in reply to Re^2: RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail
in thread RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail

I haven't seen a DSPAM false positive in many months. Once trained, it's exceptionally accurate and very low-maintenance. I've been using DSPAM for at least two years, and have been quite impressed with it. SPF is not a statistical filter.

Your handling of mail received at an expired ("rotated") address looks to be a sticking point, to me. If Segmail sees an invalid password, "it marks it as junk (bounces it, deletes it, challenge/responses it, moves it to a different folder, whatever)". If a legitimate message is bounced or challenged, the sender might decide instead to abandon the contact -- this is one of challenge/response's sticking points. Legitimate message deletion is a big sticking point with unintelligent filters.

You say that "No legitimate mail will ever get filtered", but what happens if a correspondent doesn't have your most recent address? "it marks it as junk (bounces it, deletes it, challenge/responses it, moves it to a different folder, whatever)". In any except the quarantine response, the legitimate mail will be filtered, perhaps into the bit bucket.

Live like you want to live. I was merely suggesting that you consider alternatives that already exist and have been proven in the real world by thousands or tens of thousands of users.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail
by tomazos (Deacon) on Sep 24, 2005 at 23:10 UTC
    Hmm, I think you're missing how it works.

    Addresses are not rotated as a matter of course. An address optionally can be rotated if the correspondant exposes it or starts sending unwanted mail to you. This is an exceptional circumstance, and in this exceptional circumstance Segmail is no better or worse than any current solution.

    There is no concept of most recent address. The extra solution for exposing an address to the web and automatically rotating it is tacked on, and not the core of the solution. This extra solution is non-ideal, but still better than current solutions - or put another way - it can fall back to a current solution.

    I'm sure DSPAM is very good, but for some, any possibility of a false positive requires the maintenance of a junk mail folder. Some would like a solution where there was no possibility of a false positive, and hence no need to maintain a junk mail folder. Or in the abstract, I don't want a computer deciding which messages I want and which messages I don't.

    I have to take a closer look at SPF. I thought it was a statistical solution. Thanks for pointing it out.

    -Andrew.

    Andrew Tomazos  |  andrew@tomazos.com  |  www.tomazos.com
[reply]

In Section Meditations