-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > > > Side issue: why use easy removal without questions? Spammers do not have > > the bandwidth to remove themselves from every list. If they *do* go to > > the bother, and a URL does get removed, then repeatedly crops up in spam > > again, it should be raised as an alarm -- and possibly brought to the > > notice of other people -- e.g. this list or others. > > I'm not so sure easy removal is actually a good idea. I think it's > better to have FP-prevention mechanisms that don't require attention of > the email sender. > > Why? Because it's a mechanism biased towards savvy users, people who > use blacklists, SpamAssassin, etc. In addition, it's exactly the same > folks who are already overrepresented in our ham corpus. So, the > effective FP rate will be higher than it appears in our corpus *and* > non-savvy senders will be penalized. (I meant to reply to this but misfiled the msg. better late than never ;) Well, I'd say both. 1. easy webform removal 2. corpus-based "ham URL" list; scan a corpus of mails for URLs found in spam. a URL used even once in a ham mail is non-spammy. (just be careful not to include messages that *discuss* spams!) and: 3. manual whitelist of "ham URLs"; keep a file of "www.yahoo.com", "www.hotmail.com", "www.cnn.com" etc. etc. I think you're already doing that. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAcaOSQTcbUG5Y7woRAnEBAKCD+3ujS1Z4cbhyPRzAiT+ONiRxfwCgqtFh GntJp60mno5mm9/h9LVEoNY= =UgtJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
