On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:33:04AM -0600, Cord Beermann wrote: > it's not ok to bounce us spam from years ago, this address is another > feedback-loop to enhace our filters, it's useless to get old[1] spam > there. Well, I thought it would be useful to a) have spam mails from the mailing list archive b) enhance the filters The first idea was not supported in your post (but kind of implied, since this discussion was based off the web button thingy), the second idea came from this: On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 07:03:31AM -0600, Cord Beermann wrote: > The reported mails will be used to enhance our Spamassassin and > procmail-filters. The mails will be stored non-public. I bounced a month's worth of spam with that idea in mind. I don't see what advantage is there in reporting only 2 day's worth of spam. It's not like we are going to report this to the ISPs (like Spamcop is), are we? In any case, I will refrain from bouncing "old" spam from now on. > (and for those that expect immediate healing from this: the input > won't be piped into some filters for learning, as it would be to > easy to poison it then.) I understand that this mechanism could be abused by casual bystanders, but you could maybe set "trusted moderators" for lists in the sense that *their* reports (conveniently GPG signed) could be used to remove spam in a more automatic fashion? After all, if we trust DDs to develop software that installs in our systems as root I guess we could trust some of them to report spam fairly. IMHO, that's one of the issues with the web reporting button: it's anonymous and might lead to abuse. If you can link report to reporter (through a GPG-signed e-mail) then you can increase trust (if you trust the reporter) and consequently, increase your confidence in doing something more automated with *his* report than with John Doe's. Would that be a possibility? Maybe long term? Just my 2c. Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature