Yahoo and their mail filters..
mpetach at netflight.com
Thu Feb 26 04:56:22 UTC 2009
On 2/25/09, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.lists at 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?
More information about the NANOG