Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:51:37 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> said:
> 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.
Well, some of the people who constitute the ``our'' are
objecting.
> Both DNSBLs and traditional filters may produce false positives.
The difference is that one is based on content, the other is
based on the IP neighborhood. Mere IP address proximity to a spammer,
or potential spammers, is not a good criteria for labelling a mail as
spam.
> 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)
You said it. Legitimate users are impacted by DNSBLs, and for
this reason alone I would object to their use on the mailing lists.
> 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.
The objection, on my part, is to yor initial statement (that
you are now back pedaling from) that this was the first step to
instituting a RBL based filtering. And if that is not the goal, why
are we engaging in this exercise?
manoj
--
The shifts of Fortune test the reliability of friends. Marcus Tullius
Cicero
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: