hi,
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 08:04 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 04:56 -0800, SpankTheSpam wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I have installed URICountry plugin along with p5-Mail-SpamAssassin-3.2.3
> >> and
> >> amavisd-new-2.5.2,1 and have added few rules, and one to test it in my
> >> local.cf:
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> > well, imho, its using is not fair to over the world. because there
> > regarding spam country may/might be a little bit pure email users. we
> > can use another way instead of the dangerous way. i would like to here
> > some opinion about that..
> >
> >
>
> Uricountry, relaycountry, etc are all quite useful, but I agree their
> use must be reasonably tempered.
>
> I strongly disagree with using either of these systems to assign more
> than half your spam threshold to any message. Country of origin or
> hosting site alone is not a very good sole criteria for declaring a
> message to be spam.
>
> However, in my case I do receive a few nonspam messages from Korea each
> year, like this message for example, and all are quite clearly nonspam
> and technical in nature... I also receive around a thousand spam
> messages that were sent from infected hosts in Korea each year (mostly
> controlled by American spammers). As a result, I assign 1.5 points (of a
> 5.0 threshold) to messages delivered to my network from Korea. This
> helps catch some of the more evasive spam, but I also have yet to have
> it cause a single false positive on a nonspam message. (Your message
> would have totaled 1.5/5.0 if it was sent directly, as it caught no
> other positive scoring rules)
>
> This is even more true for web hosting. There's no reason an american
> company can't have a website hosted overseas. So many of their products
> are made there, so why shouldn't the websites be hosted there?
>
> Unfortunately, like any rule, there's a lot of admins out there who
> think in absolutes, and assign absurd scores to rules. This is, of
> course, highly contrary to the whole design of SpamAssassin, which
> exists because Justin got tired of single-criteria decisions for spam
> causing false positives. I guess there's a human tendency to see a high
> probability and treat that as proof positive. (We all like to
> over-simplify things).
>
> I guess I failed to point out to "spankthespam" that using a 54 point
> score on a rule is quite unwise.
your opinion is resonable, thanks!
respect,
bh
--
"Why do they bother your father with business on a day like this?"
"Because they know that by tradition no Sicilian can refuse a request on his
daughter's wedding day."
-- Kay Adams and Michael Corleone, "Chapter 1", page 26-27
