arni wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: >> Actually it did, take away the spamtrap fed blackholes (PBL and SPAMCOP) >> and the spamtrap fed BAYES as well and it scores a whopping 3.1 thanks >> to the BOTNET plugin (which is amazing btw). That hit was all from >> late-receiver effect. >> > That sounds a bit like "if we stopped trying to detect spam, we'd fail > to catch it" > Sounds more like "if we didn't rely on other people to have seen this particular abusive host before us and our learning system to have seen past examples of spam that looks a whole lot like this one from headers alone to detect this particular spam, we'd fail to catch it until we've trained our system and the abusive host has been reported to various lists".
That's what makes policy (e.g. MTA checks, BOTNET) and behavior based detection work as well as it does, it's proactive instead of reactive.
