Celeste Spam Howto wanted ;)

Giovanni Giorgi daitangio at gmail.com
Fri Aug 18 19:19:53 UTC 2006


Spamming filtering is not an easy problem.
Most users prefer doing filtering on theri box.
For example my Telecom provider started to "offer" me an automatic
anti-spam, WITHOUT saying a word about this new services.

Some of my emails was lost thank of this "great idea".

Provider anti spam should avoid false positive: for example using
somehing like spam razor.

Spam Assasin is a good helper for self spamming detection on private
pc, for example customizing some rules.

I am not planning to enhance Celeste anti-spam in the near future, but
an integration with spam razor can be interesting to explore


On 8/18/06, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>
> Hm.  I would advise against that.  I have been doing precisely that
> for the past year, and in the last couple of months found that
> SpamAssassin generated ridiculous quantities of false positives.
> (150 emails incorrectly classified as spam out of about 2500 spams.)
>
> I have gone back to filtering on my mac Mail client.  More mail is
> popped, but I do not lose anything.
>
> Nothing to do with squeak, but ...
>
> Oscar
>
> On Aug 18, 2006, at 16:42, Lex Spoon wrote:
>
> > However, I should say that I think there is a better approach
> > nowadays: filter on your mail server, using something like
> > SpamAssassin.  The main reason is that you filter the spams out before
> > you download them.  That way, you do not spend a lot of time
> > downloading messages that are immediately tossed into the spam folder.
>
>
>


-- 
Software Architect
http://www.objectsroot.com/
Software is nothing



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list