On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it
for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not
everything I could.
That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam.
In particular it may lead to botnet related tests being seriously
overscored, causing extra FPs for little benefit to the TP rate. This
seems to be already happening.
There's could be a similar problem with spamtrap spam too. For RBLs and
hashing it's OK to look at everything that goes to the address. SA
QA should only use the spam that would have made it through to SA.
That would tend to *under*score those rules for sites that have SA but few
or no MTA-time DNSBL checks, wouldn't it?
Yes, I know, "proper admin"; but such sites probably do exist - should we
punish them by underscoring those rules?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no better measure of the unthinking contempt of the
environmentalist movement for civilization than their call to
turn off the lights and sit in the dark. -- Sultan Knish
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until the 72nd anniversary of D-Day
