show childern in the water. He replies "Well, we'd better not see the video!" -- October 9th, 2002. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
