On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
>
> We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
> have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to partipcate in the
social pressure aspect of DNSBLs (RBL is a trademark
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content an
Title: RE: [OFFTOPIC] spam scoring (was: [Xpert]*SPAM* Extracting a KeySym from an action routine)
> Then why not simply use an email confirmation like is used
> for verifying
> subscription and then cache the address for n days (where n
> is 30 or so)
> if the resp
Alexander Stohr wrote:
a "moderated" spam filter would be nicest, but this means that
someone has permanent duty for letting falsely blocked mail pass,
This is not quite true. I can envision a system that automatically quarantines
(rather than discarding) suspected spam. It would then send e-ma
Title: RE: [OFFTOPIC] spam scoring (was: [Xpert]*SPAM* Extracting a KeySym from an action routine)
> Sorry, the ends don't justify the means. False positives punish
> the ISP customer, who still has to pay her monthly/weekly/per-byte
> fees, whether the ISP fixes the pro
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:39:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
>>
>> We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
>> have a rather high false-positive rate.
>
>Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:00:16PM +, John Tapsell wrote:
> well, if it works - then good! Hopefully it will piss off the customers
> enough that they'll go to another isp, or the isp will sort it out. If a
> customer cares enough about his email, he'll use a more ethical isp.
Wow, you liv
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:00:16PM +, John Tapsell wrote:
>
> well, if it works - then good! Hopefully it will piss off the customers
> enough that they'll go to another isp, or the isp will sort it out. If a
> customer cares enough about his email, he'll use a more ethical isp.
[veering
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 10:22 pm, Scott Long wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:30:51 +0100
>
> Luca Olivetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >En/na David Dawes ha escrit:
> >>All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
> >>the number of false positives has been relatively
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:30:51 +0100
Luca Olivetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
En/na David Dawes ha escrit:
All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to
Zero false positives is the only acceptable resul
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
>
> We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to
> have a rather high false-positive rate.
Whether it's appropriate for the xpert list to partipcate in the
social pressure aspect of DNSBLs (RBL is a trademark
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
>Around 14 o'clock on Nov 26, David Dawes wrote:
>
>> All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
>> the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the
>> number of valid positives. I need
Around 14 o'clock on Nov 26, David Dawes wrote:
> All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that
> the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the
> number of valid positives. I need to assess now many valid positives
> were attributable to the RBL ma
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>Hmm, so we have 3 pieces of evidence that it isn't spam, four that it
>is (all of which are from blacklists), the blacklist scores were enough
>to get the message scored as spam, and yet it wasn't spam.
>
>Are we sure we want to be
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:56:56PM +, Bruce M Beach wrote:
> SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
> SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
> SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
> SPAM: See
SPAM: Start SpamAssassin results --
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content an
16 matches
Mail list logo
