neale at woozle.org
Wed Feb 19 09:12:38 EST 2003
Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions <tim at fourstonesExpressions.com> writes:
> The problem here is that some mailers pretty much lose most of the
> headers when you do a forward operation
That is exactly the problem. Also, consider the company that gets
gigabytes of email every day. How long do they keep a message in their
pool for future training?
And anyway, forwarding a message to a special address is still too much
work. I know that sounds ludicrous, especially when your aunt is
constantly forwarding you inspirational messages about leprechauns, but
most people at work would rather just junk the spam than take the time
to forward it to a special address. Even if you promise them that after
a week they won't have to do it as often. Especially then, actually.
We have to make this dead simple or it's not going to get used.
Now, if you're sending suspected spam to an *administrator*, I think you
can get away with the "forward to special address" idea. But then
there's no reason to store mail anywhere, since we can (presumably)
trust the administrator to send back the original message,
unadulterated. In fact, we could bundle all spam messages up as an
attachment, and then the admin can just forward back the attachment.
Does outlook mangle message/rfc822 attachments?
This doesn't deal with the problem of false negatives, but maybe a few
dedicated end-users (as opposed to end-admins) would send in enough
false negatives to make it all work.
More information about the Spambayes