59 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
59 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
From jm@jmason.org Fri Sep 20 13:03:34 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org
|
|
Received: by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix, from userid 500)
|
|
id 6CA7916F03; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:03:34 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from spamassassin.taint.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
|
|
id 69CACF7B1; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:03:34 +0100 (IST)
|
|
To: "Michael Moncur" <mgm@starlingtech.com>
|
|
Cc: "Justin Mason" <yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org>,
|
|
"Daniel Quinlan" <quinlan@pathname.com>,
|
|
SpamAssassin-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
|
|
Subject: Re: [SAdev] phew!
|
|
In-Reply-To: Message from "Michael Moncur" <mgm@starlingtech.com>
|
|
of "Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:42:52 MDT." <NEBBKLEDELIODOCJHLPCGEOHNCAA.mgm@starlingtech.com>
|
|
From: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org (Justin Mason)
|
|
X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
|
|
X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
|
|
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:03:29 +0100
|
|
Sender: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org
|
|
Message-Id: <20020920120334.6CA7916F03@spamassassin.taint.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Michael Moncur" said:
|
|
|
|
> My corpus is about 50% spamtrap spam at any given time. Let me know if I
|
|
> should leave that out next time, I do keep it separate. My spamtraps are
|
|
> pretty clean of viruses and bounce messages most of the time.
|
|
|
|
IMO spamtrap data that's well-cleaned and monitored is fine.
|
|
|
|
To my mind there's 3 types of spamtraps:
|
|
|
|
1. old user addresses, recycled into spamtraps when the user closes
|
|
the account
|
|
|
|
2. old user addresses, recycled into spamtraps several months after the
|
|
user closes the account, scanned for newsletters, unsubscribed
|
|
from them etc.
|
|
|
|
3. real spamtrap addresses to trap website crawlers.
|
|
|
|
The latter 2 are the most effective, but #1 is a real PITA; it takes lots
|
|
of maintainance to avoid ham getting in there. Some of my spamtrap data
|
|
had a few 1's contributed by ISPs, and I hadn't spent enough time sifting
|
|
for legit mail that was slipping through. So I felt better leaving
|
|
them out for this run, apart from what I'd hand-cleaned.
|
|
|
|
--j.
|
|
|