On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +1000, Shane Hird wrote: > I'll state the obvious and say that spammers could then latch onto > this and use it stop bypass filters.
Certainly. But on our site (12,000 users and 3GB of mail daily, 35% of which is spam), I had to put several rules like this in duing SA's early days. I can probably yank most of them out and see how things work but haven't had the time yet. > I am of the opinion that no score would be better than a very > negative score. Very negative scores should only be reserved for > content that cannot be forged (whitelisted addresses) or would be > stupid for a spammer to include ('ie. "This is blatent spam, don't > buy anything from this e-mail" in the subject...). I don't disagree. I'm just very hesitant to change what's working quite well now. Having to explain to a few hundred non-technical users why they're not getting their eBay (or whatever) mail is no fun at all. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ _______________________________________________________________ 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