"Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 05.04.2006 17:11:10:
> > 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell
> > checker.
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly
> technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their
> local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule.
Rule No.1: If a rule is likely to hit more ham then spam due to certain
circumstances, it is not a rule to consider implementing unless you
know you'll never meet the circumstances - but then it's up to YOU
to modify your local.cf and implement the rule ;)
> All my clients are professional agencies, and I don't think this really
> applies to them.
Yes, they are professional agencies, but yet again I'm sure they use
the emailsystem for private email - and I assume you are not the one
who decides which email they are allowed to write/receive and which not.
> > 3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell.
> > (Translation: management material)
>
> I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time
> someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message
> back telling them to turn on the spell check option in their e-mail
> program.
You don't mind getting mails to the management blocked? *boggle*
I assume your managers don't mind you blocking that mail from the
manager of that other professional million dollar agency that was
just about to offer a match of golf tomorrow to speak about that
trillion dollar deal? Sure man, sure...
> > 5) Relatively high CPU usage, given the above caveats in accurate.
>
> For me, this is less of a concern...my e-mail is a quad 3.2ghz machine
> with 4GB of RAM, and it runs at about 2% processor usage most of the
> time. :)
Ever heard of the term misinvestment? ;)
> As for whether or not a lot of SPAM has mispelled words in it or not:
> every single e-mail that came to my inbox this morning that was SPAM but
> wasn't tagged as SPAM were pure gibberish, and they would have been
> caught by my proposed filter. :)
>
> So, while I agree that this filter wouldn't suit everyone, it would
> certainly be a nice option to have.
Yes, it could certainly be done as rule, but it's nothing 99% of the
mailadmins would ever consider useful. It's more harmful then useful
since it cannot really distinguish between ham and spam, the borders
are kinda fuzzy for your logic. All it would do for you would be
filtering out those few mails containing gibberish, but at the HIGH
risk of catching LOTS of FP.
I don't mind, go ahead an code it, but I doubt anyone but you would
use it ;)
regards
Sascha
--
Sascha Runschke
Netzwerk Administration
IT-Services
ABIT AG
Robert-Bosch-Str. 1
40668 Meerbusch
Tel.:+49 (0) 2150.9153.226
Mobil:+49 (0) 173.5419665
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abit.net
http://www.abit-epos.net
---------------------------------
Sicherheitshinweis zur E-Mail Kommunikation /
Security note regarding email communication:
http://www.abit.net/sicherheitshinweis.html
