After a careful re-reading of your previous message, I can see the benefits of a third "desireable spam" category. I've been thinking about creating a grey-logic for the greymail, where site-wide whitelists are factored into the spam score. This is analagous to a democratic vote ... if enough users whitelist a source, then it is elected to be granted a lower spam score, bringing it closer to that magic 5 threshold. Of course this would work inversely for a blacklist. Does the auto-whitelist function not fulfill your needs?
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Chris Fortune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [SAtalk] anyone like the idea of a graylist? > i don't think you read my posting, or i don't understand how > your solution at all addresses my proposal, or for that matter, > my user needs. > > silently deleting mail is not an option for my users, as well as > violating rfcs. > > i already mark spam so they can sort it. > > it's the opt-in stuff that looks like spam that i'm trying to address > by a graylist. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:57:55PM -0700, Chris Fortune wrote: > > > > ----- 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-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
