On 2/8/11 3:15 AM, "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> I'm somewhat annoyed by the armchair quarterback negative comments on
> this topic. (Not just you) didn't read the rest of this thread to
> realize this particular concern is moot.
Ditto. I don't really have time to participate in this activi
On 02/07/2011 05:37 PM, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
On 01/21/2011 01:06 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simpl
On 01/21/2011 01:06 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
>
>> initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
>>
>> i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
>
> Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
> you subscribed fo
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 21:50 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Yes and no. If you sign up for Joe's Bagel Company mailing list
> to find out about the latest Bagel news, and some new marketing
> guy joins the Bagel company and starts sending marketing messages
> about Bananas to that list, then the origin
On Thursday, January 20, 2011, 1:31:50 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 4:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> When you sign up for a company's email list, you get whatever they
> decide to send you. If they decide to start sending marketing to the
> list, I would not consider that spam because t
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:31:50 -0500
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> When you sign up for a company's email list, you get whatever they
> decide to send you.
OK. I guess we'll agree to disagree on our definitions, then.
Regards,
David.
On 01/20/2011 11:31 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Public discussion lists are bit different. In that case, it is the
individual post that is being considered spam rather than considering
the list spammy. Since there is no overall control over the content of
the posts, public lists are vulnerable to
On 1/20/2011 4:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:12:58 -0500
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. You subscribed to it. If you don't want it anymore,
>> unsubscribe.
> I disagree. When you subscribe to a list, there's an implicit understanding
> of the content you are
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:12:58 -0500
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Of course it is. You subscribed to it. If you don't want it anymore,
> unsubscribe.
I disagree. When you subscribe to a list, there's an implicit understanding
of the content you are signing up for. If the list owner violates the rules
On 1/20/2011 4:10 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:06:31 -1000
> "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
>
>> Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
>> you subscribed for.
> Not necessarily. You could subscribe to a list expecting it to contain
> useful conten
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:06:31 -1000
"Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
> you subscribed for.
Not necessarily. You could subscribe to a list expecting it to contain
useful content. A few months later, the organization running the l
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
you subscribed for.
for a moment, it appeared we were gonna need to review t
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:59, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> So a couple points:
>>
>> 1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
>> the above.
>>
>> 2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
>> ham. Some more a
>
> This is a misunderstanding. I am largely against
> whitelisting or negative score rules. I merely intend to
> increase the variety of legitimate mail in the nightly ham
> corpus so our spam-hostile rules can be better tested for
> safety. This will be interesting especially with non-En
On 01/18/2011 11:49 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 4:59:05 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
* Yes, we cannot be 100% sure our opt-in was only for that particular
site and not their "partners". But in any case automatic ham trapped
mail will be only the mail branded by the subscribed p
On Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 4:59:05 AM, Warren Jr. wrote:
> * Yes, we cannot be 100% sure our opt-in was only for that particular
> site and not their "partners". But in any case automatic ham trapped
> mail will be only the mail branded by the subscribed provider, because
> that is the only ma
On 01/18/2011 03:25 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 1/18/11 12:52 AM, "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a "ham trap".
The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses to various
retailers, airlines, government and other legitimate bulk
On 1/18/11 12:52 AM, "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a "ham trap".
> The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail addresses to various
> retailers, airlines, government and other legitimate bulk mail senders.
The possible fly in the oi
On 1/18/2011 1:15 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 01:46 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
While I certainly would encourage improving ham and spam corpora,
this proposal may open up a lot of grey areas that may be
non-trivial to resolve.
Agreed, and some companies will get to you sign
On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
So a couple points:
1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
the above.
2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
ham. Some more aggressive anti-spammers may say all of the above
is spam, but others may disag
Le 18/01/2011 10:46, Jeff Chan a écrit :
2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
ham. Some more aggressive anti-spammers may say all of the above
is spam, but others may disagree, and the mail may be legal.
I'd suggest that SA ought to be classifying e-mail in *three*
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 01:46 -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
> While I certainly would encourage improving ham and spam corpora,
> this proposal may open up a lot of grey areas that may be
> non-trivial to resolve.
>
Agreed, and some companies will get to you sign up for accounting and
service problem n
On Monday, January 17, 2011, 10:52:58 PM, Warren Jr. wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Here is an opportunity for non-developers to do simple tasks to help
> improve Spamassassin.
> I am seeking volunteers to help me build and administrate a "ham trap".
> The idea is to subscribe a list of unique e-mail add
23 matches
Mail list logo
