Sidney Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is there so much churn among spamvertised sites on the SpamCop list > that this would be a problem? Keeping the expiration time low would > minimize the effect of false positives, especially from joe jobs. What > do you think an appropriate expiration time would be, and why do you > think so?
Using expiration time as the method for handling joe jobs (and false positives in general) seems very insufficient to me. I think the FP rate is going to be the same order-of-magnitude with our without quick expiration. > Do you know anything about how SpamCop generates their spamvertised > sites page? > http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=inprogress&type=www > > It appears to be a close to real time report based on submissions from > ISPs or other spam gatherers. I wonder how much checking they are able > to do before putting a URL on the list. We can always just test it... Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
