Ignorance of a false positive may be bliss, but it isn't a good
thing.
Says who, the spammer or the spam target?
My point is that whether a mail sender cares about a false positive
is completely secondary to whether the mail target wants.
If the message is a spam then it is not a false positive by definition. If
the recipient does not want the message it is not a false positive by my
definition.
I think that this attitude of trying to redefine false positive to mean spam
simply won't wash. It is being used to try to make the hard part of the
problem go away by pretending it does not matter. It reminds me of Douglas
Adam's laywers who try re-defining murder, re-evaluating muder and
eventually re-spelling it in an attempt to find a solution.
Fact is false positives do matter, and not just to the sender, by definition
a false positive matters to the recipient or it is not a false positive.
And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is
not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false
positive is not.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg