Re: The best way to use Spamassassin is to not use Spamassassin

[Rob Poe <rp...@plattesheriff.org>]

>Of course that 5% is very important because that is where I get the
data 
>for the other tests that allow me to bypass filtering. But - I want
you 
>all to start thinking of a new way to look at spam filtering. I have 
>some concepts that I'm testing that seem to be working well and if 
>widely distributed could revolutionize the concepts behind processing

>email. And SA is still an important part of that.

Catchy, indeed.  So any enlightenment here?

Re: The best way to use Spamassassin is to not use Spamassassin

[Marc Perkel <ma...@perkel.com>]

Rob Poe wrote:
>> Of course that 5% is very important because that is where I get the
>>     
> data 
>   
>> for the other tests that allow me to bypass filtering. But - I want
>>     
> you 
>   
>> all to start thinking of a new way to look at spam filtering. I have 
>> some concepts that I'm testing that seem to be working well and if 
>> widely distributed could revolutionize the concepts behind processing
>>     
>
>   
>> email. And SA is still an important part of that.
>>     
>
> Catchy, indeed.  So any enlightenment here?
>
>   
I'm building a dns based list system that's not just a blacklist but also a whitelist and that I call a yellow list. It's based on server IP and the idea is to use the white lists to get rid of false positives from blacklists.

The idea being that many spam filtering services report the IP addresses of servers sending them spam and ham. These are totalled and some will be 99%+ spam, 99%+ ham or a mix. The spam servers are blacklisted, the nonspam servers are whitelisted and the one's in the middle are yellow listed. Yellow means that you never get blacklisted making the false positives of blacklists go way down.