Hi Giga,
giga328 wrote:
Thank you Jeff and Anthony.
If I'm right, there is big possibility for SpamAssassin to mark as spam some
email from for example doubleclick or other companies if there is
personalized URL in it because it can look like spam or even like phishing.
If I'm protecting only my mailbox it will be ok to block such emils, but if
I'm making ISP email system for hosting email for several companies, there
are chances that one of these companies will be customer of doubleclick so
emails from doubleclick for them are ham.
I know that doubleclick is involved in online WEB advertising (cookie
tracking, pop-ups, maybe even some executable malware) but I never heard
that they are involved in email spam. So it is not ok to block email by
default if they are sending it to their customers.
So maybe is more reasonable to talk about next questions:
What is your opinion about possibilities for SpamAssassin to block email
from doubleclick (and other companies) which are regular email sent to their
customers?
Is it possible to use safe list from MailScanner with SpamAssassin to make
some rules which will score for example -2?
I still do not have information about how and why there is safe list in
MailScanner, but there is something telling me it is there because some
software will judge wrong :) We have live users on this list who judged
wrong!
I don't really follow your logic, but I think it is faulty.
I don't think you should pursue this train of thought any further. I
don't think you understand what those MailScanner lists are for, why
certain sites are listed in them, and how they are used. You seem to be
basing all of your assumptions purely on the names of the files.
The lists in MailScanner that you are referring to have absolutely
nothing to do with SPAM detection. They are used in MailScanner's
Phishing detection feature. I really do not think they can be used
without modification in SA as SPAM signs.
--
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
"A CAT scan should take less time than a PET scan. For a CAT scan,
they're only looking for one thing, whereas a PET scan could result in
a lot of things." - Carl Princi, 2002/07/19
