Re: Every spam is sacred
Frank Copeland wrote:
> If I want spam filtered from my mail, I can do it myself. I pay by the
> byte for mail and news I download and then filter, but I've seen far
> too many false positives from filtering software (in the case of
> cleanfeed and bogofilter, that I've contributed somewhat to) to
> tolerate having some anti-spam zealot determine what *I* see.
>
> False negatives are merely annoying. False positives are evil.
Our server, our rules.
Both DNSBLs and traditional filters may produce false positives.
The difference is that DNSBLs reject spam and tells the legitimate
user that he should not send his valuable message using an open proxy
(for example) while the false positive produced by the traditional
filter may make its sender to think that his message is going to be
read, when it's not. So, no, a well chosen DNSBL is not as evil as you
might think, anti-anti-spam zealot.
But, I repeat, the proposal (for now) is to tag messages using a
X-RBL-Warning: header, I don't understand all the fuss about this.
Reply to: