-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes: > LOL, don't take my post the wrong way. It seriously wasn't towards you. It > hit an exposed nerve having to do with something else. > > I understand your concerns about hoaxes. I believe they will get treated > like the virus rules: > http://www.exit0.us/index.php/VirusBounceRules > Which may be created in a cf file, but not in RDJ. And certainly with a big > HUGE warning label about FPs, bayes DB changes, and possibly ear infections. > :) Yeah, there's definitely various things worth filtering that aren't spam, and SpamAssassin's a good way to do it. As well as hoaxes (which I don't mind that much ;) there's: - virus bounces (the VirusBounceRules set) - spam bounces The approach I took in the first draft of the VirusBounceRules set was to have a well-defined prefix for the rules in that ruleset; "VBOUNCE_". Then a user can grep the X-Spam-Status line for "VBOUNCE" and take a "this is a virus bounce, not spam" action if that's present -- since filtering for vbounces may (and probably should) be different than that for spam. Probably the same would be a good plan for hoax mails, or other future types... - --j. > --Chris > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: E. Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:07 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Scoring Hoaxes > > > > > >I am fully aware of the difference between standard SA and SARE > >(although I realize my post may have left that open for some > >confusion - > >my apologies). > > > >I use and appreciate SARE - the well-developed rule-sets have > >saved our > >company an awful lot of time sorting through e-mail! > > > >When a new admin pops up on this list asking for rules, SARE is the > >first place we send them - wholeheartedly and unreservedly. > > > >What concerns me is that a hoax ruleset has some serious drawbacks > >(which have already been discussed). It would be a ruleset entirely > >unrelated to spam, but rather focused entirely on a user's personal > >mail. False positives would be enough of a concern, but even accurate > >positives have their problems! > > > >SARE has the right to include whatever rulesets its creators > >choose, and > >I would never dream of telling anyone what they could or could not > >include in their ruleset list. However, I would hope that as a > >community-oriented resource (which does, in fact, rock) SARE would be > >responsible about how such a ruleset was provided. > > > >A newbie with AWL, Bayes auto-learning, and a hoax ruleset will very > >soon see his or her e-mail system degenerate into a massive mess. > > > >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. > > > ></soapbox> :) > > > >Evan II > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:47 PM > >To: 'E. Falk'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Scoring Hoaxes > > > >I have to make this perfectly clear, and this is not directed > >at you E.Falk. > > > > > >SARE rulesets are in no way shape or form part of the > >distribution of SA. > >They are not standard by that means. They are not required to > >be used with > >spamassassin. No one has to use SARE rulesets in any way shape > >or form with > >spamassasin to catch spam. SARE rulesets do not come with a > >blessing, seal > >of approval, or smiley sticker from the developers of SA. SARE > >rules do not > >go thru the same testing procedure as those rules included in > >an official SA > >distro. There is no official connection between SARE and SpamAssassin > >distros. > > > >SARE is just SARE > > > >With that all said for reasons that are my own,......SARE ROCKS! > > > >I like the wiki idea. If we get one started, SARE can test it > >against our > >growing collections of corpa(Corpi, corpora, > >corcrappymcmuffin, whatever I > >don't care!) against the rules we come up with for hoaxes. > >exit0.us sounds > >good to me. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFArb43QTcbUG5Y7woRAmsOAJ9zjOurQIzjhiKpz8P2Syre3wrAogCfQXs6 VNQ0T0xD+Lb48JFhm7AVax0= =5CHH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
