Is that the same as whitelisting, maybe I do not understand, but a very
rigorous approach would
be a whitelist methodology which, once a new account is created, they
send email to everyone they
want to communicate with, and it 'autowhitelists' those addresses, so
you can only receive from those
you communicate with (or want to), i.e. the user will have to authorize
the receipt of a message into the
whitelist (that way the email address owner is soley responsible for
what they receive). The main problem
(although someone may be able to come up with an appropriate
compromise), is that if everyone were using
this methodology, how would one ever receive email? But nonetheless,
since there is less ham than spam
nowadays, it make more since to do what you are saying and deal with
only the traffic the user wishes
to see instead of that which they don't, seems the actual programming
need to deal with this would be
less stressful on machine resources as well. I.e. less resources would
be consumed dealing with less
incoming crap (er mail, I mean).... Stop it at the connection... maybe
a ulog plugin.... just a thought....
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Dan wrote:
I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with
everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what
I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory:
NEW ASSUMPTION
All messages are spam unless x,y,z score says they're ham.
NEW APPROACH
Block everything, then create rules to not catch what you do want.
ie, build tests that target the spam (keeping all the tests you've
already built), then score the thousands of ways ham triggers on
those tests.
It strikes me that the hardest part of this approach is filtering out
too much ham. At least for me, it's more important to make sure that
people reach me, than to filter out all spam. If we take the approach
that everything is to be filtered out, except x,y,z - then the risk of
filtering out too much seems pretty high.
