On 2/25/09, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique network with users who are by and large fellow geeks doesnt generate any actual spam at all.
Hey, I didn't bitch, I didn't say it was valueless, I didn't say any of this. Can't you make your point without amplifying and putting words in my mouth? It sounds to me like you just want to vent.
I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from the same source before firing it back as spam.
But aren't the spam messages sufficiently randomized these days to make it impossible to get *two* complaints about the same spam, since the messages are all uniquified with randomized strings in them? Matt