On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, [email protected] wrote:
On 03/02, John Hardin wrote:
Is the desire for distributed processing stronger than the desire
for consistent results? I'd suggest at least part of the problem
could be addressed by uploading the spam corpora and letting the
central masscheck chew on it. Automating the collect-expire-upload
process for corpora is easy and is less sensitive to temporary
outages - so what if your uploaded spam corpus is a week stale due
to a local failure?
The entire reason for not uploading the spam corpora itself is privacy.
Privacy is why I only mentioned the spam corpora. Can you give me an
example of something in a spam you want kept private?
However, I'd rather not also need to think about which of my emails might
contain information too sensitive to upload where someone else might be
abel to read it. (Even though, really, if it's that sensitive, it
shouldn't be going over SMTP in cleartext.)
Agreed that the ham corpus has privacy issues making upload to
semi-private storage problematic. I wasn't suggesting that.
But I have wondered about uploading my spam, and running mass-check on my
non-spam.
I think the only objections to uploading spam are leaking valid private
email addresses (which the spammers _already have_ or they wouldn't appear
in the spam corpus) and the desire to spread the processing load around.
Are there any objections I'm not seeing?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[email protected] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [email protected]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phobias should not be the basis for laws.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until Albert Einstein's 132nd Birthday
