spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Hardin <>
Subject Re: Discussion side point: levels of Trust
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:07:58 GMT
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, SM wrote:

> At 10:22 12-06-2008, John Hardin wrote:
>> Probability of what, exactly?
> It can be a probability based on historical data of the sender or an 
> arbitrary score.

That's not the "what" that you're measuring with the probability factor, 
that's the "how" you're measuring it.

>> Bear in mind, "trusted" means "does not forge Received: headers", not "does 
>> not send or relay spam".
> My answer was more about levels of trust.  It doesn't apply to 
> "trusted".  As you pointed out above, that has a different meaning.

Was the OP _not_ talking about "trust" in the only context that SA uses 
it, then? If so, that's what prompted my comment.

I don't see how "does/does not forge headers" can be anything but binary, 
thus rendering a discussion of levels of trust meaningless in that 
context. "Probability of spamming" may be a useful metric to judge a host 
(witness the effectiveness of DNSBLs), but when discussing SA we should 
not use the term "trust" to refer to that concept.

  John Hardin KA7OHZ              FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a
  key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
   There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been
   saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and
   had been well armed. ... Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw
   Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag,
   half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of
   the Nazis.                        -- Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

View raw message