On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 6/13/2017 1:13 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> Brilliant idea but how to keep that information from spammers?
Would it matter? Especially for private site rules. I wouldn't advocate
this for centrally-distributed rules
I don't think it would matter except that it's functionality in the
centrally-distributed or publicly available rules would be lessened from the
public information. It's an attack vector I would use as a bad guy.
I agree with you both. That expiry is implemented doesn't mean it needs to
be used in the base rules, where spammers could leverage it.
I think the masscheck dynamically evaluating rules based on collected
corpora is as close to rule expiry as the base rules need to come.
--
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One death is a tragedy; thirty is a media sensation;
a million is a statistic. -- Joseph Stalin, modernized
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until SWMBO's Birthday
