"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Much of the discussion around anti-spam systems indicates that most
people think that anti-spam systems are "either-or" type of systems.
At some point a message MUST be either accepted (in some sense) or rejected
(even if silently). Unless you're thinking about schrodingers email that
is.
<sigh> The accept/reject decision is based on local policy, NOT on
the application of the anti-spam system. It's an apparently subtle
distinction that has wide-ranging implications for the design and use
of anti-spam systems.
The link between the anti-spam system and local policy is one that
the local administrator chooses to make. The link is NOT automatic,
and people using anti-spam systems are NOT required to do exactly what
the system recommends, on pain of anti-spam police breaking down their
door, and arresting them.
Designing an anti-spam system which will be the "magic bullet" to
stop all spam is nonsense. Local administrators will ALWAYS configure
their systems in ways which make them happy, even if it means
accepting spam, or rejecting non-spam. That knowledge of their
behaviour can be added in to the requirements and design of an
anti-spam system, so that the administrators have the information with
which to make the best possible decision.
No one likes a bully. Even if it's an anti-spam bully saying "This
is spam! You must delete it!"
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg