On Sun, 26 May 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
> On Sun, 26 May 2002, Jason Rimmer wrote:
>
> > Why is that? It would appear to me that a web_bug is an excellent
> > indicator, and a nasty one at that, of spam.
>
> A web bug is an indicator of a commercial site that is trying to track
> your activity. However, not all commercial email is unsolicited, and web
> bugs are increasingly in use by legitimate [*] commercial sites. Also,
> the web bug criteria is a bit loose -- any image URI with query parameters
> is a match, not just those with some kind of ID tag as implied by the
> description.
Should rules, clearly involving nasty things used by spammers, be removed when
the scores go negative?
My thinking is that when it involves such a bad thing as tracking the user it
might be better to allow other rules to do a better job (giving the GA-based
scores a clearer black/white-situation).
Besides, whitelistning is an important part of all filtering...
/Tony
--
# Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards freedom! #
# Genom kunskap mot frihet! =*= (c) 1999-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =*= #
-- Random epigram: (2/8)
"Comrades, throw off the chains of human oppression!"
-- Greeting card, Futurama.
_______________________________________________________________
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
