jdow a écrit : > Rune, there are two canonical means of solving that petty issue. If > there is someone likely to send you such a message white list her. Or > simply munge the name, for example http://uri-here-M/uri/. >
I would like to whitelist all legitimate senders. unfortunately, I don't have their addresses:) If I could whitelist non spammers (or blocklist spammers), I wouldn't need heuristic/bayesian/blahblahmatic filters. so the argument: "whitelist is the answer" that I've seen here more than once is just useless here. once again, the FPs I get are from addresses I can't whitelist before getting their mail, which gets tagged as spam before I can whitelist it. ok? 1- friends/collegues/partners/... do change their email address. 2- lost friends can get my email address (from the web or from another friend) 3- when opt-in a letter, I don't know what addresse they'll use .... I understand that things may be easy for some people who will just ignore email. but let me claim to be from the other part (not sure it's a minority...). My approach with SA so far was: "if this test generates an FP, look at it, if it sound silly, disable it". just because some perceptron (or call it whatever you prefer) gets inputs and religiously generates scores doesn't mean I should religiously obeit it. if you give more conditions to the preceptron, it'll generate other results. so let's stop the "hey, the scores are the optimal result of the preceptron". also, when someone's filter misses spam, the common answer is 'use SARE". but it seems to me that SARE is not managed (they don't seem to care about false positive reports). worst, all SA docs suggest using external rules, without warning about the dangers.... the default SA rules use sorbs lists. This is now known to be too aggressive (lists large ISPs for example, even their duhl isn't safe). ahem...
