-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
"Joshua D. Drake" asked:
>> I agree. Our current situation is embarrasing.
>
> How so? It seems to me that on the embarrassing meter this is about
> -2000 in comparison to the fact that we still don't have in place
> upgrades ;)
Well, I wouldn't call it embarassing. It's not a public matter, after all,
except when people like me raise the issue on public lists like -www.
It's more of a moderation annoyance (see below).
> What is an acceptable amount of spam delivery? How does that correlate
> with acceptable amounts of false positives? Do the lists moderators get
> more spam on the lists than on the their public emails? I am an announce
> moderator and I don't get that much spam on that list.
I agree that announce does that not get much spam. I don't know the reason
for this, but it gets < 1% of what the other lists get. I certainly
see more spam in the moderation queue than on my public emails, but the
latter are heavily filtered, so I don't know if that is relevant. The
danger is that us moderators are more likely to miss a legitimate message
if it's buried in 200 other spam emails (which is roughly the current
ratio for lists like -general).
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> Greg, if you would like to look over how things are setup, I have no
> qualms about that, just email me offlist and I can give you access to look
> things over and make suggestions on how we can improve the setup
Thanks, Marc, will do.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200901251645
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkl83Y0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsg5XACguU4QF/XjLIUuZsQY8htyfKFC
WkAAoP7aMX2BOCQ8tHkpGXChC8bq729k
=yP6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
