Quoting Lee Winter (lee.j.i.win...@gmail.com): > I did the most recent three months of 2009, but the density was pretty low.
I haven't checked the wiki and I'm not online right now, but please take care to register this in the page. > > > Old archives are also missing reviews, particularly a few from 2005 > > and nearly all from 2004, not to mention older archives. > > So I started at the beginning (part of 1998) and went to the end of > 2002. If I have time this week I will look at 2003-2005. Ditto. > > Please take some time to do this work. This is not that time > > consuming: one month can be reviewed in about 10-15 minutes....even > > less when you're used to methods for spotting spams. > > The work is pretty tedious and reviewing non-spam emails five time is > extremely inefficient. Consider a solution that would allow one > person to scan the archive to generate a list of spam targets. If the > other four reviewers only had to review the listed spam candidates > they would not have to waste their time reviewing non-spam. I'm sure the listmasters would welcome such improvements but, well, we already have a very good tool. Also, restricting the list to what the first person has identified would increase the risk of missing some spams. When I worked on the entire archive, I finally dropped the web interface and used an alternative method: - download the list archives as mailboxes - pass them through my CRM114 spam filter - open them in my MUA (mutt) - tag spam messages (being processed by CRM114, most spams are already identified by CRM114 markers) - bounce them to the spam report mail addresse (report-lists...@lists.debian.org) with the following key macro: macro index \eL "breport-lists...@lists.debian.org\no\nq" "report as spam to Debian lists" I found this much more efficient. Downloading list archives as mailboxes is only accessible to Debian developers but I can provide them to people who might need them.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
