[SpamCop-List] Re: FAQ suggestion...
nobody at devnull.spamcop.net
Thu Jul 22 18:59:02 EDT 2004
"John E. Malmberg" wrote in message
> "indigo" writes:
> > No. But you'll notice that if you check "Spamhaus SBL + XBL" it
> > about 4-5 other lists. The only other ones I use are ORDB (open relays),
> > [ed], and DSBL (open relays, proxies, and form-mail scripts).
Thank you both! "Leaning" out the BL's as suggested and dropping the
plugins speeds up the filtering perceptibly, but as I labored on the point,
false positives are acceptable here while "misses" are not.
The "incoming" passes through a multilayer filtration system: first it must
get by Brightmail on the server, and then it gets tagged by SpamPal if it
smells like spam on this end. Then if it is a known "contact" in the address
book, it is "whitelisted" to the inbox. If it is tagged by SpamPal, it sorts
to Trash, if not, it slips to an elaborate heap of "rules" as may sort it
to Trash as well. If it passes all "tests" and "smells" clean, it sorts to a
covert "Pending Review" folder: on examination I may pass it to the
Inbox as necessary, or add it to SpamPal's customized Blocklist
if possible, or set up a new rule in the "heap" as necessary. Identified
"new contacts" are similarly whitelisted.
It is more like running a gauntlet than passing a filter. False positives
usually need to be whitelisted twice to clear the gauntlet successfully.
It is "safe" for SpamPal to be more porous and more efficient,
because even if less effective, anything that gets by SpamPal cannot
make its way to the Inbox without my putting it there.
Again, thanks for the f/ups: better strategies and the experience of
others are always welcome advantages over struggling to the
same wisdom of my own accord.
More information about the SpamCop-List