I dont think anyone is questioning the usefullness of tld based rules. Obiously
they are usefull in some situations. What people, including me, are arguing is that
they should NOT be part of the default ruleset since it would skew the results for
the rest of the world (the 5+ billion not living in
>Scott,
>
>I apologize, thi may not be the place, but you should tell thi lammer
>to get a life!
>
>> Not once in my 'net life have I seen a non-spam message from ANY of the
>> domains showing in the test as listed in your post. "Kill 'em all and let
>> /dev/null sort 'em out!", sez I.
You're
Scott,
I apologize, thi may not be the place, but you should tell thi lammer
to get a life!
> Not once in my 'net life have I seen a non-spam message from ANY of the
> domains showing in the test as listed in your post. "Kill 'em all and let
> /dev/null sort 'em out!", sez I.
Olivier
__
Scott Doty wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote regarding
>the "FROM_SPAMLAND" test:
>] http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/11679/350/7984404/
>
>>/\.(?:kr|cn|cl|ar|hk|il|th|tw|sg|za|tr|ma|ua|in|pe)(?:[\s\)\]]|$)/
>>Let the spear-chucking commence!
>>
>
>
-Original Message-
> From: Scott Doty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 15:51
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Proposed "FROM_SPAMLAND" user response summary (was
> Re: [SAtalk] A better alternative to test ROUND_THE_WORLD
>
>
>
I agree with the idea to make a rule for these -- but I think .za is
nowhere near as spammy as most of the rest in the list.
reb
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote regarding
the "FROM_SPAMLAND" test:
] http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/11679/350/7984404/
> /\.(?:kr|cn|cl|ar|hk|il|th|tw|sg|za|tr|ma|ua|in|pe)(?:[\s\)\]]|$)/
> Let the spear-chucking commence!
I took this suggestion to ou
People should be allowed to not-read or not-receive any or all of their
email. Period. It doesn't matter whether it's because they are
xenophobic morons, or because they don't know anyone outside the US -- It
doesn't matter because it's their mail and their spool.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Rob McMil
Still on my TODO list :)
C
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 04:17, Michael Moncur wrote:
> > I don't know if anyone's suggested this yet, but a "optional" sub-dir could
> > be added to the rules directory, to which a something like
> > "20_US_centric.cf"
> > could be put; SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS, ROUND_THE_WORL
On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 20:39, Lars Hansson wrote:
> addressspace is only used in China. And no, restructuring the network with
> other IP's is not an option.
Aw, come on, how hard can it be ;)
C
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
On Sun, 2002-03-03 at 18:36, Lars Hansson wrote:
> Isnt this exactly what the RBL's are for anyway? Catch the servers that actually
> ARE open relays as opposed to catching those that, well, might be depending
> on where you are.
The trouble with the RBLs is that they're reactive. This is proac
> I don't know if anyone's suggested this yet, but a "optional" sub-dir could
> be added to the rules directory, to which a something like
> "20_US_centric.cf"
> could be put; SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS, ROUND_THE_WORLD and so on could be put in
> it. Put a prominent note of the optional directory in the
I don't know if anyone's suggested this yet, but a "optional" sub-dir could
be added to the rules directory, to which a something like "20_US_centric.cf"
could be put; SUBJ_FULL_OF_8BITS, ROUND_THE_WORLD and so on could be put in
it. Put a prominent note of the optional directory in the README
On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 20:15:25 -0800
"Rob McMillin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would imagine it would work for others similarly situated. And I would
> seem to be in good company, with some US ISPs now taking the even more
> drastic step of disabling port 25 for Chinese subnets (203/8, for in
Lars Hansson wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:08:41 -0800
>"Rob McMillin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Let me get this straight -- we have ignorant and the willfully abusive
>>people in these countries creating or abetting spam for others to deal
>>with, and *we're* supposed to be concerned abo
On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:08:41 -0800
"Rob McMillin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me get this straight -- we have ignorant and the willfully abusive
> people in these countries creating or abetting spam for others to deal
> with, and *we're* supposed to be concerned about public relations?
The
Hi Craig,
>I agree that baseless discrimination is bad; however the goal here is
>not to punish evil country, or the people who live in them. In fact,
>the score of 3.0 for ROUND_THE_WORLD means that even if you happen to
>have one of those TLDs, you still need to be sending something
>spammy-lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sunday, 3. March 2002 19:02 schrieb Rob McMillin:
> weight set to zero. But I've had at least one yea on this subject, and I
> bet a test against a decent-size spam corpus would yield decent results.
Tests depending on the TLD od the messages woul
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Craig, I'd be curious to see this corpus -- where can I find it? I'd
> like to know, once and for all, how badly this kills the non-spam. Also,
> is there a testbed suite for checking the results against an arbitrary
> corpus?
The stuff in the /masses directory of the di
Rob McMillin wrote:
> Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>
> >Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
> >>them out.
> >>
> >The other problem with using this type of test in a spam corpus is
> >that you're using a small subset of g
Craig R Hughes wrote:
>Olivier Nicole wrote:
>
>>It would be best to avoid ruining the slowly building good reputation
>>of SA (attending Apricot yesterday, SA was cited as the best anti-spam
>>product one could choose -- Apricot is a yearly international
>>conference in Asia-Pacific).
>>
>
>I ag
Patches happily accepted :)
Bugzilla feature requests too :)
C
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> It would be better to find a rule that just worked. For example, one
> method would be a TLD "whitelist". As spamassassin receives mail,
> there are two counters for each TLD. One is total messages and th
Olivier Nicole wrote:
> It would be best to avoid ruining the slowly building good reputation
> of SA (attending Apricot yesterday, SA was cited as the best anti-spam
> product one could choose -- Apricot is a yearly international
> conference in Asia-Pacific).
I agree that baseless discriminati
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
>>Let me get this straight -- we have ignorant and the willfully abusive
>>people in these countries creating or abetting spam for others to deal
>>with, and *we're* supposed to be concerned about public relations?
>>
>I don't think you're getting it.
>
>If North America (
> Let me get this straight -- we have ignorant and the willfully abusive
> people in these countries creating or abetting spam for others to deal
> with, and *we're* supposed to be concerned about public relations?
I don't think you're getting it.
If North America (I'm from Canada) didn't have w
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>>When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
>>them out. In the meantime, experience shows mail relayed through those
>>
>
>Too bad, wrong example again.
>
>It happens that Thailand TLD is just the room next to mine and I know
>they have no open rel
On Sun, 03 Mar 2002, Olivier Nicole wrote:
>
> I fully agree with Duncan (see my address above? :)
>
> I hardly receive any spam from .th, but I receive a heap from .com,
> should .com be banned?
I agree too. A quick grep through my spam folder results in about 300
matches on Received Lines of
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
>>them out.
>>
>The other problem with using this type of test in a spam corpus is
>that you're using a small subset of global spam. I don't do any
>business w
Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
> them out.
The other problem with using this type of test in a spam corpus is
that you're using a small subset of global spam. I don't do any
business with people from some random co
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>We must also remember that by making it easy for our users to descriminate, we
>aren't hurting our users, but anyone who uses one of those TLDs, most of
>whom are 100% innocent.
>
When sysadmins in those TLDs fix their relays, I'll be happy to hear
them out. In the meantim
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:04:18AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
>
>
> HI,
>
> I fully agree with Duncan (see my address above? :)
Thanks :-)
> Last point, discriminating on the .country TLD could get SA in big
> trouble being accused of discrimination. Banning cocacola.com would be
> better a
HI,
I fully agree with Duncan (see my address above? :)
I hardly receive any spam from .th, but I receive a heap from .com,
should .com be banned?
Most domain in Thailand are registered in .com or .net, so the test
would be mostly meaningless as it will cover Universities and Govt
agencies th
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>>I would like to suggest that the ROUND_THE_WORLD test, which seems to
>>catch little real spam these days. (Maybe it's just me.) I would submit
>>for the group's slings and arrows, as a better substitute, a
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
> I would like to suggest that the ROUND_THE_WORLD test, which seems to
> catch little real spam these days. (Maybe it's just me.) I would submit
> for the group's slings and arrows, as a better substitute, a rule that
> seems to wor
I would like to suggest that the ROUND_THE_WORLD test, which seems to
catch little real spam these days. (Maybe it's just me.) I would submit
for the group's slings and arrows, as a better substitute, a rule that
seems to work well for me:
header FROM_SPAMLANDReceived =~
/\.(?:kr|cn|cl|ar
35 matches
Mail list logo
