Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

"Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com> writes:

[...]

>> The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much
>> of an impact on spam.  The latter seems to me to rely on the sender
>> accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly that
>> would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not
>> sure that it would.
>
> I'm not sure about this, there seems to me (at the most general) to be
> only one class of things that need be asserted in a consent expression: How
> this message is classified by some engine. Your second class seems to me to
> be the sort of thing that's routinely handled by content-filters
> (imperfectly, I grant you).
>
> So rather than saying:
> 1. message has html => noconsent
> 2. message mentions 'septic tank enhancement' => consent
> 3. message is from grandma => consent
> 4. message has valid consent token => consent
> 5. message has blacklisted source IP => noconsent
> etc ...
>
> You might say something more like
> positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent 
> positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent 
> etc...

I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they
wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite
simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we
could standardise on.  That might be useful.

It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are
things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering
will be imperfect.  And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect
it to become more and more imperfect.

[...]

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg