Hi, On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:22:09 -0700 Mike Hogsett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think my main point is this... treating hoaxes as spam is a bad > > idea. An ideal add-on or improvement to SpamAssassin would be to have > > some way to deal with unwanted personal e-mails - but spam is bulk and > > hoaxes are personal. Those two don't mix well. > > I fully respect your thoughts on this, and its probably the correct one, > but I personally see two classes of email, 'mail I want' and 'mail I > don't'. > > I feel that hoaxes, like spam, are in the 'mail I don't' class. Agreed, as long as spam is a subset of 'mail I don't want' rather than 'spam' = 'mail I don't want.' I disagree that hoaxes are personal; although the recipient may normally want to communicate with the sender, the text is often boilerplate and not specifically applicable to the recipient (I reside on the same planet as Craig Shurgold[1]. Big deal.) Worse yet is the "send to all your friends" chain-letter characteristic. The impersonal and broadcast nature of the message implies bulk, the 'B' in UBE, the One True Definition of Spam so in my corner of the universe, hoax mails are right up there with misdirected bounces, C/R challenges, and virus warnings, viruses, mysterious body-free messages[2], as well as standard offers to increase your mortgage 3 inches, make your toner cartridge rock-hard, and supply you with GRuntEde Loust pRiZ fUr Vnlorga! Currently SA is tuned to catch a subset of spam (UBE), primarily UCE. The focus is shifting however. While SA has dropped useful but contentious rules such as MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE, it has also evolved into more of a generic mail filtering platform with the addition of the plugin architecture in 3.x. In that respect, the hoax, virus, and anti-anti-virus rules are all very welcome additions outside the core. The ease of finding and installing third-party rulesets as well as the plugin architecture should help make SA a very flexible mail policy agent. And while I don't relish the job of being an electronic postal inspector[3] I'd like to see rulesets and a Bayesian analyser for profanity detection. Not because I'm a prude but because there are schools and other organizations that are required by mission or by law to filter mail and usually the only tools available are expensive, broken, proprietary, and come with a hidden agenda[4]. Anything that lets mail admins enforce the appropriate policy for their systems effectively, transparently, and cheaply is a good thing. -- Bob [1] http://www.lava.net/~higak/chain/sick/shergold.htm - He got better. [2] Yes Virginia, it can be spam without any content at all. [3] http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/ (formerly http://www.uspis.gov) [4] Search for 'cybersitter' and 'retaliation' on Google.
