http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-27 20:28 -------
> First, I am going critisize your criteria, Can I?
You just did.
>I think, If we will critisize something, this will be better by the time.
Only if you're right. (You aren't)
> AWL could be forged by checking active state of email accounts.
> BAYES rules can be forged by sending anekdots or japan hoku.
> SPF and my rule can be forged by seaching "right" emails.
AWL and BAYES can not be forged, since they are dependent on site-specific
e-mail. I don't think you understand how BAYES rules work. They can not be
forged, although they could perhaps for a specific user, they can not be forged
on a widescale basis.
I don't think you understand SPF either. (Or I don't understand your comment)
> To perform your criteria you should delete all ham rules right now.
We have deleted all ham rules that are not forgeable. We had ham rules in
previous releases under less stringent criteria, and they were simply abused by
spammers.
> But I think you strategy to reject ham rules is wrong.
> I think ham rules with R/0 more than 0.25 are good and can be usefull
> IMHO If we will have 100 uncorrelated ham rules with 0.25 R/0 ratio with big
> Hit Rate - they create strong effect. This is mathematical fact. I am not
> going prove it. Trust me.
I don't know what you're talking about with R/O. But we have seen that any ham
tests that can be abused by spammers will be abused by spammers. If we have 100
ham rules, spamassassin will suck, as spammers will be able to get every message
by it.
> For example let see at ham BAYES rules and user "jm", that have ham=spam in
> corpus.
BAYES tests CAN NOT BE FORGED BY SPAMMERS!
> My rule have R/0 about 0.05, but you are reject it.
It is not as good a solution to the problem as SPF. It is not really a standard
(or certainly not one thats gained any support)
> So.. why we use ham BAYES rules?
BAYES tests CAN NOT BE FORGED BY SPAMMERS!
> Are there people that dont said "this is my last comment"?
Yes.
> Dont trust intuition! Trust mathematical formulas!
We need to balance mathematical formulas with intuition. Mathematical formulas
can't model the way spammers react to our creation of easy to forge ham rules.
(Or at least, if they can, we don't know them...) As a result, these rules get
lower than optimal scores, and we all get burned.
Our scores are based on mathematics (have you looked at the perceptron)?
I think it's very clear from the response you have received that this rule is
not going in to SpamAssassin. We encourage you to continue to contribute, but
please don't continue to waste our time by arguing this point with us. I'm
tempted to mark this bug CLOSED (since I don't think you can add comments to
CLOSED bugs) but I'm not going to right now.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
