ietf-secretariat(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote:
...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail...
> ...this implementation is to allow the IETF community to get used
> to having these headers in the messages, and allow us to make any
> changes to the filtering rules.....
> This will also allow us to look into scripts that will automatically
> go into mailman admin queues and remove messages that it believes are
> spam. This will reduce the work load....
I would like to propose a solution to the looming religious war:
Some people are serious about wanting to see every message that
crosses the ietf domain, and will offer violence to anyone who wants to
keep their daily dose of spam away from them. Others (well, me. I
follow ietf and ietf-announce for my own entertainment and education. I
don't mind if you filter on "bigger dick".) will be willing to accept
the server-based filter, in order to spare their inbox.
Would it be possible to somehow flag messages as "valid" or "bogus"
(or maybe "Holy Writ" or "Message from Satan"), and then allow
subscribers to set their systems to automatically filter on these
labels, if they care?
Of course, if I wanted the mail server to work harder, I would
suggest that the system keep track of each subscriber's preference and
either send or pass, thus saving the bandwidth.
If I REALLY hated the programmers, I would ask that this last idea
be expanded to the 4-level[1] "We know this is important", "We think
it's meaningful", "It may be spam but we don't really know" and "We're
almost positive that you don't need this message", thus letting everyone
get exactly what they want.
As if that's ever really happened on Usenet.....
[1] Could we come up with a 512-bit flag system[2]? Would that be
enough? I don't want dick ads, I do want breast ads, I won't read
anything from California, I really, really want stuff from Dell.....
[2] Yes, I spend too much time on ASR and AT-SR.
--
: Unable to locate coffee. Operator halted.
: Reply to sandy(_at_)weijax(_dot_)com