>> This also got me thinking of the flip side, spam reporting. There's a >> significant untapped load of spam that sniffer doesn't fail that we filter. >> I was thinking about creating a filter to copy your spam@ address with >> messages that get moved to our archive (we archive held spam for 30 days in >> case we missed an FP) that did not fail Sniffer. This would be after we >> have already processed for FPs.
>That would be a bad idea, sorry. After 30 days (heck, after 2) spam is >usually long-since filtered, or dead. As a result, looking at 30 day >old spam would have a cost, but little benefit. You misinterpreted what I was saying. I was not at all suggesting sending old spam. What I was talking about was copying spam@ with spam that does not fail sniffer _as it comes in_, or _during same day/next day reviews_ >What we do use from time to time are virtual spamtraps. In a virtual >spamtrap scenario, you can submit spam that reached a very high (very >low false positive) score but did not fail SNF. Generally this is done >by copying the message to a pop3 account that can be polled by our >bots. That is exactly what I was suggesting. We'll put it on our list to write a filter to do so when time permits. Just trying to help. Darin. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[email protected]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
