On 2011/03/18 15:48, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 03/18, jdow wrote:
As far as trust for mass checks "Hamad Ali" would have to trust the
custodians of the mass check data with the raw email stream data he
submits.
No, participating in mass checks does not require sending in all your raw
mail. It's nice when people do, but I believe most people run mass-check
themselves and just upload the logs:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
In which case those maintaining the collation of the results need to
weight incoming data with a trust level. Incoming data from a hotmail
address is basically pointless.
On rereading some of this I wonder if we have an 'ix newcomer who has
an email solution setup to scan as each message is read by his MUA for
presentation rather than scanning all the emails as they are brought
into his machine and stored in his own Dovecot install or equivalent
where his MUA grabs them already filtered. Then his worry about the time
it takes to scan messages is pretty much mooted. All he needs do is run
many parallel checks, as many as his machine supports before going into
paging, and sit back and enjoy.
And for well targeted spearfishing, he's still stuck because nothing
distinguishes it from his normal mail flow other than "unknown sender"
or DNS check failures. The human mind can be a better filter against
such spam than any result of mass checks.
Off hand I get an impression he is throwing around terms without quite
understanding them.
{^_^}
