[Asrg] Meta channel, not bounces (was: Re: where the message originated)

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:56:50PM +0000, David Wilson wrote:
> If someone discusses the nature of spam messages or phishing messages
> via email, I would think that false positives are not surprising;
> annoying, but not surprising. After all, one can be sending a message
> containing precisely the kind of thing filters are attempting to detect.
> So, I would say that there is a class of positives which should not
> count against the detection mechanism.

I don't agree.  If the anti-X filter is so poorly written that mere
discussions about X trip it, then that's a FP by definition.

This is one of the many reasons why I largely eschew content-based filters,
and why I try to use them only after all other methods have been tried:
it's very hard to get them right.  And it's also one of the reasons why
I think anyone who's using them should be prepared not just for FNs,
but for FPs -- which I believe Chris's operation is, based on what they
return in reject messages.

---Rsk