Jeff Chan wrote:
We can have an infinite number of lists in multi
There are many ways to say "7 bits ought to be enough for everybody", but "infinite" is a bit exaggerated. ;-)
Or it's a new octal system, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, INF
Remember that the PJ records are already in multi, as part of WS
That's cheating. If the WS bit is set I'd expect a WS entry, with the WS policy and whitelisting instructions.
Sure, at the moment there are no different whitelisting instructions for the MULTI sets, but that's not obvious. And sooner or later it will change.
I actually wanted the JW data to be separate in the beginning because it was a distinctly different and new data source with different a inclusion process, different spamtrap feeds, etc.
If it's really very different, then it's also good enough for its own MULTI bit. But a different set of spamtraps is no real difference. A different policy for inclusions, exclusions, or whitelisting is interesting.
FPs only hurt WS and make it less useful to people.
People expecting no FPs at all should try the empty list, works like a charm. Of course it won't identify any spam.
Bye, Frank