On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:24:20PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 the voices made Matt Kettler write: > > MK> Of course, said auto-delete procmail recipe is actually strongly advised > MK> AGAINST by the actual developers of SA. SA's false-pos rate is not > MK> sufficiently low to use it as an auto-delete critera. > > This is a major problem; I see more and more people thinking that these > filters (more or less all spamfilters) are perfect, and there are also a lot of > people thinking that they are good enough to base "fancy" stuff on... like > rejecting e-mails and sending "you're a spammer and we hate you"-autoreplies. > (Sorry, nothing personal.)
Any time you implement an anti-spam solution for more than yourself, you'll end up in this discussion. Several discussions actually, but they all relate and are holy wars. I think bouncing mail is stupid, the queue issues have been mentioned, but it's just the fact that 95% (or more, less) of the spam you catch IS spam and will not bounce to someone real, or worse, confirm the address. Those few false positives are in the minority. It comes down to a binary option: Burden on sender, or burden on receiver. We've covered burden on the sender. In the system I am implementing, the burned is on the receiver. When the filters catch a mail that is questionable, say 2-3 points above the spam threshold, they hold the mail. Then it sends out a message to the receiver with the questionable mail in the body. The message says something like: "The following message was caught by spam filters blah blah, if you would like to receive the message, and permit the sender to send mail to you unabated, simply reply to this message." Upon receipt, the server does the Right Thing, sends them the mail, and whitelists that sender. I've considered sending it to the sender and receiver and whichever authenticates it first wins, but I like receiver better. > > Currently my personal account's gotten about 90 spam today (I average > somewhere a lil bit above 100 per day), and e-mail would more or less be > useless to me if it weren't for my filters; but faulty filters and/or auto- > replies clearly stating that I'm a spammer irritate me way more than the actual spam. Me too. I've never gotten an auto-reply accusing me of being a spammer. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.dellanave.com FED5 FF73 7A92 5B11 844D 068E 3AEC 268E AAF0 DA59 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
