reject vs. delete - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on reject vs. delete - SpamAssassin ; ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: reject vs. delete

  1. Re: reject vs. delete


  2. reject vs. delete

    Hi,

    The product I've been working with allows th user to set Rejection and
    Deletion thresholds, at which a message identified as spam will be
    rejected with "550 - Message is Spam" etc., or accepted with "250 OK"
    but dropped on the floor, respectively. Historically it has been
    believed that if we have a high enough confidence that a message is
    spam, it is adventageous to pretend we have accepted the message in
    order to avoid allowing spammers to know whether their methods are
    working. I have not verified anywhere that this practice really does
    have a negative impact on spammers. This would especially be
    invalidated if most of the rest of the spam filtering world does not
    make use of 'delete' and simply issues rejections -- in that case, if
    the spammers don't get the information from me, they'll get it from the
    next guy.

    I do know that having a delete threshold occasionally causes false
    positives to go undetected by end users. That is a bit of a
    disadvantage. The suggestion has also been raised that claiming to
    accept spam rather than rejecting it might invite spammers to send more
    spam your way.

    Does anyone have any knowledge or opinions on these matters? Does
    pretending to accept a message contribute to the "fight against" spam in
    some way? Or does it invite more spam? Is it worth it?

    Jared Johnson
    Software Developer and Support Engineer
    Network Management Group, Inc.
    620-664-6000 x118

    --
    Inbound and outbound email scanned for spam and viruses by the

    DoubleCheck Email Manager: http://www.doublecheckemail.com


  3. Re: reject vs. delete

    >
    > Does anyone have any knowledge or opinions on these
    > matters? Does pretending to accept a message contribute
    > to the "fight against" spam in some way? Or does it
    > invite more spam? Is it worth it?
    >


    I accept all spam, and then (for higher spamminess automatically) report them thru SpamCop. If I would not report them, I would reject them at once. No report, no idea to accept spam.

    It depends.

    For all spam I report, only one or two ISP:s send a message back confirming a kill. So I have no idea if reporting via SpamCop helps in the fight or not.. But that's what I do.


  4. Re: reject vs. delete

    On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jared Johnson wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > The product I've been working with allows th user to set Rejection and
    > Deletion thresholds, at which a message identified as spam will be rejected
    > with "550 - Message is Spam" etc., or accepted with "250 OK" but dropped on
    > the floor, respectively. Historically it has been believed that if we have
    > a high enough confidence that a message is spam, it is adventageous to
    > pretend we have accepted the message in order to avoid allowing spammers to
    > know whether their methods are working. I have not verified anywhere that
    > this practice really does have a negative impact on spammers. This would
    > especially be invalidated if most of the rest of the spam filtering world
    > does not make use of 'delete' and simply issues rejections -- in that case,
    > if the spammers don't get the information from me, they'll get it from the
    > next guy.
    >
    > I do know that having a delete threshold occasionally causes false
    > positives to go undetected by end users. That is a bit of a disadvantage.
    > The suggestion has also been raised that claiming to accept spam rather
    > than rejecting it might invite spammers to send more spam your way.
    >
    > Does anyone have any knowledge or opinions on these matters? Does
    > pretending to accept a message contribute to the "fight against" spam in
    > some way? Or does it invite more spam? Is it worth it?
    >



    I prefer to follow the spirit if not the letter of the RFCs. If I am not
    going to "take responsibility" for a message, I reject it.

    I do accept some things and quarantine them rather than put them into a
    user's mailbox, but I never just throw anything away after saying I will
    deliver it.

    There are plenty of sites that do silently throw away mail, and plenty that
    will reject. unless you are a *really* big site I really don't think
    spammers are going to care what you do, if they notice at all. I'd worry
    more about the legitimate users and what happens to their mail in a false
    positive situation.

    -Aaron



    >
    > Jared Johnson
    > Software Developer and Support Engineer
    > Network Management Group, Inc.
    > 620-664-6000 x118
    >
    > --
    > Inbound and outbound email scanned for spam and viruses by the
    >
    > DoubleCheck Email Manager: http://www.doublecheckemail.com
    >



+ Reply to Thread