Re: Spam spam spam spam spam

[Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-dated-1018226307.34c310@mastaler.com> writes:

> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
>> I think TMDA is a perfectly good alternative, but I don't think it's
>> for everybody.
>
> Very true.  I wrote TMDA for the same reason - because what was out
> there wasn't for me.  Not effective enough, too time consuming, risk
> of false positives too high.
>
> Given that the UCE problem isn't going away any time soon, it's nice
> that we now have lots of alternative countermeasures to choose from.
>
> Cheers.

Agreed.  And now, I'm using two of these countermeasures
simultaneously:  SpamAssassin and TMDA.

I first pipe everything through SpamAssassin in order to use its
heuristics to filter out obvious spam ... and no false postives yet,
either.  Then, anything that passes gets sent through TMDA.  Only the
senders of those emails which are not matched on my whitelist get sent
the confirmation requests.  So far, this seems like the best of both
worlds (not surprising, since I'm using both worlds!).  And I can very
easily reconfigure TMDA to skip the confirmation requests, in which case
I'd just manually enable or disable access from the few messages that
don't pass my whitelist checking.

And back on topic for this forum: the way that Gnus can be used here
would be for me to disable TMDA confirmation, and cause the "pending"
messages from TMDA to be put into their own group under Gnus.  Then, a
few new keybindings would let me whitelist any senders from whom I want
to keep getting email.  This group would have a reasonable expiration
time, so that these pending's don't pile up.

Once I get this working, I'll post the elisp here.

-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz@asfast.com