On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:59:47PM -0700, Alan Connor wrote: > > ... either get used to manually deleting spam. > (unless you LIKE knocking yourself out constantly updating filters > that you know are not going to work for long, or paying someone else > to engage in this farcical pastime.) You make it quite clear thet you've never actually *used* Spamassassin. At least, Spamassassin when properly configured and used with appropriate macros for the MUA. Choosing between "delete" and "delete as spam" on the one message in a thousand that leaks through mature Bayesian filters hardly seems to qualify as "knocking yourself out". With sensible autolearning thresholds, Spamassassin quietly keeps updating its *own* filters. > OR use a decent CR program and concentrate of filling out your passlist > with addresses that you WANT to receive mail from. Which, if you correspond with a lot of people or a changing base of people (or people who change adresses frequently), will quickly become more of a hassle than feeding Bayesian filters would have been. Amd that's quite aside from the central issue, that your C-R system shunts the burden onto the innocent sender who has no stake in the cleanliness of your inbox, which is just bad manners. > Most people don't find my MSP acceptable because it is devoid of eye-candy > and doesn't use a mouse. Funny, this doesn't seem to bear any relation to the reasons that have *already been presented* by a variety of people who don't find your MSP acceptable. > But there are a lot of good programmers here who could come up with a nice > graphical one in no time at all... Yes, and most of the respondents have indicated that your program is misguided and rude, so why would they want to spend their time and effort writing a front-end to encourage people to use the thing? The most mysterious thing I see in all of this debate is your response, Alan, to the suggestion of a hybrid system. Somebody suggested a system that went something like this: Use appropriate SMTP errors to bounce mail with malformed headers; Check accepted mail against a whitelist; Spamassassin everything from a non-whitelisted address; Issue a challenge to the *few* that come in with a borderline spamsassassin score. Now your response was something like "That would work great, but it's not pure C-R, which is what I'm all about"... I have to wonder why. Is it a religious issue? Offered a solution that avoids inconveniencing any but a tiny percentage of the people who would be "challenged" by your "pure C-R" system, and still delivers results that are at least as airtight... What possible grounds can there be for taking the position of "No. I want C-R. Only C-R. *Pure* C-R." ...? Cheers! -- ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------. > -ScruLoose- | They that can give up essential liberty < > Please do not | to obtain a little temporary safety < > reply off-list. | deserve neither liberty nor safety. < > | - Benjamin Franklin < `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpRn4DLRu3L_.pgp
Description: PGP signature