Re: Every spam is sacred
Carl B. Constantine <email@example.com> wrote:
> * Santiago Vila (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> I'm having a nice discussion with debian-admin. It started when I
>> asked them to add ": sbl.spamhaus.org/warn : list.dsbl.org/warn"
>> to the rbl_domains variable in master's exim.conf.
>> [ I estimate that we could easily get rid of 50% of all spam
>> by just using those two lists, with negligible false positives
>> if these lists follow their listing criteria ].
> Actually, the spam content on debian-devel has been cuit dramatically in
> the last couple months. It doesn't receive nearly as much spam as it
> used to. I belive the list admins are using spamasassin now or
> something. Whatever it is, it's working much better, though some spam
> still gets through.
This is not about lists.d.o (handled by murphy) but about the
developer's *@debian.org mail which is handled by master.
More on the subject: I've used RBLs in combination with a whitelist to
filter, it simply sucked, the only lists that matched sufficient
amount of spam also had nonzero amounts of false positives. - Sure
there are lists without false positives but that catch about one spam
in two weeks. I've switched to spamassassin in vanilla setup since.
- Simply checking for score >=5 catches more spam (about 90%) than any
of the RBL lists I tried _without_ _any_ false positives.
 I've only trained the bayesian filter with some thousand spam and ham.