>...
>Paul,
>
>I've always thought of you as "chief scientist" among everyone on the spam
>assassin list... I've seen you dissect the inner mysterious workings of a
>spam like no other... uncovering the spammer's tracks like a superhero FBI
>agent meticulously piecing together data from the forensics lab.
>
>However, this time, I do think you've taken this DNS blacklist thing way too
>far. You have to consider the consumers of the DNS list as well.
>Overcomplicate this and few will ever get it to work effectively.
>
>:)
>
>Rob McEwen
>PowerView Systems
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Rob,
You have an excellent point. But I think if the rules or a plugin
can be written so that the typical user need only install it, the "hidden"
complexity won't matter. What I am afraid of it that the list can be made
useless by simple actions on the part of spammers (then everybody will have
wasted time, and maybe even opened up a hole for spam to get in - like
white-listing for twelve hours after an innocent looking message is sent).
To me, the data being offered seems too valuable not to try and take some
advantage of.
From the original discussson, this is intended to be an automatically
self-cleaning list, and that issue does greatly complicate things (though
it greatly reduces the work required of its operator). It is important
that a self-cleaning list can't be caused to ignore spam sources easily.
No doubt, I do often make things more complex than they appear to
be *and* I haven't had enough sleep recently, which I don't think has hurt
my logic (yet), but does interfere with my ability to explain things:).
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
