Dean,
--On 17. desember 2003 16:01 -0500 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is ridiculous. The IETF is not getting a lot of spam, so adding
SpamAssassin headers is a solution in need of a problem.
the reason you don't see a lot of spam on IETF lists is because it's sent
to the list
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 17. desember 2003 16:01 -0500 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is ridiculous. The IETF is not getting a lot of spam, so adding
SpamAssassin headers is a solution in need of a problem.
the reason you don't see a lot of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the reason you don't see a lot of spam on IETF lists is because it's
sent to the list administrators, and they filter it by hand.
Clearly, this cannot continue (unless we come up with some way to
pay people to perform this service).
The
the reason you don't see a lot of spam on IETF lists is because it's
sent to the list administrators, and they filter it by hand.
The chief beneficiaries of automatic spam detection and deletion in
the current IETF setup is the list administrators.
I'm one of those list administrators and I can
Keith,
the reason the secretariat is doing this in stages is exactly because we
want to see how big the false-positive issue is.
I currently personally use Mailman 2.60 with Bayesian filtering and
close-to-default rules; it seems to run at a very low rate of false
positives.
--On 18.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
I'm one of those list administrators and I can attest that having spam
flood the review queues of the mailing lists is a huge problem.
Ahh. Mail from non-subscribers that has to be reviewed. SpamBayes or
other content filters would be a far better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
| Keith,
|
| the reason the secretariat is doing this in stages is exactly because we
| want to see how big the false-positive issue is.
|
| I currently personally use Mailman 2.60 with Bayesian filtering and
|
Dean Anderson wrote:
Mostly, this is due to the revenge oriented blacklists that it uses.
You are aware that's it's trivial to disable all the blacklist testing in
the config, aren't you? SpamAssassin is extremely configurable.
-- Jake Nelson
On 17-dec-03, at 1:34, Sandy Wills wrote:
I would like to propose a solution to the looming religious war:
Some people are serious about wanting to see every message that
crosses the ietf domain, and will offer violence to anyone who wants
to keep their daily dose of spam away from them.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
line to say [ietf] because there is no need for such. The messages
can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
at the headers..
I
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject
line to say [ietf] because there is no need for such. The messages
can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look
at the headers..
I
On Tue December 16 2003 21:45, Franck Martin wrote:
It was replied to me a lot of technical reasons on how I could
filter otherwise. But I'm a human and I like to see it is an [ietf]
mail.
I see that it is an IETF mail by seeing that it got routed into my IETF
folder. (It gets there by
I just match on either the
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
header, or the ML specific email address I've created.
I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than
most other email clients I've used in the past.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500
Gordon Cook
On Tue December 16 2003 22:35, Sujit Menon wrote:
Subject line should have only: (IETF Mailing List)
Do you mean only as in, that should be the entire subject line, or as
in, that should be all that should be in the tag prepended to the
subject line? As a tag, it's still much longer than
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:34:35 EST, Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[1] Could we come up with a 512-bit flag system[2]? Would that be
enough? I don't want dick ads, I do want breast ads, I won't read
anything from California, I really, really want stuff from Dell.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
I have serious concerns about the use of spamassassin to filter IETF
mail, but it depends hugely on the details.
If the secretariat is just tagging mail, I don't have a big problem with
that.
If the
The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
human prioritization much easier. Headers are for programs, subject
content is for
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:21 PST, David Morris said:
The point of [ietf] has little to do with programatic filters and much to
do with human visual filtering. Seeing the list tag in the list of
subjects provided in the index list provided by my mail client makes
human prioritization much
This is ridiculous. The IETF is not getting a lot of spam, so adding
SpamAssassin headers is a solution in need of a problem.
I think this kind of filtering violates the IETF charter on public
participation. SpamAssassin in particular uses many dubious and
revenge-oriented blacklists to make it
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Sandy Wills wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...this implementation is to allow the IETF community to get used
to having these headers in the messages, and allow us to make any
changes to the filtering rules.
The above seems like a thinly veiled attempt to make
Tuesday 16 December 2003, Sandy Wills wrote:
Would it be possible to somehow flag messages as valid or bogus
(or maybe Holy Writ or Message from Satan), and then allow
subscribers to set their systems to automatically filter on these
labels, if they care?
Spamassassin has the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
...this implementation is to allow the IETF community to get used
to having these headers in the messages, and allow us to make any
changes to the filtering rules.
This will also allow us to look into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
good
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message?
--
=
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 14:05, Gordon Cook wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
good
good...
Do you forbid attachments too? look at anonizer it clears e-mails from a lot of harmfull code...
would it be asking too much to add
On 17 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 14:05, Gordon Cook wrote:
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message?
Me three! Please! Some mail list software allows me to set my own tag but
a recent attempt to find such a feature on the IETF
:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Adding SpamAssassin
Headers to IETF mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rg
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, David Morris wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 14:05, Gordon Cook wrote:
would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message?
Me three! Please! Some mail list software allows me to set my own tag but
a recent attempt to find such a feature on
27 matches
Mail list logo
