On 3.6.2016 19.21, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, RW wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:54:59 +0300 >> Jari Fredriksson wrote: >>> >>> If you join, you might relax a bit on rejecting spam, but saving it >>> for masschecks.Thats what I do... I do reject something, but not >>> everything I could. >> >> That's probably not a good idea if it leads to unrepresentative spam. >> >> In particular it may lead to botnet related tests being seriously >> overscored, causing extra FPs for little benefit to the TP rate. This >> seems to be already happening. >> >> There's could be a similar problem with spamtrap spam too. For RBLs and >> hashing it's OK to look at everything that goes to the address. SA >> QA should only use the spam that would have made it through to SA. > > That would tend to *under*score those rules for sites that have SA but > few or no MTA-time DNSBL checks, wouldn't it? > > Yes, I know, "proper admin"; but such sites probably do exist - should > we punish them by underscoring those rules? > >
Okay. Now we need a consensus on this subtopic, right? I do not want to do harm to the project or users of it. -- jarif.bit
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
