Let me tell you what I do with SPAM. I don't think this is all the
problematic.
In either C/R mode or Filter mode (I use Cyrus with Sieve to support
this) I move messages that I expect into my Inbox. The first line of
defense in my system is the C/R system. When I join a list or want email
from someone I setup the C/R system to bypass it's work by adding the
appropriate email addresses (and where I expect to see them - To, CC,
etc). If the address is in the list, no C/R is required. If the address
isn't in any list, a challenge is issued. If the response is given, it
moves into the inbox. If no response is given within a day the message
is put in to the Junk folder. If a response is given it is moved into
the inbox.
When I log in to my account the spam filters run (I use the Mozilla
email reader that supports Bayesan filtering). When the filter catches
it goes into the Junk folder. Everything else stays in the Inbox. What
has this done: I normally reject 99% or better of spam; I get 4-5 in my
inbox. I spend a few minutes to figure out what happened - how it got
through - and mostly adjust my filters. Yes, occassionally I do find
valid messages in the Junk folder, and for those I also train the filter
to not pick them up.
Now it isn't a perfect system - it won't catch all spam and mark it as
such. It will tag certain valid messages as spam (for instance the
filters originally put all messages from ASRG that had SPAM in the
hearder into the Junk folder! lol). But with a little work it does get
rid of the problem, as far as I am concerned.
Chuck Wegrzyn
Jon Kyme wrote:
Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html):
----snip----
After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy
was
what EFF was able to come to agreement on:
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages
reach
their intended recipients."
Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the
problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of
overzealous anti-spam measures.
----snip----
Unless my "anti-spam" system is perfect, there must be no silent
false-positives for this to be true. Either a sender whose message is not
delivered because of the action of some "anti-spam" system must be able to
know this. And be able to find out what they can do about it.
(This is a very strong argument for "spam" rejection to happen during the
SMTP - or whatever - transaction; we don't want to be sending DSN or
challenges to forged senders.)
Or, the "receiver" must be be informed that the message hasn't been
delivered, and be able to do something about it (but this imposes a cost on
the receiver).
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg