On Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:29 PM, Vernon Schryver
[SMTP:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com] wrote:
8<...>8
That is just as true of technical spam defenses as burglar alarms and
the SEC's insider trading detection systems. The techncial machinery
can do a good job, but it can never be even as imperfect as we are
(at least not until we have truely thinking and understanding computers).
There will always be cases where the machinery gets it wrong, as well
as cases where we can't agree on what's right.
Insisting that the machinery be absolutely in-line with what we think
is spam is equivalent to the obvious nonsense that false positives
and false negatives will never happen.
That is precisely the issue. Well put. IMHO, it begs the question how will
'impact acceptability' levels be characterized, e.g. branded, in a proposal?
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg