You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> on 2009/08/13 16:32:33 UTC
Time Based Reuse for Rules
On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:46, Jeff Chan<je...@surbl.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:40:34 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> One useful factor of ham is that it's not time-sensitive; a mail
>>> that
>>> was ham in 2003 would still be ham today. So we can collect old ham
>>> mail archives, or submissions of relatively old mail, if necessary.
>>
>> This may be a false assumption. A spamvertised or spam sending
>> domain from 2003 could have expired and been re-registered by
>> a different organization. Same for ham. Both ham and spam
>> should have expiration times. 1 year would probably be good,
>> since spamvertised domains probably don't get renewed.
>
> yep, I was talking with a SURBLer about this last week I think. we
> should probably add meta conditions ot the URIBL ruleset to ensure
> they don't fire at all on old messages.
This is a patch to the Reuse plugin I'd like to see, if someone has
any ideas please speak up.
Michael
>
> --
> --j.
Re: Time Based Reuse for Rules
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 08/13/2009 10:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> This is a patch to the Reuse plugin I'd like to see, if someone has any
>> ideas please speak up.
>
> it'd work well there. Pretend to be able to reuse previous hits, but
> the actual effect would be to inhibit the rule entirely on old mails.
>
My corpus is completely lacking spamassassin headers.
Warren
Re: Time Based Reuse for Rules
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 15:32, Michael Parker<pa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:46, Jeff Chan<je...@surbl.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 16, 2009, 1:40:34 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One useful factor of ham is that it's not time-sensitive; a mail that
>>>> was ham in 2003 would still be ham today. So we can collect old ham
>>>> mail archives, or submissions of relatively old mail, if necessary.
>>>
>>> This may be a false assumption. A spamvertised or spam sending
>>> domain from 2003 could have expired and been re-registered by
>>> a different organization. Same for ham. Both ham and spam
>>> should have expiration times. 1 year would probably be good,
>>> since spamvertised domains probably don't get renewed.
>>
>> yep, I was talking with a SURBLer about this last week I think. we
>> should probably add meta conditions ot the URIBL ruleset to ensure
>> they don't fire at all on old messages.
>
> This is a patch to the Reuse plugin I'd like to see, if someone has any
> ideas please speak up.
it'd work well there. Pretend to be able to reuse previous hits, but
the actual effect would be to inhibit the rule entirely on old mails.
--
--j.