On 3/1/02 5:26 PM, "William R Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sidney Markowitz writes: >> On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 16:37, William R Ward wrote: > There's a lot of legitimate e-mail about money in the world... I think > that perhaps that criteria should be refined and/or deemphasized. It's not email about money that is by itself conclusively used as evidence of spam. It's a lot more than that. > In a perfect world, whitelist shouldn't be necessary. I disagree. Looking at the message you forwarded, there is no way to distinguish it from spam (even as a human). If I received that mail and it were not tagged as spam, I would consider that a false-negative. The same mail to two different people should be treated differently for each, and the only way to do that is through personalized whitelists. A perfect world doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would still be impossible to solve every problem (Goedel's incompleteness theorem anyone?) >>> If this isn't the right forum to report "false positive" results, then >>> what is? >> >> Oh this is the right place as far as I know. And I am just another user, >> not an active developer on the project. I was just expressing my opinion >> that the content of the email message that you showed looks like spam. > > In what way? Because it is commercial doesn't mean it's unsolicited > commercial. It isn't full of hype the way spam usually is. It wasn't > routed through an open relay. It was addressed to me with ordinary > Bcc-type of addressing. This is the right place to mention false positives. And again, that email you attached does look a lot like spam, even on a fairly close reading of it. >> The only identifying characteristic in that mail is that it is from >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] which you say never spams. If that were so popular a >> list that a large percentage of users of spamassassin would subscribe to >> it, perhaps it could be added to the whitelist or the rules that >> spamassassin is delivered with, especially if they were so large an >> organization that no spammer would ever dare to forge their From address >> just to slip by a spamassassin filter. But neither is the case, so it is >> best left to the individual subscribers to add to their whitelist. >> >> It is possible that there is something in the full email headers that >> would distinguish this mail from spam, and if you showed those headers >> we might see something that could be put into a rule that would let this >> message get through. > > I forwarded the entire message, and the headers should be intact. Did > you look? (Note: when I first received the message, I deleted the > spamassassin changes.) Headers do not a non-spam make. The content of the email looks a lot like spam to me. >> It is also possible that Craig Hughes will look at your message and >> decide to add something for richdad.com mail. I'll be surprised, but >> he's the one to decide what goes into the released package and what is >> left for individual customization. > > I'm not asking for a global whitelist entry. I'm saying that the > e-mail didn't have any spammish headers, and the body of the > message seems like an innocuous announcement to me. > > I think the problem might be because "cash" and "rich" are in the > body. That in itself doesn't mean it's spam. Can we tone down the > rule that is triggered by those words? And also "We have the opportunity!" and "I appreciate your support!", "for kids", etc, etc, etc. C _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
