Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:03:03PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> However, I am still doing the destination sorting via kmail, so I could
> pick d-u off before it checks the headers SA adds, but I see little or
> nothing to be gained by that in the real world.
>
> But that is one way I suppose. I suppose one could write a procmail
> rule to bypass the SA run there, but again, to what real world effect?
One of Steve's major issues appears to be a concern that spam coming
from d-u could train his bayesian filters to establish a positive
correlation between d-u and spam, causing d-u to generate false
positives. Ignoring SA's headers on d-u mail would do nothing to
prevent this (mis)training of the filters, which would be the reason
to bypass SA entirely for mail from the list.
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
- Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)
Reply to: