autowhitelist is not supported by amavisd. when i used autowhitelist out of pracmail on solaris, it would hang fairly regularly with a few hundred processes queued up on the database being locked.
i like the idea of autowhitelist for some applications, for example, individual users with email addresses at large isps (such as aol or yahoo) but who actually send mail from their cable modems or dsl connections... as i said, i don't think the recognition that a piece of advertising is desired by some specific individuals should affect the score of that advertising, only the treatment of the advertising for those individuals. e.g. i'm not interested in astrology. i don't see why a popular interest in that should affect the score of mail to me touting astrology. On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:06:48PM -0700, Chris Fortune wrote: > 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
