Re: General Resolution draft against spam.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:39:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Joerg Jaspert <joerg+Mailinglisten.Debian.Vote@german.ath.cx> writes:
> > > Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> > >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> > >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> > >> expensive modem connection.
> > >
> > > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
> > > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).
> >
> > If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK.
>
> What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via
> pop3's top command. Then it tries to remove the spam. In the end the data
> still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive.
Err,
do you mean :
1) it asks the server for the header.
2) check the header for spam (this will not catch all spam, but at least
some of it).
3) if it is not spam, download the body.
4) if it is spam, remove it from the server without downloading or let
it there for later examination (would suppose storing the spam headers
so they can be examinated for false positives).
What you say is implying that the body get transfered even if the header
was considered as spam ? Are you sure this is what you wanted to say ?
Still, it would be more efficient to check for spam at the list
entrances, and not at thousands of recipients.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: