| 1 |
Alan [alan@×××××.org] wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:12:31AM +0200, Henrik Treadup wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I don't like the idea of closing this list. If you close it you will still |
| 4 |
> > have problems with spam in the open lists; user, newbie etc. A better way |
| 5 |
> > of doing things would be to filter out the spam completley on all the |
| 6 |
> > lists. |
| 7 |
> > There was an interesting thread about Bayesian spam filtering on slashdot |
| 8 |
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/17/1746248&mode=thread&tid=111 |
| 9 |
> > a while ago discussing Paul Grahams essay A Plan for Spam |
| 10 |
> > http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > The statistical approach described there would have filtered out all spam |
| 13 |
> > I have seen on this list so far. (How many non spam email contain the words |
| 14 |
> > 'dear' and 'madam' ?) |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > You might wan't to check out ESR's implementation |
| 17 |
> > http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Or filter the list through spamassassin before it goes out to mailman (or |
| 20 |
> something like that). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Close the list Filter the lists |
| 23 |
False Positives No Yes |
| 24 |
100% effective Yes No |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Hrm...choice seems clear to me. Filtering spam on a |
| 27 |
mailing list is a bad idea. It's one thing for an |
| 28 |
individual user to decide an acceptable level of risk |
| 29 |
for false positives, it's quite another to choose that |
| 30 |
for an entire list. Just my two cents. |
Archives