Hi, On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Milt Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > there are different definitions of > > what spam is, and I'm sure it fits some of them. > [...] > > appears to the person receiving the mail, it looks like spam and can > > be dealt with as if it were spam. It doesn't really matter how it > > originated. > > Actually it does matter. Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk > commercial email (UBCE). Um, not to start an academic argument, but most seasoned spam-fighters I know (e.g. SPAM-L) don't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial content when judging whether mail is spam, i.e. spam is usually defined as UBE, not UBCE, the dominant subcategory of UBE. As they say, it's about consent, not content. Using the UBE definition of spam, one could easily categorize mail-borne viruses as spam, and probably should. The blind eye of DCC, Razor, or Pyzor would probably flag mail-borne viruses as spam which IMHO is an additional benefit of using a content checksum service to measure the 'bulkiness' of mail. It'd be interesting to see how analyzers like bogofilter would treat viruses. That being said, SpamAssassin has been tuned to detect non-virus spam. There's no technical reason one couldn't add virus signatures to the body checks, though from what I gather, SpamAssassin is not intended as a virus filter; that task is left to MIMEDefang, Amavis, and the host of commercially-available anti-virus products[1]. There's little point in bogging down SpamAssassin with functions that are better performed by existing software. I'd consider mail-borne viruses (such as this goldfish mail) to be spam, just a type of spam that by SpamAssassin is not intended to detect or defend against. So aside from our definitions of spam, I think we agree that for whatever reason SpamAssassin should not be used as an anti-virus tool. -- Bob [1] I'm lamenting the apparent lack of open source anti-virus programs[2], if only to remove the potential of material gain from virus scares. [2] I'm doubly in-favor of an open-source content filtering web proxy, not because I like content filters (I don't; I despise them) but so there's an alternative to the commercial content filters which often have a thinly-veilled political or religious agenda buried in their encrypted signature lists. That shite has no business being installed in public facilities like schools and libraries; it'd be nice if those organizations had a way to enforce a content restriction policy while ensuring they aren't blocking more than they absolutely have to or more than they intend. But that's so off-topic it's not funny. Kinda why it's buried in a second-order footnote. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net emial is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4699841;7576301;v?http://www.sun.com/javavote _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
