53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
Return-Path: harri.pasanen@bigfoot.com
|
|
Delivery-Date: Fri Sep 6 20:07:28 2002
|
|
From: harri.pasanen@bigfoot.com (Harri Pasanen)
|
|
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:07:28 +0200
|
|
Subject: [Spambayes] Deployment
|
|
In-Reply-To: <15736.63619.488739.691181@12-248-11-90.client.attbi.com>
|
|
References: <200209061431.g86EVM114413@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net>
|
|
<20020906162505.GB17800@cthulhu.gerg.ca>
|
|
<15736.63619.488739.691181@12-248-11-90.client.attbi.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <200209062107.28106.harri.pasanen@bigfoot.com>
|
|
|
|
On Friday 06 September 2002 20:48, Skip Montanaro wrote:
|
|
> Greg> In case it wasn't obvious, I'm a strong proponent of
|
|
> filtering Greg> junk mail as early as possible, ie. right after the
|
|
> SMTP DATA Greg> command has been completed. Filtering spam at the
|
|
> MUA just seems Greg> stupid to me -- by the time it gets to me MUA,
|
|
> the spammer has Greg> already stolen my bandwidth.
|
|
>
|
|
> The two problems I see with filtering that early are:
|
|
>
|
|
> 1. Everyone receiving email via that server will contribute ham
|
|
> to the stew, making the Bayesian classification less effective.
|
|
>
|
|
> 2. Given that there will be some false positives, you absolutely
|
|
> have to put the mail somewhere. You can't simply delete it. (I also
|
|
> don't like the TMDA-ish business of replying with a msg that says,
|
|
> "here's what you do to really get your message to me." That puts an
|
|
> extra burden on my correspondents.) As an individual, I would prefer
|
|
> you put spammish messages somewhere where I can review them, not an
|
|
> anonymous sysadmin who I might not trust with my personal email
|
|
> (nothing against you Greg ;-).
|
|
>
|
|
> I personally prefer to manage this stuff at the user agent level.
|
|
> Bandwidth is a heck of a lot cheaper than my time.
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
I see no reason why both approaches could and should not be used.
|
|
MTA level filtering would just need to use a different corpus, one that
|
|
would contain illegal or otherwise commonly unapproved material for the
|
|
group of people using that MTA. I'm sure that such an approach would
|
|
significantly reduce the mail traffic as a first step, without giving
|
|
false positives.
|
|
|
|
MUA corpus would then be personally trained -- although I'd like the
|
|
option of 'down-loadable' corpuses and merge functionality.
|
|
|
|
Harri
|
|
|
|
PS. Just joined the list, so pardon if my thoughts have been hashed
|
|
through before.
|
|
|
|
|