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

Reply via email to