I believe that systems for sorting/blocking/handling email are inherently
a
proposed defenition of what spam is. They have their own defenitions of
what
spam is because of what they block. therefore in that context any system
is
self consistent in what it percieves to be spam, and what it blocks. If a
filter does it's best, and the mechanism for filtering is known, then i
feel
it would be compliant with the statement above.
This is an interesting point. But remember, "the system" must include the
receivers *intentions*.
Thus when you choose a system to block/filter mail you should ensure that
the defenition that system provides is similar to your own. Any "non
spam"
that didn't go through would then be caused by a missunderstanding of the
defenition that the system implies.
This may be true in a narrow sense. Logical, but unreasonable :-)
If I employ an imperfect agent which estimates the probability that a
message is unwanted and rejects those exceeding some threshold, I am not
asserting that I "don't want" the messages that are false positives. I
understand that the system isn't perfect. I do want my messages. I need to
know what I can do to get them.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg