on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:29:29AM -0000, Nick Rothwell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Actually, that's how I run TMDA in what I call my "non-strict" mode: Only > > > challenge those who managed to make their message look like Spam, as a last > > > resort for them to get the message through. > > > > If it's already spam, and already tests as spam, why challenge it? > > Just because something tests positive as spam, that doesn't mean it is > spam. Spam filters are only heuristic. It's better to challenge a > suspect message than just drop it (or bounce it, in which case you > might as well challenge it instead).
The message clocked in at 8.4 points. Odds that it was anything _but_ spam are quite small. I'll call it four nines, though I'll have to dig for some stats before I can give that full confidence. > As you said: > > > > Of course, no irony would be complete without the additional irony: > > > > > > The site is using SpamAssassin, tagged the message as spam, and > > > challenged me on it anyway. > > In other words, by your own logic, either you're a spammer, or spam > filters don't work reliably. Would you rather than this site deleted > your mail silently? By my logic: if I approved the message, the user would have been spammed. I've got a few days to do just that if I choose. Another risk of replying to spoofed senders. Smoke that. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Unless you are very rich and very eccentric, you will not enjoy the luxury of having a computer in your own home. -- Ed Yourdon, _Techniques of Program Structure and Design_, 1975
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
