Re: Every spam is sacred
In article <[🔎] 20030616021122.GA23063@thunker.thunk.org> tytso@mit.edu writes:
>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:45:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>If some number of Debian developers utilizing blocking that has a
>false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do we
>as a body consider it acceptable if some percentage of Debian
>developers:
Alternativly, if Debian dosn't implement spam blocking, do we consider
it acceptable that:
Some developers stop reading any email, since the vast majority of
it is spam.
Developers delete messages unread because of spammy sounding
subjects.
Developers spend so much time reading spam they don't have time to
fix bugs and do other useful work.
People advocating not filtering spam based on some false positives
seem to forget that being burried under the load of spam can cause
more false postitives by the human forced to do the filtering.
On my personal mailbox, I use some rather aggrasive lists that I
wouldn't recomend to Debian at this time. (relays.osirusoft.com,
which includes SPEWS and SBL, and block.blars.org that I run myself
and don't recomend to others.) It still gets ten times as much spam
as non-spam. Without the spam filters, I'd probably wind up not
reading email at all.
--
Blars Blarson blarson@blars.org
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
"Text is a way we cheat time." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Reply to: