----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Fortune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] anyone like the idea of a graylist?
> I send all mail with a spam score between 5-10 to the user's > inbox, marked up with spam headers, attachments are not > defanged. Anything over 10 gets deleted. It's a "good > enough" solution to the false positives problem, and nobody > complains. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:03 PM > Subject: [SAtalk] anyone like the idea of a graylist? > > > > what do people think of the concept of a graylist? > > > > i am managing the spam filtering for a sizeable enterprise > of > > knowledge workers many of whom bill by the hour. for such > workers > > there's a good time-management argument for email > filtering. > > > > i'm trying to avoid supporting individual preferences at > the sa or > > amavisd level, and put all of the user choice in the MUA > filtering > > rules. > > > > having gone through the exercise of turning away a lot of > spam at the > > front door, what's left is (like art and pornography) to a > large > > extent a matter of interpretation. so far (thanks to > y'all) i've > > *reduced* the accepted mail volume by rejecting ~20K spam > smtp > > connects per day! that's 1/3 less mail graded as spam, > > enterprise-wide. > > > > so i'm thinking it would be useful to have a graylist of > sources which > > the site could customize to contain > > - possibly desirable advertising > > in my clients' context, these include travel, IT > technology, > > office equipment, domain-specific technology. > > - some content that could be useful > > - some customized content > > - recognized ecommerce merchants and vendors > > - opt-in lists which are not particularly work or > business-related, > > e.g. health, recreation, music/movies, local events and > sales, religion, > > astrology, genealogy. > > - lists which claim to be opt-in but i just can't decide. > (there are > > whole new genres out there...) > > > > most of these are things which typically look like spam, > syntactically. > > > > i'd like to be able to tag them as "ads/of some possible > interest" using a > > unique X- header and filter them into a separate mailbox > (not the spam > > mailbox) by way of a default local MUA rule. > > > > in my view, membership of a source on the graylist > wouldn't adjust the > > spam grading, just how the header reporting takes place > after grading. > > > > the reasons not to whitelist them is > > - they are a lot less trustworthy than, say, a major > newspaper, > > or a financial institution, so i don't want to give them a > free ride. > > (i still want to measure their spamminess.) > > - i can sometimes distinguish between junk and content > from the same > > general source. (think of it "skipping the commercials"). > i want > > to whitelist one, graylist the other. > > - they are often intrusive, so the tagging/filtering > enables people > > to manage their time better. an example is x10.com, which > *is* opt-in, > > but is one of a long list of really annoying merchants due > to their daily > > carpet-bombing. > > - they are not particularly business-related but they'll > end up in > > people's normal business mailboxes. we'd like to > understand how much > > of this we're actually receiving (since it seems to be > only growing > > as companies replace paper). > > - i can't decide quite what to whitelist when a site acts > as a > > service bureau and delivers a mix of junk and useful (e.g. > topica, > > sparklist, rsc01). > > > > the reasons to not let them be graded as spam (as they are > now) > > - they really are a different sort of animal, as evidenced > by user complaints > > that they are not (their definition of) spam. > > - the users don't want to grub through their spam folder > to find such things. > > - the users shouldn't have to individually filter these > things by site. > > - they clutter up the reports of spam, and i now have to > remember > > which of them fall in which category (spam/gray). > > > > these are enough problems that simply fixing the reporting > scripts > > seems like the wrong solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-ta > lk > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
