Thanks Steve for clarifying my thinking.
For the scale, it would not send to to all, but to the ones who are registered
for such feedback. So a config file that specifies when and to who to send the
ARF reports.
It seems also that MUAs, when a mail server is involved (MTA + other tools),
have a way to report SPAM to the mailserver (special mailbox, special folder)
so the filter can learn from the user reports.
I lodged this bug on http://bugzilla.zimbra.com/show_bug.cgi?id=33109 I'm
curious to see how the Zimbra developpers looks at it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008 12:48:01 PM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [Asrg] FeedBack loops
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Nov 11, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Yes it is a simple process, I was just thinking of having that
process as a ready in-built engine, or third-party engine in MTAs.
For the moment as said it is mainly custome code. If such
capabilities would be available in sendmail or postfix, that would
allow fbl to be implemented by large organisations (like
universities, etc...) easily.
ARF is pretty much unrelated to the MTA.
Well, you could certainly envisage an ARF implementation directly tied
into a filtering MTA that fires off an ARF for every spam it can
identify if it can figure out who to send it to.
However, given the volumes that even merely medium sized MTAs see, and
at least some possibility of false positives, even if it didn't blow the
ARF-recipients off the air, the volume and potential problems would
render it useless.
It just don't scale.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg