spamassassin-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Justin Mason)
Subject Re: Announcing SpamCopURI 0.08 support of SURBL for spam URI domain tests
Date Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:21:06 GMT
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Quinlan writes:
> (Justin Mason) writes:
> > Side issue: why use easy removal without questions? Spammers do not have
> > the bandwidth to remove themselves from every list.  If they *do* go to
> > the bother, and a URL does get removed, then repeatedly crops up in spam
> > again, it should be raised as an alarm -- and possibly brought to the
> > notice of other people -- e.g. this list or others.
> I'm not so sure easy removal is actually a good idea.  I think it's
> better to have FP-prevention mechanisms that don't require attention of
> the email sender.
> Why?  Because it's a mechanism biased towards savvy users, people who
> use blacklists, SpamAssassin, etc.  In addition, it's exactly the same
> folks who are already overrepresented in our ham corpus.  So, the
> effective FP rate will be higher than it appears in our corpus *and*
> non-savvy senders will be penalized.

(I meant to reply to this but misfiled the msg. better late than never ;)

Well, I'd say both.

  1. easy webform removal

  2. corpus-based "ham URL" list; scan a corpus of mails for URLs found in
  spam.  a URL used even once in a ham mail is non-spammy.  (just be careful
  not to include messages that *discuss* spams!)


  3. manual whitelist of "ham URLs"; keep a file of "",
  "", "" etc. etc.  I think you're already doing

- --j.
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS


View raw message