Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(February 2003)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: false positives
From: "Angel Rivera" <angel @ wolf . com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:33:00 GMT
To: list-managers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <1399 . 1046242169 @ kanga . nu>
References: <tneff @ grassyhill . net> <130798312 . 1046214147 @ [192 . 168 . 254 . 79]> <3E5BF111 . 13482 . A908AAE @ localhost> <1399 . 1046242169 @ kanga . nu>

J C Lawrence writes:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0800 Anne P Mitchell <Anne> wrote: <list of good examples deletia>
For those who think that the false positive situation isn't a
problem...

Which are precisely the reasons I don't and won't do SPAM filtering at
the MTA.  The potential cost of error is high, and almost all ability to
supervise and correct is lost.

A lot of these problems are probably due to misconfigured tools. I am a firm believer of RBLs and we use that as the first line of defense against spam. If it has come to the point where someone is on one of the RBLs we use-we need a break. To that we have added SpamAssassin in tagging mode. The few false positives that it catches are simply tagged and can be whitelisted.
-ar


Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: false positives - junkmail
From: <mfidelman @ ntcorp . com>
Next: Re: false positives - junkmail
From: "Angel Rivera" <angel @ wolf . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: false positives - junkmail
From: <mfidelman @ ntcorp . com>
Next: Re: false positives
From: James Lick <jlick @ drivel . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com