On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Sasha Pachev wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 January 2002 06:20 pm, Michael Widenius wrote: > > I think we can avoid things like this by adding some extra 'not- > > allowed-on-the-list' words, that a non-subscribe can't use, without > > including an extra keyword in the email. > > > > Sasha, what do you think about this? > > The point is that we block MOST spams, not EVERY spam that can be invented. > Yes, if the spammer happens to say "********", his message will make it [ filter word hidden to prove a point ^^^^^^^^] > through. So what? This is just one message. If the current filter system > proves inadequate we will consider adjusting it. But for now, requiring the > sender to use one of the "good" words is sufficient to maintain a good signal > to noise ratio in my opinion. This begs the question, what is "a good signal to noise ratio?" How much spam must escape the filter before you consider it "inadequate?" Can you see that this threshold is subjective, and that we've already crossed it for some (many?). I joined this list several months ago. My subjective impression (I haven't been counting) is that the amount of spam making it through the filter is increasing. Perhaps this is cyclical and I just happened to join at a low point, but it doesn't *feel* that way. The number of complaints about the spam is also increasing. Your customers are telling you something. It is easy to read the above response as "It works well enough for me, quit whining." I doubt that's the professional impression you want to give. You say, "This is just one message." It is not. Six of these have escaped the filter already today. None of them use any of the 4 filter words. At the very least, I'd suggest you fix the filter to actually do what you say it does, *require* one of the "good" *words*. Personally, I'm not that bothered by the spam. I find deleting the spam just as easy as deleting the 70-100 on-topic messages per day that don't interest me. On the other hand, I also don't see the big deal with requiring a subscription to post. Seems like a reasonable cost to get otherwise free help. (A little cost might just encourage a little more manual reading.) Finally, I'll just add that I've never been on a list where suggestions that "complaining about spam to the list only adds to the problem" has had any positive effect (despite it's apparent truth). Michael For the filter: charitable stableboy's vegetable grotesquery --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
