Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records)

["Chris Lewis" <[e-mail]>]

David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> 
> 
>>Companies may find it necessary to hire a human to filter
>>borderline messages that an automatic filter is unsure of, but in the
>>ISP context, false positives do not have a simple
>>solution--

> Oh, clearly this is not an appropriate solution for an ISP.  I was intending
> it only for a corporate setting.

Eeek!  I don't want to read 50,000 spams per day!

False positives have a very simple solution.  Treat it as the first step 
in a "do something else to get this thru".  Just like confirming a 
mailing list subscription with per-transaction keywords.  Or, "click 
here" to get it through.

In our case, we simply arrange to have the bounces say "if you think 
this was in error, forward this bounce to <x@x>".  Where <x@x> is a 
whitelisted address with people who'll forward/fix mistunings.  It's 
relatively safe - spammers tend not to do that.  And I'm a suspicious 
SOB ;-)

If your filters are good, the FP rate is low.  Our false positive 
handling address averages less than 5 per day.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg