Re: Every spam is sacred
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:57:46 +0200 (CEST), Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> > IMHO, the best of both worlds is blocking the *completely*
>> > obvious spam (open relays, etc. like the DSBL does) and filtering
>> > the rest.
>> A message sent via these bad ISP is a "completely obvious spam"? I
>> would be happy to share this simplistic approach.
> You are the one being simplistic.
How so? An open relay is a configuration that may be conducive
to spam, but it does not follow that every message that comes from an
open relay is spam.
> Please go to http://dsbl.org and read about it.
>> But people cannot always select by themselves their tools (employee
>> in a company... etc ; see the example below). Usually, they can at
>> their option use hotmail (woaw, what a recommendation) or
>> yahoo. But it's a workaround.
>> A workaround for the problem this policy creates: at the contrary
>> of what you said, you rarely can say whether a mail is spam or not
>> just with an IP.
> For some IPs, yes, I can, with 99.95% of confidence.
Firstly, that is a statistical project based on a limited
number of surveys, and may not truly represent the distribution of
spam and ham at any given IP address in the RBL.
Secondly, the threshold may well be different for everyone, so
just because you are comfortable does not mean others are.
"Hah. I know Tim Maroney. I've smoked pot with Tim Maroney. And
K*nt Paul Dolan is no Tim Maroney!" Gary Strand (email@example.com)
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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