"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.
Indeed. However, I believe it's appropriate (given the requirements for
effects on reliability) that a proposal should be able to require (or at
least "strongly suggest") particular accept/reject behaviour.
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.
The local administrator can choose to eschew (or modify) a particular
system if it doesn't fit local requirements. Where a system/protocol makes
requirements which go to interoperability, a good implementation will
usually abide by them.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg