Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: "Olson, Margaret" <molson(_at_)roving(_dot_)com>
...
I completely agree with your premise - that the spam is defined by the mail
recipient, and what to deliver is a decision that should be made by the
recipients and their agents. But the current tools for doing this are
inaccurate and prone to being arbitrary.
It's strange (or not) that the people who we agree are the only ones
with standing to comment on the current tools, mail recipients, do
not agree that they are either inaccurate or prone to being abitrary,
except that they complain that the tools do not block enough.
It is possible to do right things wrong way.
The current tools are accurate enough to be used IF the sender is
notified about who and why refused to deliver the message unless the
message is deleted by the recipients in his/her mailbox [ISP can add
"suspected spam makers" to delivered message]. Some "false positives"
are unavoidable, so please try to take a look at the problem from
perspective of truly innocent victim by YOUR standards.
I hope you are not ready to defend every poorly implemented/configured
anti spam filter.
This year I had to solve the following email delivery problem:
* the receiving site send to /dev/null messages classified as spam
* the sending site was some time ago (4 month+) an open relay for a
short period
* the receiving site used RBL with "no retests" policy, so the sending
site was listed "for ever"
[It took a few days to be detected by sender and recipient and a few
days to fix]
Are you ready to defend RBL/anti-spam filtering use in such way ?
Almost the only informed people who say that the current tools are
inaccurate in blocking too much or prone to being arbitrary are senders
of unsolicited bulk email. Most of the exceptions are people who have
purchased services from ISPs selling IP addresses that are less
expensive and less valuable because they are associated with spammers.
Another exception are people admiring good job delivered by anti spam
filters but hit by badly configured anti spam systems configured by gods
ready to say "we make no mistakes". Such problems are not frequent but
they can not be ignored if we want to keep email reliability standards.
[...]
--
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg