[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *Please* fix spamassassin's score configuration


On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 03:27:01PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 05:23:39PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > >
> > > > * needlessly high priorities should definitely get a score
> > > 
> > > [HST:]
> > > This is a bit questionable. It is quite plausible that legit mail to the
> > > Debian lists will get sent with high priorities. Of course, one could
> > > argue that Debian list users should know better than to set Outlook
> > > priorities, but the point is that this isn't a particularly reliable
> > > indicator of spam.
> > 
> > I think it is, see above. This is one of those netiquette-related
> > things. Spammers violate rule #1 of email netiquette; they are likely
> > to violate others, so flagging other violations may help indicate spam.
> I don't see why setting Outlook priorities violates email netiquette? SA
> has a separate rule for all-caps subject lines, which *is* a good spam
> indicator. People who are familiar with Outlook do use the priority
> setting from time to time, and with perfectly legitimate reasons. 

Well, I'd say that (Outlook) priorities are useless and even unwanted on
large mailing lists, especially when anyone can post messages with
elevated priorities.

If high priorities were available to the security team only, then that's a
different issue, but discouraging ordinary subscribers and especially
non-subscribed random posters from using Priority: High on a community
list (me! me! me! I want help first!) is a very good thing, IMHO.

And considering that Priority: High has a certain but limited spam
correlation on such lists, it's as useful (when used with care) as any
other item with such a correlation.



E-Advies / Emile van Bergen   |   emile@e-advies.info
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153        |   http://www.e-advies.info

Reply to: