why I like DCC but dislike dccproc -t many-rantings (and a few ideas)

Daniel V Klein dvk@lonewolf.com
Fri Oct 11 17:49:58 UTC 2002

I'm one of the ones who does #3 - if an email makes it through my filters that
is obviously spam (e.g., a 419 fraud mail, or "hi, my webcam is online", or
"brutal rape website"), I just shitcan it for the rest of the community by
manually reporting it as "many".

If anyone thinks this is wrong (including Tony!), please tell me.


>  I really liked DCC when I first heard about it, finding out the bulkiness of
> an e-mail is great for filtering and I love it, BUT... and there really isn't
> anything new about this, but since it's, to me, a problem with DCC and I'm to
> o
> lazy to start a new branch/project I am going to complain about it some more.
> ..
> =)
>  #1 Some people report an e-mail as 'many' by mistake.
>  #2 Some people think their other filters are 100% accurate, so they autorepo
> rt
> with 'many'.
>  #3 Some report e-mails as 'many' because they think it'll benefit the averag
> e
> user of DCC.
>  (#4 People find DCC because they're trying to get rid of spam; so a lot of
> people think that a high score means that the e-mail is spam.)
>  #1, #2 and #3 are all problems that lowers the reliability of DCC, and they'
> re
> all related to dccproc; as that is, AFAIK, what the average not too root(ish)
> person is using, which, IMNSHO, is the same group of people that tend to make
> these mistakes more often than others.
>  My questions are...
>  #1 Why isn't it a good idea to force people to run their own DCC-server to
> make it possible to report an e-mail more than once (compared to letting any
> user do it)?
>  #2 AFAIK whitelists stop the checksums from being reported to the server, wh
> y
> is that if DCC is just about checking bulkiness?
>  #3 To maximize the use of DCC as many e-mails possible should, of course, be
> reported, but never more than once per e-mail; why not tie reporting to a has
> h
> of the env-to, making it possible for everyone to report all e-mails passing
> thru their system?
>  My own comments to these questions:
>  c1: Yes, I know that average joe will benefit from a few enlightened people
> and/or spamtraps doing reporting what clearly is spam as 'many'; but that's
> nothing a quarantine can't do better (ie without the problem with a few falsl
> y
> tagged e-mails). By a quarantine I simply mean that you report the e-mails wh
> en
> they arrive, and then check the bulkiness again maybe 30 min. later before yo
> u
> deliever it to your mailbox.
>  c3: This would also obsolete the -Q option, which is, IMHO, another thing th
> at
> combined with my other "problems" with DCC lowers the use/stability.
> 	/Tony
> -- 
> # Per scientiam ad libertatem! // Through knowledge towards freedom! #
> # Genom kunskap mot frihet! =*= (c) 1999-2002 tony@svanstrom.com =*= #
>      perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
> _______________________________________________
> DCC mailing list      DCC@rhyolite.com
> http://www.rhyolite.com/mailman/listinfo/dcc

More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.