On 9/27/01 6:42 AM, "Stan Ryckman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Well, you can do what you want, but it's "generally accepted practice"
> to 'whitelist' or 'greenlist' subscribed mailing lists
I use whitelists -- you have to remember that list-managers has been rather
quiet of late until recently, so it simply hasn't been added to them. These
filters are things I'm noodling on anyway, nothing close to 'production'.
> It's also "generally accepted" that it's virtually impossible to
> identify spam by body content alone.
And I'm not trying to. But I'm experimenting with it as ONE technique among
many. I'm seeing what things catch spam and what things bring in false
positives. One false positive in ten days.
There are clearly things you can do among body content checks to catch
certain CLASSES of spam. And since what I'm doing is try to squeegee the
stuff that's easy/safe, that's not bad. So far, I'm catching about 40% of
the spam I'm seeing and redirecting it. That's a nice improvement.
> A number of well-meaning admins
> (which I consider incompetent, since they're deleting SOMEBODY ELSE's
> mail) have been tossing discussions about viruses, based on
> overly-simple-minded body filters.
Tell me about it. I see it constantly.
I'm not trying to get fancy here, just whack the low hanging fruit....