Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:23:15PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:08:03 +1000
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:00:04PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > They were? You personally verified that each and every one was spam?
>
> > of course not. i do, however, keep an eye on my mail logs and know what
> > kind of traffic it gets.
>
> Then you might want revise your statement. You claimed they were all spam
> when you do not know they were. Kinda reminds me of Alan Conner there.
>
> > also, i'm confident that if my anti-spam system rejects something then there
> > is only a miniscule (i.e. insignificant) chance that that it was a false
> > positive. this chance is so small that i simply don't care.
>
> Granted. But this is different than ALL of them being spam.
my system rejected them as spam, so they were spam (or so likely to be spam as
makes no difference).
if you can bring yourself to care about the one in a million that might not be
spam, then feel free to do so. i certainly can't and don't....and on my
systems, it's what i care about that counts.
> > if any given false positive was important or from someone i actually want to
> > hear from then they will find some other way of contacting me....i'm
> > certainly not going to accept over 25000 more spams per week just on the off
> > chance that one of them might be from someone i know with a misconfigured
> > mail server or whatever.
>
> You don't have to. Amazingly enough I reject quite a few pieces of spam
> based not on their IP block but on the comprehensive tests and Bayesian
> classification that SA provides. Might I suggest you go through the archives
> of -devel and -users.
i'm quite capable of configuring spamassassin as a content-filter that runs
during the smtp session rather than after it.
i choose not to, because there is a fairly high risk of SMTP session timeouts
when the system is under heavy load, resulting in a) repeat attempts to deliver
the same mail to my server (wasting more bandwidth and CPU power to scan it),
and b) the small possibility of an undesirable feedback loop of ever-increasing
loadavg.
it's less hassle and less dangerous to just accept it, classify it, tag it if
necessary, and deliver it....the MDA can filter it as appropriate.
> I provided stats on how much mail I get, how much gets
> through and how much time I spend a day perusing it.
i didn't see that. will hunt for the thread.
> I dare say I'm getting far better return on my invested time than you are
> without obsessing over the matter as much as you are. If you had a setup
> like mine you might have to peruse... Well, about the same amount as you are
> now, reject just as much and do far less maintenance doing it.
382 tagged in a week, about half of which go to my SPAM.incoming folder (the
rest go to other users, so don't concern me directly). most are nigerian 419
scams and can be ignored, a handful have extra domains/ip addresses/phrases to
add to my lists.
not exactly what i'd call an excessive or obsessive work-load.
it's not even enough of a workload to bother using procmail rules to drop
extremely high scoring spams into /dev/null
> But then, I'm running Exim which has inferior spam prevention techniques
> compared to the all-powerful Postfix. Obviously I should be getting far
> more than you... right?
more than the 1.5% of spam that makes it through my postfix filters to be
tagged by SA? i suspect that you do.
craig
Reply to: